Routing around bad journalism

Here's another example of how the Internet has shifted power from institutions, and how that can be a good thing. While the Internet certainly has empowered whispering campaigns and hate bloggers, it also has enabled us to get to the truth behind badly reported news, if we care enough. Today I found the full Jeremiah Wright sermon from Sept. 16, 2001, in which he made the "inflammatory" statement "America's chickens have come home to roost." It turns out he was quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force. And the focus of the sermon is quite different from what you've heard. Watch it all.

Comments

I watched it, Steve.

Reverend Wright's messsage is clear: we're the kind of people who bash children's heads against rocks. We should think about that, in response to 9/11.

The Reverend is joyous that the chickens have come home to roost, not merely quoting a statement made in an entirely different context. And, he didn't quote; he paraphrased.

In its entirety, it's far more horrifying and disgusting than the simple sound bites. I can't see how anyone who cares for this country at any level can watch this and defend it or explain it away.

It's still racist hate speech. The context only emphasizes that point. We won't be a country worthy of our ideals until this sort of nonsense is universally condemned, instead of people trying to justify it for political ends.

I have to wonder if either of you actually watched the video, because you're clearly not hearing the message.

How is it racism to point out the genocidal history of the United States, including wiping out most of the southeastern Indian tribes, the forced march of the Cherokee across the country to Oklahoma in which thousands died? Or the kidnappings, murders and slavery that so many Americans would like to conveniently forget? It did not end with Abraham Lincoln. There were mass hangings of blacks in the 20th century in places like Duluth, Tulsa and East St. Louis. Thousands of blacks and hundreds of Mexicans died at the hands of white mobs.

How is it racism to point out how we've simply moved the practice of destroying "them" outside the borders of the United States and now practice it on the rest of the world? Is it racism if Jeremiah Wright says it, but not racism if Edward Peck says it?

The whole point of the sermon is to make us aware that we are far from perfect and some humility would be in order before we go looking for somebody to attack in revenge, lest we wind up smashing babies on the rocks while we imagine ourselves the blessed, chosen people on the moral high ground. Are we really?

It is a sermon begging us to exercise some caution and some sense, warning that America can be the hope of the world at one point and the scourge of mankind at another, because governments change while what's good and moral and right (God) does not.

This is about making the right choice before we started down the path to Iraq and ultimately to Abu Ghraib.

And it's a damned shame America wasn't listening to people like Wright who asked us to engage in some self-examination, and instead listened to people who invented a whole chain of lies to justify their pre-existing plan to launch an invasion and transform America from the role of savior to the role of destroyer.

I heard many voices of anger after 9/11. This is not one of them. Don't mistake gesticulation and intonation for anger. Don't expect a black Chicago preacher to drone on like a white Methodist. John Wesley instructed his followers to not raise their voices, or allow their hands to wave above the shoulders or below the waist while speaking. Rev. Wright is under no such instruction.

The fever that gripped the United States after 9/11 was deadly. I remember people driving around with paint on their car windows, signs calling for nuclear retaliation and wholesale genocide against all Arabs. That's where the anger and racism was. And look what it got us. Four thousand Americans, 90 thousand Iraqi civilians dead. A wrecked economy. Trillions of dollars of debt that we'll be carrying through the next century. A stream of crippled veterans that we won't care for. Wholesale violations of the Constitution. Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

And an inability to see our own racism.

Steve,

Don't wonder whether I watched the video – I said I did, and you have no reason to doubt that. And don't include me as charging racism – I didn't.

You started with a simple premise: that this video "has enabled us to get to the truth behind badly reported news, if we care enough." I think you've amply demonstrated in your response that you not only don't care enough, you don't care at all.

You make a number of assumptions, without any basis for them other than Wright's having said so: e.g., that Wright was quoting Edward Peck. If you had done the investigation you accuse others of not doing you would have known that Wright was paraphrasing Peck rather than quoting him.

You also assume, with no solid basis for doing so, that what you embedded is the entire original video. It ends rather oddlly, in my view. It may be the entire video, but I submit that you have no evidence for that. It does end on a note that buttresses your view and, rather conveniently, Trinity's and Reverend Wright's. And you violated a basic journalistic principle in not questioning the source of the video.

I won't address the hateful bile in which the rest of your response is drenched. Like the Reverend's screed, it's too ugly and horrifying to dwell on at any length.

Hateful bile? Your personal attack is uncalled for. Historical fact is fact.

The video ends abruptly after 9:57. YouTube's uploader supports a maximum video length of 10 minutes. What a coincidence.

Further comments are disabled. I'm heading out of the country for two weeks and will not be available.

I'm white and feel some sort of social pressure that this speech should offend me. I still don't see the problem with his speech. He was not anti-American, but holding America to a higher standard. He is highlighting unjust actions of our government. If he was a white pacifist Mennonite saying the same things, I do not think many would notice. It seems the press is woefully ignorant of the genre of African-American preaching, continued racism by whites today, and the fact that the Hebrew Prophets were much harder on their countries than Wright is but somehow are lauded in many religions.

He is attacking human feelings of vengeance at its core, and I am sure that it makes anyone who has ever desired vengeance uncomfortable. A sign of a good preacher is not that he tells us what we want to hear, but that he challenges us to look face-to-face with the discomfort of our own weaknesses, the blindnesses that we protect to maintain our feelings of comfort, the consequences of our selfish tendencies, and our missing the mark of all that we are meant to be. If I have a desire for vengeance that is rooted in the same problem that the writer of Ps 137 wrestled with, I want someone to tell me. We all need to make time on a regular basis for self-reflection and look honestly at ourselves. If the leaders of this country and its press are not willing to stop for a bit of self-reflection and ask, "are we a nation that loves its neighbors as itself?" they do not have the moral character to lead.

I thought the video was insightful.

It's a stretch to read my comment as a personal attack.

You say that it's historical fact that "we've simply moved the practice of destroying "them" outside the borders of the United States and now practice it on the rest of the world ... "

I say that's hateful bile and contend that most people would agree that that's a fact.

I've uploaded hundreds of videos to YouTube and am well aware of the 10-minute limit. What has that got to do with anything? If it doesn't end there - and it doesn't appear to - it's easy enough to post the video in multiple parts.

This country has moved beyond its shameful past - you should reconsider your hatred of America, which you've repeatedly stated over the years, based on what iAmerica has become.

Joe, I've read the comments and your comments ARE personal attacks. Moreover, they are misleading and unethical. You are a perpretator of the bad journalism you accuse Yelvington of exhibiting.

1. "you violated a basic journalistic principle in not questioning the source of the video"

Are you fucking kidding? This is a VIDEO. What kind of source does he need? Are you making the assertion that this is a fake or doctored video? Be serious. This statement of yours is an obvious smear tactic, designed to convince readers who don't understand journalism that Yelvington's argument is flawed.

2. "You say that it's historical fact that 'we've simply moved the practice of destroying "them" outside the borders of the United States and now practice it on the rest of the world ...' "

No, he doesn't. If you click on the words "historical fact" in his post, you'll find that they lead to a page about race riots in 1917. That is historical fact. Don't twist his words. When he made the statement quoted above, he was clearly paraphrasing Wright's and Peck's statements, which are informed opinions. He is making the assertion that their opinions are correct, and you are turning around and damning them because those opinions are not "historical fact." Dumbass.

3. "I say that's hateful bile and contend that most people would agree that that's a fact."

Here you discard any pretense at journalistic ethics. First, it's an argument ad populum. If "most people would agree" that it is a FACT that what Yelvington said is "hateful bile", that still doesn't make it a fact. This is a logical fallacy. Worse, you offer no evidence. Worst, what you suggest is a fact is clearly an opinion-based statement.

Broken down, what you said equates to: "It is my opinion that a lot of people would believe that this other opinion of mine is a fact."

5. "If you had done the investigation you accuse others of not doing you would have known that Wright was paraphrasing Peck rather than quoting him."

If you knew anything about journalism you would know that paraphrasing is a perfectly legitimate form of reporting and debating. The real issue is, did Wright MISREPRESENT Peck's message or opinion? Do you really have any idea what Peck actually said? Oddly enough, the video and transcript of Peck's statement seem to be missing. The best piece of evidence as to what he actually said is as follows, from Paul Krassner. Bear in mind this was written on the day of Peck's appearance on FOX News.

"On the Fox News Network, Edward Peck, former ambassador to Iraq, was an unusually outspoken guest. He said the terrorists acted as they did not because America is a freedom loving country, but because they feel the U.S. has been treating them the same way throughout the years--bombing Iraq for the last ten years whenever they felt like it--and adding to the list (Take Panama, take Haiti, take Cambodia) before he was cut off and dismissed."

If you know the meaning of the phrase "one's chickens coming home to roost," you will surely agree that this is an example of such a situation. According to Peck, the global backlash against America is due to our "bombing Iraq" as well as "Panama," "Haiti," and "Cambodia," in addition to any others Peck may have intended to mention. This is what it means when one's chickens come home to roost. It doesn't seem that Wright misrepresented Peck at all.

But I'm relatively certain you hadn't done the investigation you accuse Yelvington of not doing. If you had, then I suppose you were just hoping none of the people who read your post would do the research for themselves.

4. I'll leave you with this: "This country has moved beyond its shameful past - you should reconsider your hatred of America, which you've repeatedly stated over the years, based on what iAmerica has become."

Based on your very high expectations of Yelvington (suggesting he should have questioned the source of the video, suggesting that he is being unethical by saying "quoted" instead of "paraphrased", suggesting that he misrepresents historical fact when in fact he doesn't), I would expect you to hold yourself up to the same standard.

So, I challenge you: find evidence to support this statement, that America has "moved beyond its shameful past", or I suggest that you recant your comments on this journal in the name of ethical journalism.