Roland Martin: Black pastors didn't say don't vote on Election Day
CNN
Recently, when we ran an AP story that asserted that some black pastors are encouraging their congregations to not vote on election day, it dropped jaws and raised more than a few eyebrows.
Now, CNN's Roland Martin has responded. He writes that that's not what the pastors were saying. In other words, don't believe the hype.
When I first saw the headline, I was stunned, especially knowing the blood that has been shed over the years by African Americans and others to gain the precious right to vote.
I read the more than 1,300-word story by Rachel Zoll, with a contribution from Bill Barrow. The first line was "Some black clergy see no good presidential choice between a Mormon candidate and one who supports gay marriage, so they are telling their flocks to stay home on Election Day."
Nothing in the story legitimately backed up that first line. Anybody who had read the full article would know that.
In reading the piece, Zoll and Barrow quote or mention pastors A.R. Bernard, Jamal Bryant, George Nelson Jr., Floyd James, and Howard-John Wesley, Lin Hill and Dwight McKissic.
Not a single one of these pastors was quoted as saying they have or plan to tell their congregations not to vote in the presidential election. Not one.
Several expressed misgivings about President Barack Obama's support for same-sex marriage, and others had negative thoughts about Mitt Romney being a Mormon or the effect of his policies on their congregants. One said he hasn't decided whom he will vote for, and McKissic said he'll go fishing on Election Day.
But not a one said they were telling their members not to vote.
Several expressed misgivings about President Barack Obama's support for same-sex marriage, and others had negative thoughts about Mitt Romney being a Mormon or the effect of his policies on their congregants. One said he hasn't decided whom he will vote for, and McKissic said he'll go fishing on Election Day.
But not a one said they were telling their members not to vote.
The only time this assertion that pastors are telling their congregations to stay home comes from a quote, lifted from another newspaper. The story quotes Bryant as telling the Washington Informer, "This is the first time in black church history that I'm aware of that black pastors have encouraged their parishioners not to vote."
The reporters couldn't reach him to ask him about it, but going ahead and using the quote is suspect. The writers provide no specifics, no context, or anything else. Bryant said he was aware of this, not that he knew anyone. This is third-hand reporting. Unless you as a reporter know of specific pastors telling their congregations not to vote, it's wrong to make the assumption.
Bryant even tweeted the AP after the story ran: "WHEN did you contact @jamalhbryant in order to get his statement on voting? you need to revisit this & be accurate."
Pastors recommending that their followers stay home on Election Day would be jeopardizing their 501(c)(3) status with the IRS. A pastor can say whom he or she is personally supporting, but directing their congregations not to vote for a candidate would be a violation of federal law.
So these news outlets that ran the story could not have read the piece. If they did, they need to explain to their readers why they ran it.
When contacted about this story, the AP said it "stands by the version of the story that we distributed, separate and apart from versions that deviated from our own text."
But I believe AP should thoroughly examine its internal controls because that story has other fundamental problems.
It is clear that Zoll and Barrow chose to ignore compelling data that undercuts the article's general thesis. If you look at any polling data, it is clear that African-Americans overwhelmingly are going to vote for Obama. One recent poll says he will get 94% of the black vote. Surely, there are black Christians among that particular group.
Can AP explain why this recent polling was missing from this story? Surely the facts could put their story in perspective.
Second, the Obama campaign has an extensive faith-based outreach among African-American pastors, and the president has participated in conference calls with them, including one on the day he announced his support for same-sex marriage.
Why didn't Zoll or Barrow make mention of that or try to reach out to them? That's Journalism 101.
Last, it's nonsensical to quote several black pastors who have misgivings about positions taken by Obama and Romney and conclude that "African-American Christians waver over vote," as the first headline provided by AP said.
No, maybe those individuals are wavering, but the evidence is clear that a super-majority of African-Americans, including Christians, are clear as to which candidate they are voting for in November.
There is no denying that Obama's same-sex marriage position caused tremendous discussion in the black community, and I have heard from a handful of folks who say that has changed their view of him and dampened their enthusiasm to support him for a second term. But I would never offer up a sweeping claim that it is as widespread as Zoll and Barrow suggest.
Some would say this is internal journalism stuff. I disagree. This story has led to editorials blasting black pastors; caused some mentioned in the article to feel obliged to come out and state who they will endorse; and has led to consternation among the general public.
Our job in the media is to inform and enlighten, not confuse. Running such a confusing, unsupported story lacking basic context and perspective does not serve the public at all.
Editor's note: Roland Martin is a syndicated columnist and author of "The First: President Barack Obama's Road to the White House." He is a commentator for the TV One cable network and host/managing editor of its Sunday morning news show, "Washington Watch with Roland Martin."
+ Top Story
President Barack Obama’s appointment of UN Ambassador Susan Rice as his National Security Adviser was a great move for two reasons. Rice has the same superb qualifications that would have made her an exemplary Secretary of State.
Eighty-eight years after the birth on May 19, 1925, and 48 years after the assassination of black nationalist leader Malcolm X, the tragedy and triumph of his life and work still clouds and uplifts us. The years have seen Malcolm ignored, reviled, and praised.
Sometimes, white privilege isn't about stuff. It's not always about better opportunities, or more money, or even greater access to those things than people of color. Sometimes, white privilege is as simple as knowing that, generally speaking, if you're white, you'll be perceived as competent and hard-working until proven otherwise...
If Charles Ramsey is an American hero or another American casualty of media-induced racial stereotyping or both after helping save the lives of the three kidnapped Cleveland women, one thing is now clear. Ramsey has done the seemingly impossible. He's turned racial stereotyping on its head.
African Americans have spent much of our history fighting for equal treatment. Just two generations ago, our parents and our grandparents were banned from eating at certain restaurants, attending certain schools, and working in certain professions.
When then President George W. Bush submitted the names of his judicial court nominee picks it took the Senate on average 18 days to take a vote on his picks. When now President Obama submits the names of his judicial court picks it takes 132 days on average to get a Senate vote on them.
President Obama’s cautious admonition not to rush to judgment about the Boston Marathon terror bombing until all the facts were in put a momentary check on the media and some in the public who were rushing to spew the perennial “Muslim terrorists” did it line.
The fact that I didn't go any further than calling him useless was my being nice. If I said what I really felt about Sen. Reid, then you could call me mean. In fact, you could feasibly ask me if I kissed my late Mother with that mouth....