Barak minister flap -- let's get real

Email Print posted by pdsimdars 03/16/2008 11:04:45 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
Suppose someone put a recorder in the room where a Frenchman was putting his moves on a lovely lady, whispering his sweet nothings, etc.   Or suppose it was an American guy.   Which one do you think would sound more creepy to you?

Use your imagination.  Suppose someone put a recorder in the room where a Frenchman was putting his moves on a lovely lady, whispering his sweet nothings, etc.   Or suppose it was an American guy.   Which one do you think would sound more creepy to you?   Maybe those two aren’t disparate enough.  The thought was that you’d feel much less comfortable hearing something very personal spoken by someone from a comletely different background.  The music is the same but the presentation is different.  I think people would be grossed out hearing the whisperings of love from another culture.

Now, let’s take this principle and apply it to all this hoopla over Barak’s minister.  I have been really shocked by the coverage, nonstop.  To my understanding he was saying we had killed innocent people and that kind of action doesn’t lead to a God Bless America but a God Damn America.  Something like that.   The basic idea seems to be that as a result of some of our actions, God is looking at us in a negative light.

How is that different than Fallwell saying that 9/11 was God punishing us because of the gays and abortionists?   Isn’t that basically the same type sentiment expressed in a different melody? 

Or wasn’t it McCain’s pastor Hagee who said something about Katrina was God giving New Orleans what they deserved?   The fundamentalist white ministers are saying the same sort of things but it is in a tone that white Americans are familiar with.  But it is still the same sort of proclamation.   That is, they are expressing similar sentiment but in a different way.  One way sounds shocking, but the shock is from difference in presentation and not in content.

My rational mind wonders where all the outrage and news coverage for these statements is.  I have heard fleeting mention of the statements of these ministers but nothing like the 24/7 coverage of Barak’s minister.    Different ears hear things in a different way.  I think it should be the responsibility of the media to find the truth in an issue and not be so easily swayed by the sensationalism of bright shiny objects.
< Fear The Attack Machine! | Obama Prepares For Full Assault Of Clinton's Ethics >
 Display:
Barak minister flap -- let's get real | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden)
Since we have been covering this on other posts... (none / 0)
I didnt want you to feel left out with no comments on your particular posting. I think you answered your own questions with your last passage, though...

"My rational mind wonders where all the outrage and news coverage for these statements is.  I have heard fleeting mention of the statements of these ministers but nothing like the 24/7 coverage of Barak’s minister.    Different ears hear things in a different way.  I think it should be the responsibility of the media to find the truth in an issue and not be so easily swayed by the sensationalism of bright shiny objects."

The media is only covering this because a Black Guy said "We Hate America and We Hate Whitey". There's your bright shiny object for ya... the media is never going to take responsibility for anything...thats not their job - their job is to sell adverstising and make money, and nothing gets more advertisers than race baiting - pure and simple economics...

Thanks for your posting, anyway...

:)

by bobo1 on 03/16/2008 05:30:31 PM EST

Obama's angry minister (none / 0)
I think the coverage kinda makes sense.  It's not really consistent of the media, but the media just isn't consistent.  I think the rightwing has gotten away with making their wacky ministers seem like fringe guys that they don't have to apologize for or distance themselves from, while the ministers go out and do their politically useful work of riling up a chunk of the GOP base.

On the other hand, Wright is Obama's minister, not just some guy in his camp.  He has chosen to tie himself to the guy by being in his congregation and naming him as a major influence in his life.  As far as  I know, Hagee isn't McCain's pastor, just a supporter.  McCain ought to be put through the wringer to distance himself from the guy, but Obama ought to be put though the wringer even moreso.

But fairness doesn't shape this coverage, of course.  The angry rightwing media machine is very good at shaping the debate, and they've succeeded again.  Still, if fairness were an issue, a fuss should be made over any nutty minister in proportion to the nuttiness of his statements, but also in proportion to the closeness he has to a candidate or to the importance of his support to a party.

Also, I think the clips of Wright that the media has been flogging are pretty bad.  I basically agree with you, pdsimdar, about the legitimacy of judging America's actions, but Wright's tone was very inflammatory.  I wouldn't expect most Americans to accept his message well if it weren't delivered with a great deal more delicacy.  Not that most Americans would necessarily think that we should make a big fuss over Wright, but I expect the media will.

(Hey, this was my first post on theyoungturks.)

by thebug on 03/16/2008 07:38:09 PM EST

The point was . . . (none / 0)

that when you boil down what they said it was similar.  And as you pointed out, it was the WAY it was said by Wright.  That was my point.  In that setting, that church, people are used to hearing sermons delivered in that style.  But to those unfamiliar with that delivery style, being exposed to it out of the blue, it SOUNDS really inflamatory to you. 

But to someone else, Falwell's statement about gays and abortions, sounds just as inflamatory.  As well as being rediculous.  At least Wright was making spiritual sense -- God would be displeased with our killing of innocents.  Now, that is right.  But people were shocked by his delivery of that message.  Whereas, Falwell's statement was completely spiritually wrong, but delivered in a way that is comfortable to a lot of people.  

Which is worse, a sugar coated outright lie, or a flaming barbacued truth?  

 

by pdsimdars on 03/16/2008 09:34:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Whose Support Did He Seek&When Did He Seek It? (none / 0)
Good point, pd.
 
McCain sought out the support of Falwell, and sought it well after Falwell's many years of publicly spewing hatred in the name of Christ. It's just that Falwell was white and gained some measure of legitimacy and fame by showing up often on talking-head shows. As if to say he was mainstream and reasonable and not the unspeakable bigot that he was.

by Verified1 on 03/16/2008 09:55:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hagee (none / 0)
Hagee is not McCain's pastor.

by acroso on 03/16/2008 08:26:56 PM EST

The Bar Has Been Set (none / 0)
OK then, since Hillary Clinton seems to have set the bar, why doesn't McCain denounce AND reject Hagee's endorsement, preferably on the national news during prime time?

by Verified1 on 03/16/2008 10:02:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
true (none / 0)
THIS guy is

John McCain's "Spiritual Guide" Calls For Destruction Of Islam

Senator John McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it.

by Chinese Democracy on 03/16/2008 10:06:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Barak minister flap -- let's get real | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: