Rev. Wright, or, 'Don't mess with the press!'

Alessandra Stanley’s TV-Watch column about Rev. Wright’s appearance before the National Press Club is further proof of how the press neglects its duties. Instead of informing potential voters about the actual contents of what is being said, reporters deliver a meta-critique of a person’s body language, his clothing, and his facial expressions. And instead of focusing on the validity of the speaker’s points, reporters muse about the potentially scandalous effects a given speech might have on any one of the candidates. In this specific case, Stanley called Wright’s appearance a “rich, stem-winding brew of black history, Scripture, hallelujahs and hermeneutics” and she described his behavior as “cocky, defiant, declamatory, inflammatory and mischievous.” I watched Mr. Wright’s appearance on Bill Moyer’s show and listened to the full-length speech before the National Press Club. What I saw and heard was, in the first instance, a thoughtful and broadminded listener and, in the second instance, an eloquent and refreshingly provocative speaker who does not shy away from telling an inconvenient truth to power. Wright’s overview of black history and his attempt to explain the meaning of the black church to people who don’t know much about it (and I don’t) was helpful. The Reverend’s examples as to how faith, which, according to Americans, is very important in life, is related to socio-political issues were convincing. I saw a person who does not just claim that “God changed his life” and who, as a result, tries to influence other people’s lives in moralistic and hypocritical ways--yes, I am alluding to the current occupant of the Oval Office--but a person who tries to live up to the challenges his faith points out to him: working with the poor, the sick, and the social outcasts. There was more street credibility in the speech of Rev. Wright than in all of Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s campaign appearances combined. And if Rev. Wright should indeed have a damaging effect on any campaign, then it should be Clinton’s, who said she “would have left the congregation” if her pastor had said such unpatriotic things. If Clinton denounces Wright’s admittedly harsh but justified criticism of America’s foreign policy, I do not want her to pick up the phone at 3 a.m.! Finally, Stanley’s caricature of Wright as “vain” is laughable. It seems to me that the press is unable to listen to a speech that is also critical of the way the media report half-truths and spin. If Wright came across as cocky it’s the fault of those--forgive me--stupid questions that were given to him by, I assume, members of the press: “Do you think God wants Obama to be president?” This question is an insult for any educated person and so is Stanley’s article.