On Media and Maturity: The Demonization of Rev. Wright

"The problem isn't that Rev. Wright was crazy, but that he spoke the cold, sober truth.  That's the problem."

--Jamal, Mumia Abu. "Whose Uncle is Really Crazy?" Prison Radio 1 May 2008.

Less than twelve months after the mainstream media reduced a thirty-five-year ministry to three minutes, we are reminded that nothing has changed. The same tricks and stunts pulled in the thick of the election last year are now being reproduced in a desperate ploy to reinsert Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. into priority political discourse.     

Back to the future.

Obama, as most supporters see it (including some in the media), was predestined for greatness from birth, and nobody--not even his former pastor--played a part in his road to glory; but such analysis completely ignores the truth. It breaks the hearts of Obamamaniacs to hear this, but without Wright there is no Obama. Without the compassion and love provided to correct the great deal of self-hatred Obama's childhood had nurtured in him, he would have remained the confused and conflicted bi-racial kid he was pre-Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC), thus pre-Rev. Wright.

In a 1995 interview, following his new book, "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance," Obama couldn't hold back praise for his then-spiritual guide: "[Rev. Wright] is a wonderful man ... [who] represents the best of what the black church has to offer."

That was 1995; not long ago.  

Many forget that Reverend Wright's emergence early last year was neither inadvertent nor serendipitous. The media had worked hard to seek whatever dirt they believed Obama was hiding, with his decision to disallow Wright the invocation privileges mere hours before his historic Springfield announcement on February 10th, 2007 (they ended up praying in the basement of the Old State Capitol). In other words, Obama got the ball rolling.

As early as March 6, 2007, The New York Times picked up on it, observing: "Some black leaders are questioning Mr. Obama's decision to distance his campaign from Mr. Wright because of the campaign's apparent fear of criticism over Mr. Wright's teachings, which some say are overly Afrocentric to the point of excluding whites." Of course, The New York Times is wrong about any parallel between Black Liberation Theology and the exclusion of Whites (UCC is predominantly White!); but that's the bargain guaranteed from White mainstream media analysis of Black culture. More important is the aroma of suspicion Obama released into the political atmosphere by disinviting Wright because, as the campaign and some close ties saw it, he "can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we've decided is that it's best for you not to be out there in public."   

Talk about death before dishonor!

Wright understood this, and even volunteered, shortly after, to go on FOX News' then-Hannity and Colmes (now simply: Hannity), to explain the concepts and precepts of Black Liberation Theology. He successfully pointed out, in spite of the chatter-controlled format of cable punditry, that the "African-centered point-of-view," under which TUCC operates, "does not assume superiority nor does it assume separatism. It assumes Africans speaking for themselves as subject in history, not as objects in history. [It] has no hierarchal arrangement."

The media, however, wasn't done with either Wright or Obama. The next step was to create an environment in which something dramatic was inevitable: Wright would be paraded on national and local TV, nonstop, 24-7, highlighting his infamous comments about governmental hypocrisy and racial inequality. Three words, taken from a 40-minute sermon titled, "Confusing God and Government," would be used to define a thirty-five-year ministry: "God damn America."  

The media very well understood that, taking out of context, Wright's words would turn the skin of most viewers. The only segment it could appeal to, they reasoned, were a people already rendered disposable, hence, hidden from public awareness--Blacks. Sure enough, the long-awaited arm-wrestling-turned-smack-down soon began.   

Obama dismissed, initially tepidly, Rev. Wright as an "old uncle who says things I don't always agree with." Before that, Wright was defined, in media terms, as "incendiary" and "inflammatory." This incendiary, inflammatory--truth-telling--preacher would have to be "repudiated." And Obama did.  

The repudiation process had to come in style, with pizzazz, with delicacy: "A More Perfect Union."

On March 18, 2008, Obama gave his rousing speech in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, one celebrated as a defining moment in his campaign, but also filled with so much inaccuracy and historical faux pas of epic proportions.  

Obama reproached Wright for using "incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike." He also called for racial unity in the face of "two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all."

Wright's "offending sermons," he said, "simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality." Obama also wasted no time characterizing "black anger"--anger at inequality, racism, exploitation, discrimination, White supremacy--as "often... counterproductive."   

He also hoped that racial dialogue, instead of focusing narrowly on the past, would shift to a more future-oriented tangent that addresses "the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem." Of course, Obama failed to point out that the man he had in mind for that position was one with a Bachelor's in Sociology; one who had amassed the reputation, from his glory days as Chicago Public Schools' "CEO," of a greedy, school-privatization, school-militarization, and school-marginalization superintendent.  

Riddled by the great untruths Obama used to characterize his sermons and ministry, Rev. Wright was forced to come out and speak his piece. He noted that Obama's cynical dismissal of him was the mere political thing to do: "He's got to do what politicians do."

Who could argue with that?

Rev. Wright had a name to clear. His integrity had been blemished. Very few colleagues came to his aid, with the exception of battle-tested spiritual warriors such as Rev. Ruth Hawley-Lowry, Rev. Myron Cloyd, Rev. Obery Hendricks, and Rev. Michael Pfleger.  

Rev. Wright was accused of jealousy--the knee-jerk reaction of Obamamaniacs against any (Tavis Smiley, Cornel West, Julianne Malveaux, Rev. Jesse Jackson, et. al.) they perceive as critical of their idol. As they saw it, Wright was jealous of the budding superstar, and hated to be left out of the limelight. He couldn't stand seeing his apprentice outshining him. To curtail this feeling of inferiority, Wright, they believed, was trying to sabotage the election in whichever ways possible. In addition, he secretly hoped for a Clinton or McCain win.  

The foolishness of those who lobbed these unfound charges at him never fails to astound me.   

As such, it comes as no surprise that, once again, right on cue, Wright is being evoked as a threat to Obama's presidency. The media loves nothing more than Black on Black violence (physical, verbal, athletic), which makes easy the call to concentrate on ten words the Reverend uttered during a twenty-five minute plus interview last week: "Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me."   

It mattered not to those who immediately attacked him that the quote was, yet again, completely taken out of context, or that Rev. Wright immediately clarified his comments by insisting that his dedication to the ministry of Jesus disbars any adoption of anti-Semitism, or that he meant "Zionists" in place of Jews, or that he immediately apologized for any "harm or ill-will" his comments generated.  

Speaking with Sirius Radio's Mark Thompson last Thursday, June 11, Wright explained the unraveling of his comments: He was stopped by a student who introduced him to a Black reporter. The reporter was said to be reputable (Wrong!). Rev. Wright agreed to an on-the-spot interview. It occurred while walking to his car, tired, following service at the annual, monumental Hampton Ministers' Conference in Virginia.    

The esteemed reporter's first question, as told by Rev. Wright, was: "Do you have any regrets?" Wright responded: "Regret for what ... that the media went back five, seven, 10 years and spent $4,000 buying 20 years worth of sermons to hear what I've been preaching for 20 years? Regret for preaching like I've been preaching for 50 years? Absolutely none."

When asked whether he had spoken to Obama, he replied that he hadn't because the AIPAC lobby--responsible for unseating former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and former Alabama Congressman Earl Hilliard--is controlling President Obama, and, as wildly reported in mainstream press, played the largest role in his absence at the  2009 Durban Review Conference Against Racism. Wright plainly suggested that these "Zionists... would not let him talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is."    

Wright used the word "Zionists" in the Daily Press interview, but, of course, it was replaced by the more eye-catching "them Jews."   

In his separate interview with Mark Thompson, he talked about how, after questioning the reporter's journalistic integrity, the conversation soon shifted to the "importance of The Hampton Minister Conference and then we started talking about The Hamptons Minister Conference and its historical relevance, how it was set up for clergy who were not at the seminary." This part was not only edited out of the audio interview uploaded to the Daily Press' website, it was completely ignored in the report itself.  

So, Wright is being attacked not only for speaking the truth, but daring to say it in a way devoid of linguistic sophistication, in a way that cuts straight to the chase, in a way understandable by everyone.   

More appalling, I think, are the actions of the Black journalist, David Squires, who, in an attempt to live up to his White counterparts' expectations, sold his soul for a mess of pottage. We have truly come a long way from Ida B. Wells and Hubert Harrison! What level of cowardice does it take to contribute to the destruction of one of the world's most gifted theologians?  

As Mr. Squires--"We need a new national brand image. We should demand a commercial that sings: 'Be like Barack'"--has thankfully shown, the demonization of Rev. Wright isn't some pathology limited to unenlightened White journalists. It cuts across all layers of race, class, and gender. All it takes is the abandonment of one's integrity and self-respect.  

We need a new national brand image. We should demand a commercial that sings: "Don't be like David. Our DIGNITY can't afford it."