Obama and his Church

First the rumors were that Obama was a Muslim, and now he is being assailed as a radical Christian. I turned on my television four consecutive times over the course of three days and found CNN exploring the story of Obama’s past minister, Rev Jeremiah Wright.

The Obama camp is fumbling this landmark media crisis, which is puzzling given that a campaign focus on Obama and his pastor was inevitable. Crisis PR specialist Eric Dezenhall says that “It is simply not plausible that Obama was a member of this church for 20 years and knew nothing about Wright’s point of view. While American’s don’t insist on what your religious beliefs should be, we know that whey shouldn’t be, and I believe the heartland will react with revulsion to Wright’s behavior and they won’t let Obama off the hook for it.”

The public hates to feel spun by politicians which is why Obama’s message that he was unaware of these type of comments is not working. I suspect the truth is that Obama’s framework of “change” politics has been motivated in large part by his engagement in liberation theology. While the Obama campaign has no option but to distance the candidate from Wright’s most offensive remarks, their campaign may appear more genuine if they also asserted how Wright’s ministry formed Obama’s politics.

Dezenhall suggests that Obama give a speech that characterizes his ties to Wright, and I agree. The fact that Obama connected very personally with a church that embraced black liberation theology in the mold of leading theologian James Cone is revealing. Anyone seeking to truly understand the nuances of the ministry that Obama embraced will be well served to study Cone, who Wright repeatedly references in self defense.

I attended a Cone speech in January at the Trinity Institute’s conference on religion and violence, and subsequently read some of his works, which compares and contrasts the separatist message of Malcolm X to the integration message of Martin Luther King. It’s intimidating to summarize Cone’s radical notion of Christianity, given his supersize stature among theologians worldwide. His ideas are strikingly mainstream when laid out essay style, but sharply radical when delivered sound-bite style. Cone speaks directly to the African American experience from a biblical reference point. The lessons of crucifixion and resurrection can shed light on the violence of slavery, racial discrimination, and social turmoil that marks the entire history of our nation.

An understanding of Cone’s liberation theology beyond the soundbite wars is important if this debate is anything more than spin. Cone’s theology can probably shed as much light on Obama’s formation as what Wright has preached. Cone demands that churches engage social issues, “If you live in a racist society, and you aren’t preaching against racism in that society, then you are not preaching the gospel. And I think that most white churches are not preaching the gospel”. In Cone’s world, Christianity is deeply about challenging oppression. He equates injustice with violence, and urges leaders to transform the social structure that creates violence.

In the tradition of the civil rights movement, Obama seems to use a faith-based starting point when engaging social justice. It is the theological starting point of civil rights leadership that marks the starkly divergent cultures of civil rights and feminism in this country. That may shed some light on the starkly different styles of Obama and Clinton, despite their alliance on many social justice issues. Many civil rights leaders look to the church as a historic pillar of resistance, while many feminists come to activism outside of a church experience, or in too many cases, in spite of a church experience.

All of this Democratic party turmoil has to be a delight for Republican opponents who gain when Obama is viewed as an extremist and Clinton is criticized as the establishment.

In contrast to Obama, the faith-based framework for both President Bush and his father served them well politically. It may have helped George W. Bush that he is not a regular churchgoer and therefore does not have a pastor singularly identified with his formation. The extremist comments of religious leaders that have been embraced by Bush have done little to tarnish his reputation.

President Bush issued a heartfelt statement about the Rev Jerry Falwell when he died last year. Bush called Falwell “a man who cherished faith, family, and freedom.” Falwell has a litany of divisive quotes, such as blaming the September 11 terror attacks on “the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America”:

Falwell unabashedly promoted a Christian nation. “If you’re not a born-again Christian, you’re a failure as a human being”. In 1979 he said, “I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them.”

I could go on. He asserts that AIDS is “God’s punishment for homosexuals”. He even gay-bashed “Tinky Winky”, a male character on a children’s show that carries a purse.

Bush is among many politicians who are not held accountable for the religious leadership they embrace. Republican Presidential nominee John McCain spoke at Liberty University, which was founded by Falwell, two years ago. That was a major shift from the days when McCain was calling Falwell “an agent of intolerance”. A few years prior to McCain’s visit, Karl Rove gave a commencement speech at Liberty University.

Other prominent ministers have been invited to the White House during George W’s presidency, including Franklin Graham (son of Billy Graham) and Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston,. The first President Bush had a close relationship with Cardinal Law, who later resigned over allegations that he had covered up known sexual abuse in his diocese.

In sharp contrast to the public’s embrace of the Bush family style of Christianity, Obama’s campaign appears deeply wounded by its association with Wright. The Obama/Wright crisis is still a headline story for CNN. Here is today’s advice from Dezenhall about how to get the media to move on:

“24 hour news has changed everything because now the media don’t just cover the scandal they cover how the subject is “handling” the scandal. Inevitably, the media will invite pundits on who almost always declare the crisis to have been “mishandled.” Why? because, that’s the story. I did a TV interview last year when JetBlue has all of those cancellations. The interviewer asked me “Why is JetBlue in such a mess?” My answer was “Because every half hour you invite a guest on and ask them Why is JetBlue in such a mess.” The bad news is the news cycles make it hard to respond in a way that people would thinki is effective. The good news is that if you wait a couple of hours, Britney will have driven into a tree and knock the story out of the news. I’m thinking of putting Britney on my payroll for just these contingencies.”

Woody Allen Drops In

Woody Allen came to my office yesterday, but I mistook him for a real estate agent. He was with a group of people peeking in my window when I mumbled hello before rushing around him to jump on a conference call. I later learned that he was checking out my office building as a scene location for his next movie, reportedly starring Larry David (creator of Seinfield) and Evan Rachel Wood. I’ll probably see Mr. Allen again in April when he is actually filming here.

My building is a fantastic treasurer buried in the Chelsea district of New York. It’s one of the few original carriage houses left. When you buzz from the street an old rolling garage door opens and you walk through a narrow alleyway before entering the courtyard. There you face an old three story brick building. On the ground floor - where Woody will actually be filming - an artist has converted the old indoor stable into a studio. It’s beautiful. On the top floor a group of hedge fund guys have launched a business. While my artist neighbor regularly invites me in to chat the money guys simply wave to me while they are smoking cigarettes on the deck. I am in the basement and am the first tenant to restore that floor for commercial purposes. It feels covert, like we are cooking up pr strategies for social justice without constraint.

Not many unannounced visitors show up at my door, which makes it even more surprising that I ignored Woody Allen. I miss the crowded feel of a traditional workspace and I love company, like the afternoons when the building’s owner drops in to install a light switch or pick up the rent check. Yet it is liberating to create a work environment that is catered only to the work.

I built an exercise corner with weights and medicine balls, a lazy living room area with reclining reading chairs and a guitar, and plenty of desk space and computers. I like that I can write on the wall and spill paint on the floor and cram my wall of Ikea bookshelves with both business books and poetry. The idea of the space is to feel creative enough to meet impossible public relations challenges.

A lot of restoration work is left to be completed. My business partner took one look at the bathroom, snapped a photo with her cell phone, and said “we’ll fix this first”.

Despite the restoration work that remains, I think that the purposeful creation of creative workspaces can translate into huge business rewards. A few years ago a study found that British companies rank creating a creative workspace among their lowest priorities, yet studies have shown that this disregard costs British businesses over a billion dollars each year.

Adweek ran an article this month on the new approaches to office space aimed at fostering creativity. Architect Clive Wilkinson said, “The reasons people go to work have changed. They go to work to meet and to collaborate, to brainstorm, to argue, to sometimes do research, to do a whole range of activities they don’t necessarily think about as work in the traditional sense anymore. They’re not going to work to produce something in a predictable, old-fashioned way.”

People can’t produce well over time in an office environment that is out of synch with the work. Public relations will never translate into a math equation that spits out a single right answer. It is complex, ever changing, risky and creative.

Woody Allen is looking to use my building to create the illusion of creativity in his new film; I am in pursuit of an authentic creative space. I probably won’t talk to Woody Allen again and will have to rely on Google to gain any insight about his massive success as a communicator. Woody Allen has said this about his reputation, “The two biggest myths about me are that I’m an intellectual, because I wear these glasses, and that I’m an artist because my films lose money. Those two myths have been prevalent for many years.”

Citizen Journalism Shifts Mainstream Media

A few major moves in mainstream media have the potential to significantly impact advocacy organizations. The trend toward “citizen journalism” is ramping up, meaning even wider exposure for people and organizations with strong viewpoints to find a mainstream audience.

The good news is that organizations like Planned Parenthood can use their vast supporter base to influence mainstream news directly. The bad news is that unscrupulous opponents who regularly distribute false and inflammatory “news” content will have a mainstream forum.

Today CNN launches ireport.com, which fuses online news with social media. Users post unedited news stories, and some of these stories become CNN stories. The guidelines prohibit content in a number of categories including “lewd” and “violent”, but do not require that content be factual. Mitch Gelman, CNN.com’s Senior Vice President explains that professional journalists are usually on the outside looking in. These new efforts combine that perspective with those on the inside looking out to create a full picture.

Within the next few months the New York Times will launch their own citizen journalism site titled “Times People”. The feature has a similar philosophy to ireport, though it will more closely resemble a social networking site.

Vivian Schiller, Sr Vice President of NYTimes.com, talked at a closed dinner last night about the trend at the Times toward citizen journalism. Her aim to is to transition from reader engagement being responsive to the news to reader engagement driving the news. For example, the Times ran a series titled “Kremlin rules” that was translated into Russian and put on a blog to solicit comments. More than 5,000 comments came in, and journalists then used those comments to create a follow up news story. Schiller also pointed to the news of Elizabeth Edwards breast cancer recurrence as another example of citizen journalism driving content at the Times. The flood of responses to that story resulted in another news feature about Ms. Edwards with a focus on public reaction.

Reuters Chief Scientist Nic Fulton described efforts to amplify citizen video journalism through a project called you witness. This effort solicits images captured by the public, though it remains traditional in that the images are filtered and selected by editors. In addition, Reuters has equipped 30 journalists with mobile phones that can be used to capture stories and videos in everyday circumstances, and immediately delivering that video to Reuters. The project is still in “beta phase” but it’s expected to be rolled out worldwide in the coming months.

When Schiller was pressed on the issue of trust in an environment where content is unfiltered, she said that “everyone may be a publisher, but that doesn’t make everyone a journalist. Without the skillful hand of an editor you can’t ensure credibility”. It’s unclear exactly how “Times People” will balance unfiltered news with credible news as it rolls out its social networking features. Gelman said, “The idea of trust is changing”. In the future he predicts that CNN will transition from being the final word to being transparent in labeling.

Spitzer Apologizes (Again)

Yesterday wasn’t the first time that Elliot Spitzer apologized during his tenure as New York Governor. Spitzer had come under fire shortly after taking office, and wrote the editorial below. I keep it on hand because it is a classic apology-and it worked, moving the debate beyond party bickering and helping to put the Spitzer agenda back on track.

It’s hard to imagine that Spitzer’s current troubles can be fixed with a well written apology. The Mann Act, formally dubbed the White-Slave Traffic Act, specifically prohibits arranging for a prostitute to cross state lines. It’s not clear yet just what Spitzer’s legal defense may look like, but his political crisis is as formidable as they come.

James Carville was on CNN last night arguing that Spitzer’s alleged crime didn’t rise to the level of a resignation, essentially arguing “So what? Everyone does it”. The movement to legalize prostitution got a major push in 1973 when Margo St. James founded a prostitution rights group called COYOTE. This group was the offshoot of WHO: Whores, Housewives and Others (”Others” = lesbians). St. James was a self described feminist and pushed to shift the thinking of feminist organizations like the National Organization for Women. Two decades later, in the early 90’s, some NOW chapters had formed sex worker task forces, and resolutions were debated at the national conference. The issue sharply divided NOW leaders.

Former NYC prosecutor Michael Bachner told the Wall Street Journal that prosecuting Spitzer based on the Mann act would deviate from how the law was designed and has been applied. “Those who frequent prostitutes are very, very rarely the subjects of a federal prosecution when clearly its commercial and consensual”. Although many legal experts have said that customers of prostitution rarely face serious legal trouble, the leaders of the prostitution ring have already been arrested.

Below is Spitzers apology from last summer. It’s a classic apology op ed because it includes three ingredients: a) apologizing and accepting responsibility, b) demonstrating proactive steps to prevent future occurances, c) putting the situation in context (in this case, reminding voters what they should be focused on instead).

Elliot Spitzer editorial in the New York Times, July 29, 2007

WE made mistakes.

Though two independent investigations proved that no illegal activity occurred on my watch, it is crystal clear that what members of my administration did was wrong — no ifs, ands or buts.

I have apologized to Joe Bruno, the Senate majority leader, and now I want to apologize to all New Yorkers.

What you’ve been reading about in the papers and watching on television this week is not what we are about. In fact, it represents just the opposite.

On my first day in office, I brought my staff together and told them what our guiding principles must be: ”First, we’re going to fight for what we believe in. And second, we’re going to maintain the highest ethical standards while doing it.”

Over the past few weeks, two members of my administration forgot that second principle — creating an appearance that the State Police were being used inappropriately.

As soon as this became clear, we acted immediately and decisively, suspending one of my longtime advisers indefinitely and transferring the other out of the governor’s office. These steps were not taken lightly. Both of these people have served New York with distinction for decades.

But the message was simple: even though they didn’t break the law, they forgot what we were about, and that won’t be tolerated.

The worst thing that could happen now would be for this to stop our progress, preventing us from building on our many successes of the past six months: health insurance for every child; historic investment in our schools tied to accountability; the largest property tax cut in history; ethics, lobbying and campaign finance reform; breaking the impasse at ground zero; and a 20 percent cut in workers’ compensation rates that will save New York businesses $1 billion and make our state more competitive.

Albany had long been mired in gridlock, but we are changing that. Working together with the Senate and Assembly, we have managed to make remarkable progress — and we are on the brink of so much more.

There are two ways this can go.

We can get bogged down in partisan politics that serve only to distract us from the business at hand — the kind of head-hunting that we’re beginning to see for people in my administration who were cleared by these investigations.

Or we can move forward and pick up where we left off, addressing the long list of issues and challenges that matter to all New Yorkers — which are just as important today as they were last week.

So let us keep our eye on the ball and focus our energy and our resources on the needs of New Yorkers — fighting for a revitalized economy, more jobs, lower health care costs, better schools and lower taxes.

We will renew those two guiding principles I spoke about on my first day in office.

We will continue to fight vigorously to change the status quo on behalf of all New Yorkers. I’m never going to apologize for that. But we must recognize that this effort will succeed only if our means for changing the status quo are as honorable as our ends.