On Inaugural Preacher Picks, Activists and Bloggers Are Caught in Their Own Web

Late on Tuesday, Open Left front-pager Paul Rosenberg approvingly flagged a Salon piece in which Nancy Goldstein sought to skewer President-elect Barack Obama, in response to Monday's late-breaking announcement that Obama had invited Bishop Gene Robinson, of New Hampshire -- the country's first openly gay Episcopal bishop -- to offer the invocation on Sunday at the opening inaugural event, the "We Are One" concert at the Lincoln Memorial.

In the wake of the Rick Warren business, Obama's selection of Robinson is, Goldstein argues, "too little, too late."

But Goldstein's attempt to use the timing of the Warren and Robinson announcements, to "divine" Obama's priorities, is flawed, at best. Again: The timing of these announcements is not necessarily an index of Obama's priorities.

Goldstein writes (bold emphases mine):

Finally: Nearly four weeks and tons of negative press since Barack Obama announced his choice of...Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the presidential inauguration, Team Obama has gone into damage control mode. Monday morning they announced that Obama has also invited the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, who was elected the Episcopal Church's first openly gay bishop in 2003, to deliver the invocation for Sunday's kickoff inaugural event on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial....[I]t took literally 27 days of outright uproar on queer and progressive blogs for Team Obama to issue the invitation.

But when Melissa Block, interviewing Robinson yesterday on NPR, asked the direct question -- "[The Warren] announcement came on December 17th; when did you get your own invitation to speak?" -- Robinson replied:

I was actually invited about two and a half weeks ago. But I am told -- and I believe it's true -- that this was in the works, actually, quite a long time.

Of course, one could speculate that Robinson was lying. But if we can take Robinson at his word -- and I see no compelling reason not to do so -- "about two and a half weeks ago" would put the invitation itself at some point just after Christmas. So: Not "nearly four weeks" and not "literally 27 days" after the Warren announcement. More like a week and a half.

(And let's be honest: Would the LGBT activist and progressive blog reaction to the Robinson announcement really have been any different, had it come two and a half weeks -- rather than two and a half days -- ago?)

None of this necessarily means that the timing of the Robinson invitation and announcement wasn't -- at least, on some level -- a response to the furor over Warren. But neither does the mere fact that both the Robinson invitation and the Robinson announcement appear to have come after the Warren announcement necessarily mean that Obama wasn't already thinking about Robinson, before he invited Warren.

What I'm getting to is that the timeline that LGBT activists and progressive bloggers are "responding" to is a media construct that they themselves helped to create -- but that may have very little to do with Obama's own thinking or priorities.

Consider Joseph Lowery, the progressive minister and civil rights icon. News that Lowery, who has been a staunch advocate for gay civil rights, will offer the benediction at Obama's inauguration came on the very same day -- 17 December -- as did the news that Rick Warren will offer the invocation.

And yet, Lowery's participation -- which, if anything, carries more, not less, prominence and status than Warren's -- was completely buried, when LGBT activists, progressive bloggers, and -- obligingly -- the traditional media immediately jumped on the Warren hobbyhorse.

A Google blog search on "Rick Warren" and "Joseph Lowry" brings up 45 pages of results for posts that mention both names.

For the same period, there are more than twice as many pages of results -- 97 -- for "Rick Warren."

Yesterday -- the same day as NPR's interview of Gene Robinson -- NPR ran a story about Lowery's benediction, under the headline "Civil Rights Icon To Deliver Inaugural Benediction," as if this were breaking news.

But on 17 December, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reporting on the formal announcement of the Lowery pick, wrote that, according to Lowery, Obama initially had called him about participating in the inauguration "a few weeks ago." When did Obama start considering Lowery for the inauguration? Do we know? I suspect not. And yet: LGBT activists and progressive bloggers behave as though the Warren pick trumps the Lowery pick, utterly.

Robinson said that he had been told that his own pick had been in the works for "quite a long time," before he was formally invited sometime after Christmas and formally announced this week. When did Obama start thinking about Robinson for the inauguration? Do we know? I suspect not. And yet: LGBT activists and progressive bloggers presume that the belated date of the formal announcement of Robinson signifies all.

Warren was formally announced on 17 December. When did Obama formally invite him? Do we know? When did Obama start considering Warren for the inauguration? Do we know? I suspect not. And yet, again: LGBT activists and progressive bloggers willfully ignore Lowery and presume that Warren signifies all.

You see what I'm saying. The timeline of announcements, as reported by the media, simply is not necessarily a reliable indicator of Obama's thought process, his values, or his priorities. It isn't. And we must not fall into the trap of believing that it is -- especially when the traditional media ran with the Warren story, as a specific response to LGBT activist and progressive blogger "outrage."

All the sound and fury over Warren and Robinson signifies...well, not nothing, but significantly less than those making all the noise think.

For the record, I don't believe we should have ministers -- Christian or otherwise -- praying over inaugurations, at all. But if have them we must, then, surely, Lowery's "last word" will be more significant, in framing the meaning of the inauguration, than Warren's first.

Comments

[bbbtmenw]

The pick of Bishop Robinson was all for shutting up the GAYS.

IT WAS NOT ENOUGH, especially when "Obama People" sold the airing rights to HBO.

This was a PUBLIC EVENT. ALL media outlets should have had access.

HBO then slighted GAYS by NOT AIRING THE PRAYER, and later not introducing the GAY MEN's CHORUS.

OBAMA you need to make a point to make THIS SECOND SCREW-UP, and you need to "make it right".

HBO needs to open up the prayer video and every news station needs to be allowed to air it.........

[bbbtmenw]

Part 1 (repeated from my first reply to the Robinson bigoted slight from HBO)

I am ANGRY....... HBO was the sole media outlet for the Inaugural Concert. They eliminated the opening ceremony and the opening prayer.

With so much controversy over the bigot Warren invocation during the inauguration on Tuesday, and the subsequent adding of gay Bishop Gene Robinson to open the inaugural activities with a speech and a prayer. It was horrifying to me that HBO chose not to air or recognize the opening prayer on their broadcast.

[bbbtmenw]

They further acknowledged Josh Groban and Heather Headley when each entered and appeared on stage with subtitled introduction and ignored that they were singing in front of the Gay Men's Chorus. HBO couldn't even acknowledge them.
PART 2
When there is only one source to a media event, there needs to be fair and impartial editing and there should be full recognition.

I am horrified that once again "WE" are to stay in the background, ignored and unrecognized.

I am canceling my HBO service. I EXPECT AN APOLOGY from Barack Obama to all Gay people.

This is not an acceptable CONSOLATION PRIZE.

[RavenBassLady]

Mr. Lumea,

Thank you for perhaps one of the most insightful articles on Huffpost concerning this issue. There's a need for folks to stop, think *critically*, and analyze data before jumping on the "I'm so outraged" bandwagon. Your article has pointed out how the trap of groupthink-- particularly when driven by bloggers --can obscure little details like Rev Lowery's position as the pastor performing the benediction.

I get the feeling that those who wish to push their own agenda, will do so, especially when their agenda is fueled by outrage. Accuracy be damned. I don't think that anyone has said "Don't criticize the Warren pick--" , not at all. Just my opinion, but I think we are being asked to use a little discernment and judgment rather than jumping to conclusions, thereby fanning the flames of discontent into a self-righteous inferno.

[omo]

Amen. Beware the 'groupthink trap' !

[Burnsey]

It is a little disengenious to compare google searches on an individual such as Warren and Lowery. Warren is in the news recently for other things than just the Obama Inauguration. There are stories about the Ebenezer Baptist Church Invite (Nothing to do with Obama) his call for Christian Brown Shirts (still nothing to do with Obama's Inauguration) and his real history of fighting AIDS in Africa and his connections to some nefarious African religous leaders (still nothing to do with Obama's Inauguration). Did you look to see if all those pages were in fact about the subject that you are talking about?

Warren is already a celebrity what with his millions of followers and his famous books. Really, do you always compare apples to mangos?

[horizonr]

Actually, I prefer to compare mangos to kumquats.

JOHN LUMEA

[horizonr]

For the record, I did check this.

Using a start date of 17 December --- the date that news broke of Warren's and Lowery's participation in the inauguration --- the number of Google results pages for blog posts that mention:

"Rick Warren" AND "Joseph Lowery" = 47

"Rick Warren" AND "inauguration" but NOT "Joseph Lowery" OR "Hitler" OR "Ebenezer" OR "AIDS" OR "Africa" OR "Prop 8" = 100

And page 100 --- which appears to be the maximum number of results pages --- ends with blog posts on 20 December, although there are posts on 19 December that meet these requirements, i.e., that mention ONLY "Rick Warren" and "inauguration."

JOHN LUMEA

[Burnsey]

Thanks for that information. It should be in the story so people know, I don't think they all read every comment, but I appreciate that you respond to criticisims, you are a good diarist. Now on my favorites.

[Raven]

John, when you say,

"You see what I'm saying,"

I have to admit you've got me stumped. Because I, for one, have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here.

If you're trying to say, as your title would suggest, that there's some web that activists are supposed to have been caught in? If you see one, it's not made clear in this post where it is. The fact that Obama invited Robinson after the uproar is supposed to demonstrate that the uproar itself was out of line?

The only thing that seems clear to me from that is that you seem to be suggesting that LGBT activists had no business criticizing the Warren pick at all. And why is that?

Because it should have been known that Obama had other things in the works? And that it shouldn't matter that he just let all the bitching and moaning go on for almost a month without responding to it - ever?

Sorry, but I truly don't get that.

And if you really think that the Robinson pick was not a response to that bitching and moaning, well, that's a reality of your own creation.

Perhaps it's just a matter of you getting caught in your own web.

[PlaceboStudman]

I believe that he is saying that we (and yes I am guilty of this myself) have been fueled by the emotional intensity of the issue, and have forgotten to do our fact checking when referencing this story. In essence, we have been reacting to the timing of the announcements, which we really don't know who MADE the announcements. If it was Pastor Warren who leaked his own invitation, then it can be deduced that he did so simply to ride the wave of publicity he started riding on after the Prop 8 issue. But, the announcement of the invitation has no logical connection to the time of the invitation itself, which only President Obama and his inner circle would know.

Is Mr Lumea saying we should not care? No. Of course we should, and do care. What i believe he is saying is that those of us who do care should get our facts straight and try not to let our emotions cloud our judgement, based on aspects of this story that we simply can not know, ie the timing of the actual invitations vs the timing of the announcement of the invitations, vs the priority in which President Obama made the invitations. Those may be logistical questions that he nor his staff, and certainly we do not have any control over