David,

Not having done due diligence on all the context of all of Wright's statements, I'll stick to general principle here. If you choose to gain attention by being irreverent, cocky, provocative, and inflammatory, then you have to be prepared for ALL the attention you'll earn - both good and bad. You might clear the kudzu with a flamethrower, but don't act surprised when the trees go up in smoke too.

Steve, I'm not sure Wright was necessarily looking for attention. I think he uses provocation to try to hit home with messages he's trying to communicate. But I agree that he should not have been surprised when it all blew up around him.

My point, though, is the sound bites may not fully represent what he was saying.

I read coverage of his speech in yesterday's NY Post and their reporters did the same thing -- emphasizing the inflammatory comments he made, but not going on to put them into context, as Wright tried to do in his talk at the National Press Club. When I read The Post's story, I thought, "Was I watching the same speech the reporter was watching?"

Believe me, I am not supporting Rev. Wright, but I am amazed at how the media are jumping on the sound bites to keep this a sensational issue. Possibly because it does sell papers and get viewers.

Unfortunately, this is one of the drawbacks of the "free press" and real limitations of newspapers and short-format television news programming. You see it all the time.

It's easier to be outraged than it is to think.

I read Marketing Profs for real marketing insight. If I wanted to talk politics, there are millions of sites for that...

Stick to marketing, please.

Fair enough, Dave.
I didn't intend this post at all as political and certainly not in support of any candidate, but rather a look at how journalists can get it wrong by relying solely on sound bites. And I do believe there is a lesson for us marketers in this, since we often rely on sound bites to help get our message onto TV and radio news.

Regardless of how you choose to interpret this guys comments through your own prism he is obviously a very angry, intentionally prideful man. Have you considered that this may not be the most effective marketing tactic.

William, most effective marketing tactic for whom? Certainly not for Obama. For Wright himself? Well, he certainly has gotten the nation's attention, but not in a positive way. I don't know how this hoopla could help him.

Again, though, my point here is about taking sound bites out of context.

Actually, this is very much a marketing lesson. After all, it is called a political 'campaign' (where many times the candidate with the better "marketing engine" wins). And marketers are definitely tasked with messaging.

I think the answer to your question is that the sound bite was so strong--and in this case divisive. When that happens it's common for people to tune-out all else and that transcended to the media, too. Not saying that was right, just saying that's what seemingly happened.

I do think that Wright is pleased with the attention ...after all it's affording him a national spotlight for his message (I, too, watched the longer speech a few days ago). He wasn't even on the public radar until very recently. Will he need to be more careful with his words? Well, as in marketing, it depends upon his end goal. He may not mind that his words are turning off some--as many are tuning in.

(none of that was meant to be political or an endorsement of his sound bites, just an answer to your question)

I am not making a political statement here but I *have* watched the entire sermon where he says America deserved 9/11.

However, even in the context of the sermon, his statement stands alone. There is NO WAY to context away his statements. There is no moral equivalence between the things he mentions earlier in the sermon and 9/11.

I could tightly explain exactly why the moral equivalence arguments are bunk here but this is not the place. Suffice it to say the sound bites, out of context though they may be, do speak for themselves.

There is absolutely no justification for the things he said. There are certainly lessons here both on the danger of providing the media with sound bites but also lessons about saying completely unforgivable things that can stand alone in sound bites.

Mr. Wright examine your own soul and whether the hatred you preach is helping or hurting your flock? You may also have helped kill Obama's chances to win the Presidency and further divided the Democratic party and, more importantly, the country itself.

Mr. Wright may have helped the Republicans more than anyone, actually.

Some good points, Neil. I did not see the sermon that contained the 9/11 remarks, but only his explanation of it in his National Press Club talk. It very well could be his recollection or explanation is off; I don't know.

The key is, sound bites can be dangerous.

Saying "God Damn America" and calling "AmeriKKKa" and all of his scores of conspiracy theories can have a context that explains them away.

If a white man preached like him, he would be called a white supremest, right-wing nut job.

How does he help anyone but himself with his vitriol? He lifts nobody up from their circumstances. Nobody gets a better job. Obama is brought down, even.

Martin Luther King would have walked out of one of Wright's sermons. Bobby Kennedy would have walked out.

What ever happened to liberals like Bobby??

You know who gave GREAT sound bites for Obama? Oprah. Here's a post with a 1-minute clip of her campaigning for Obama in Iowa. She was uniting (not divisive) and she indeed got him more votes...and great press. She used the spotlight for his gain, not her own: http://www.ck-blog.com/cks_blog/2007/12/a-really-good-e.html

Sound bites are dangerous but they are reality.

But people should be a bit more careful about what they say. Words, including sound bites, have power to lift people up or bring them down.

The media is not going to change...

Neil: Exactly. People need to be more careful about what they say, especially recognizing how key statements, especially provocative ones, can get picked up as sound bites and become the story instead of illuminating it.

If the media is not going to change, as you say, then yes, people mist be careful what they say.

Yes, and the sad thing is that Mr. Wright is clearly an intelligent man. He could be lifting people up and, frankly, his sound bites could be doing the same.

David, while I can appreciate your attempt to show us the ramifications of sound bytes and how they can be used, I think that maybe you should've used a different way to illustrate this. Using such a contentious topic is bound to subtract from your message and lead into heated arguments not focused on marketing but politics rather.

With that being said, I think this is another example of irresponsible journalism. Marketers should make themselves aware that this is something that occurs quite often and affects many different industries. I think if you’re going to go on the news you should act like every statement is a stand alone statement because chances are at least one of them will, and I can almost guarantee it won't be the nicest statement you made…

"Marketers should make themselves aware that this is something that occurs quite often and affects many different industries."

Lieca, my point, exactly.

Lieca

I wonder how much money Mr Wright's sound bites have made CNN this past week? The reporters are artfully aging him on - staging events to squeeze more provocative statements out of him. The media even hosted a press club where you can watch them manufacture sound bites right in front of a live audience.

I think Neil is right. It seems the popular defense of Sound Bites is that the receiver took them out of context. That defense doesn't always work. Mr. Wright told his congregation that HIV was created by the gov't to destroy Blacks. There is no way that can be defended by claiming it was "taken out of context". I have absolutely no respect for Mr. Wright.

I hate to generalize but I think some in the media loves this sort of thing.

For example, Obama may lose the nomination to Hillary. You may have a repeat of Chicago, 1968. I think some in the media would like this.

There is this idea that the media is liberal. No, they are businesses that thrive on things happening.

The Obama love-fest, with minimal scrutiny, helped propel him to the top and if it is taken from him now, there will be trouble.

To be fair, many in the media are horrified by this spectacle.

I have to agree with you whole heartedly Neil. The media does love this sort of thing. Any time the media has a chance to take a mundane and boring story and put a shot of controversy and drama into it they will.

Not this man's words weren't already controversial however I'm sure they weren't all so sensationalist as the media portrays.

Yes, the media is eating this up since it sells papers and draws viewers.

Dan, not to defend Wright, but what I heard him say when questioned at the National Press Club was that it might be possible that the government invented HIV. He didn't say it was a fact; he said he wouldn't be surprised if the government did it. Two very different statements, but many in the media are playing up the extreme version. To sell more papers? Who knows?

David -- I like this post a lot. And loved that you tackled this issue.

One thing I've learned from my blogging at the Huffington Post is that folks tend to be pretty reactionary around political issues, often with little provocation. I guess we see a little of that here, but my take on this post is that it's not really about Wright.. or Obama. You can love or hate either around your own kitchen table (or at HuffPo, or your community of choice!). Rather, it's about the issue of looking for the sound bite, the bit that sizzles, rather than substance.

It's a pet peeve of mine, actually. So thanks for tackling this issue, and for trying NOT to debate politics here.

Thanks Ann. Glad you got it.

Where was the media on Wright near the beginning of the campaign? It was an absolute love-fest. Clinton did not have a chance against that.

Now, that and *other* dubious connections of Obama are coming to light that are going to be hugely damaging to him and to the Democratic party. I think the media bears a great deal of responsibility for this fiasco. And a fiasco it is. No question.

Do you think radical connections of Hillary Clinton or John McCain would have gone largely un-reported for that long? I do not think so...

Sorry, but the Reverend needs some serious crisis communications media training and a crash course in how to handle the media. So, in my opinion, does Obama, and I blogged about this yesterday precisely because it's difficult to tell which of the two of them is worse.

The Reverend is pompous in his disdain for media and his habit of answering a question with another (challenging question), his refusal to format his answers to fit the time frame available to the medium, his insistence on being 'himself' - well - he's like someone who goes to a job interview in a bathrobe and then is offended because he isn't offered the position.

As for Obama, if I were one of his communications advisers I'd lock him in a room for three hours with a video camera until he learns to graciously repeat a simple holding statement instead of shooting off his mouth and giving everyone the impression that he thinks he knows best. Increasingly the contrast between him and Hillary is not male/female, black/white, younger/older, but arrogant/having a proper sense of humility.

Thanks for weighing in here, Ruth. It seems that much of the damage to Obama could have been contained if he had been properly advised in crisis communications. And your point about his coming off a bit arrogant is also something that media relations/media training might have helped him with.

Check out Ruth's post at
http://now-when.blogspot.com/2008/04/murkiest-of-murky-waters.html

Obama's statement about people turning to guns and religion out of "bitterness" right before the PA primary???

What were he and his advisers thinking!?

Talk about sound bite fodder and right before a primary where you offend large numbers of people in the center and the the West side of a major state. Doesn't he have media advisers who know these things?

David,

Your point is very well taken. We market ourselves every time we open our mouths and the media will spin what we say to fit how they want us to be seen. We should always keep that in mind. Rev. Wright did not.

I did want to mention that the same thing happened with Dr. Martin Luther King. His sermons were more similar to Dr. Wright's than different. He, too, spoke emphatically about America's need to right it's wrongs in how we've treated some of our citizens (minorities and the poor) and the need for us to get out of the evil war in Vietnam. It was those types of comments that made him "public enemy #1" in his time. However, after his death, only the positive comments from his speeches were aired, and he was potrayed only as a man of peace.

So, we all need to make sure that we say what we mean and mean what we say at all time. Either that, or make sure we have friends in the media who will paint us in the best possible light.

First of all, we need to remember that Wright is a businessman.
Granted his business is religion, and the public has certain expectations of how a preacher should behave.
This entire series of events has been nothing more than Wright building his brand.
He is an expert marketer and button pusher.
That you gave him ink bothers me more than his comments.

Tee, good point about Dr. Martin Luther King. While he's recognized today for the hero he was, I do remember at the time how many people looked at him as a rebel and a trouble-maker. Part of that was die to the media's coverage.

Martin Luther King took his inspiration from Ghandi and that was reflected in what he said. Granted, I am too young to remember him but I have seen enough clips.

Mr. Wright seems to have taken his inspiration from Malcom X and his ilk.

As I mentioned above, I believe MLK would have walked out of one of these Reverend Wright sermons.

As for the perception by some that MLK was public enemy number 1, it was in the sense that the British thought the same of Ghandi in India.

MLK called for a color blind society. If I may use a sound bite from Dr. King:

"But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force."

I was born in 1968 so came into this world the year he and Robert F. Kennedy left it. Sad, that.

It is a shame that many of today's leaders do not bring people up but instead drag them down into the muck. Sad, that.

Please forgive the three posts in a row but I found this extemporaneous speech by Robert Kennedy announcing the death of MLK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPYNb4ex6Ko

He found the right words.

Neil: "It is a shame that many of today's leaders do not bring people up but instead drag them down into the muck. Sad, that."

Yes, and it's also sad that the media seem to focus on people doing and saying things that bring themselves and/or others down. Not only Wright, but following every mis-step by celebs like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, etc.

David, I agree with you on the over reporting of the partying of silly celebrities.

I do not agree that they somehow mis-represented Wright, though. If anything, the media harmed the Democratic party by not digging into his associations earlier in the primaries. There was a honeymoon that lasted until he had the nomination nearly won.

The media, in a sense, helped create a deeply divided Democratic party now. Wright and some other associations of Obama, may be a large contributing factor in a protracted fight at the end of the Democratic primary and the ultimate win of McCain in the general election.

In the case of Wright, I think his sound bites speak for themselves. No context can do anything for him or for Obama.

If the media had done this earlier, the front runner might be Hillary who, given Obama's associations, now would have had a greater chance against McCain.

So I think the media ran these sound bites too late and, in a sense, were irresponsible to have a honeymoon with any candidate. Do you think dubious associations of, say, John McCain would be ignored by the media for so long?

David, it seems to me that your example of Reverend Wright's quotes (as well as others discussed above) focuses not on sound bites crafted by the speaker, but cropped from lengthy speeches by a third party (namely, the media.)

The way I see it, you're absolutely right: we as communicators and marketers must be very cautios as to how we craft our (and our clients') sound bites. Call it a lesson learned.

Now I'd like to take it a step further and impress the importance of crafting one's own sound bites vs. leaving it to others; that is, leaving it to chance.

LMonica -- Yes, well that's what we in p.r. try to do as much as possible. We draft key copy points and help our clients say what they need to say in neat, to-the-point phrases that we hope will get picked up by the media. Leaving it to chance, especially when you're dealing with a complex, emotional or controversial subject, is an invitation to disaster. Unfortunately, too often the media gets it wrong.