Published: March 27, 2008 07:04 pm            

Michael O'Connor: ‘Investigative’ report leaves much to be desired

Columnists have used gallons of ink to analyze the impact of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s comments on Barack Obama’s candidacy. If the end result of the fuss is to tank the good senator’s campaign, someone will likely blame the media. And in a sense, this time they may well be right.

I first saw the “investigative” report by Brian Ross of ABC News on “Good Morning America.” Anchor Diane Sawyer led into the piece by commenting that the news media had come under attack for treating Obama too kindly in their coverage.

I remember thinking they must have found something really hard-hitting. What could it be?

Then Ross launched his report on Wright’s preaching, and I thought, “Good grief. That’s it?” But I also knew this would blow up into a major mess.

The concept seems to be that Obama attends the church Wright pastored, called him a friend and spiritual advisor, so therefore Obama must subscribe to Wright’s views, which were deemed “radical,” making him suspect as a candidate. What tommy rot.

So many things are wrong here, it’s hard to know where to start.

First and foremost, though, the worst error made here was failure to provide context. Television does a miserable job on this score. Time is limited, and visuals and sound bites substitute for substance. But context is key to understanding virtually everything we encounter.

A student in one of my language classes tried to challenge the professor on a point of translation by saying, “But the text literally says ... .” The professor calmly explained that to properly understand what was being said, we had to take into account the context of the passage we were dealing with, both the immediate context of the text and the broader context in which it was produced.

“Context,” he declared, “is everything.” From then on he would often end a debate by going to the blackboard and writing “C.I.E.”

The clips I saw that day, and the ones most commonly replayed and commented on, were ripped from their context and, I suspect, chosen because of the shock value they hold. But we cannot simply listen to a few clips from decades of ministry and decide we have the complete picture of Wright’s beliefs, much less Obama’s.

Nor should we allow the pastor’s use of hyperbole to write off what he says, as many are doing these days. Wright used a common oratorical technique to gain his audience’s attention and to make his point in a way they would pay attention to and remember.

My own pastor once used a mild epithet as part of his sermon, followed by the comment that more congregants were probably upset he used that particular word than they were about the situation he was describing. But you can hardly judge his work by that statement or others he’s made that brought him grief from the congregation. The context is all important.

The slightly less worrisome mistake was associating Wright’s views with Obama’s. Ross obtained a statement from the Obama camp stating that Wright was the senator’s spiritual advisor, not his political advisor, but that satisfied no one. The implication lay there — Obama may not use such over-the-top methods of expressing himself, but surely he must agree with the sentiment. Why else would he remain a member of Wright’s church?

Church members join and remain in churches for a variety of reasons. They have formed relationships and found ways to be involved. They like the preacher and are willing to forgive when he says things they disagree with. They like the style of worship, or they hate it but their dearest friends are in that church.

Nothing requires them to subscribe to everything the pastor says, even if the names involved are Obama and Wright.

Some important discussions resulted from the report, but you can hardly use them as justification for what should have been better reporting to begin with.



Michael O’Connor

can be reached at

moconn852@lycos.com.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.