Questionable Judgment

2008-04-29
By Eric Easter

For a fascinating hour Monday, America got to witness two major lapses in judgment that may or may not have a lasting impact on the remainder of the presidential race.

The first offense, by MSNBC, was unintentional. It an honorable notion that unfortunately backfired.  The network, after being strongly chastised just minutes before by Obama campaign manager David Axelrod for giving Reverend Jeremiah Wright a national platform, made the decision to run with Wright’s National Press Club speech live. An amazing decision for a competitive 24 hour news channel. One full hour of Wright, without a commercial break, in the hope that he would say something controversial.

And for 40 or so minutes of that hour, the decision was a bust. Wright, in his speech, confidently, courageously and brilliantly defined the historic role of the Black church and the prophetic preaching tradition, finding time also to preach a theology of inclusion and global redemption. Had he stopped there, this whole discussion could have faded away.

But then came the Q&A. Wright overestimated his charm, and the network got its controversial soundbites.

Which is where MSNBC’s gambit backfired. For those viewers who watched the full speech and then watched the post-speech coverage, the difference between what we saw for that hour and what that hour was reduced to after MSNBC’s editing was astounding.

In a matter of moments Wright’s cadence, without the context of the full build-up, looked nonsensical. His body language – absent the gradual church style wind-up – came off as comical. His pointed and repeated rebukes to the press corps for its lack of research (which seemed effective over the course of several questions minutes earlier) looked flippant and arrogant when reduced to only one instance.

It wasn’t that MSNBC was being malicious. They did what all networks do, reduce long moments to their most dramatic core. Where they erred was letting us see them making the sausage. In exposing their editing process so barely, MSNBC severely decreased its credibility and gave those who already distrust the media much more fuel for the fire.

But that was accidental. What then of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s poor judgment? He certainly didn’t help matters.

The problem with Jeremiah Wright is not just his timing but also his reasoning.
Wright’s defenders say he was justified in trying to get his reputation back. But get his reputation back from whom? Pat Buchanan? Sean Hannity? Rush Limbaugh? For what reason?

In terms of net damage, Jeremiah Wright has suffered relatively little over the last few months. He did not lose his church, did not lose his congregation. He was not excommunicated nor was he castigated from the ministerial canon. Clearly he still has speaking engagements and by all accounts remains admired and praised by people black and white alike who have been close enough to know and understand him.

Had the people who loved and trusted him lost their faith, no one would blame him for fighting to win back that trust aggressively. But a public battle with those who hate you (and probably always will) is a fight rooted more in status and self image than in smart strategy.

To paraphrase Chris Matthews, if Jeremiah Wright is ultimately dedicated to liberation, why would he put his own needs before a goal that represents a major step toward that liberation - electing the first African American president?

Wright’s desire to speak out now is in contradiction to what the Reverend has stated he stands for. If, in fact, it is true that people reap what they sow, why the need to personally attack his detractors? Won’t they get their comeuppance in other ways when God wills it so? And if Barack Obama were indeed simply “doing a what a politician does,” wouldn’t he have tossed Wright aside long ago instead of risking his own candidacy?

Eventually this too shall pass, but Wright could gracefully make it sooner rather than later. Good luck waiting for that.

In the meantime, for those white blue collar workers still looking for a candidate they can feel comfortable having a beer with, the Jeremiah Wright situation oddly provides the most compelling reason to vote for Barack Obama. You want to have a beer with a guy who will take the bullet when both of you are threatened.

When the chips were down, Obama was willing to do damage to his own ambitions for the sake of protecting the sanctity of his church and what he considered to be an important friendship, hating the sin but loving the sinner. Given the same opportunity, Jeremiah Wright sought to protect his ego.

Eric Easter is Chief of Digital Strategy for Johnson Publishing Co. He writes about politics, culture and technology for Ebonyjet.com.