Has the media overblown the Reverend Wright controversy? In case you haven’t been watching television for the past three weeks, Reverend Wright, Barack Obama’s former pastor, has been ostracized by the media for making controversial remarks. Numerous clips have surfaced showing Wright shouting, “Not God bless America; God damnAmerica! That’s in the Bible!” He’s also been videotaped saying, “[America]…is doing the same thing Al Qaeda is doing, under a different color flag!” Once the clips of Wright became public, the media was quick to point out the underlying implications of Obama and Wright’s relationship. The critical issue is not Wright himself, but the uncomfortable fact that Obama has, for twenty years, received guidance from a man who’s prone to hyperbolic outbursts concerningAmerican foreign policy. My initial response to this implication was defensive. “Slander!” I wanted to shout. “Another Rightwing swift-boat attempt!” I actually began writing this piece to defend Obama. But Wright’s ranting had left me wondering: If Obama is running on his good judgment to counterbalance his short resume, why does his mentor seems so anti-American? And what does that say about his judgment? Obama has accused the media of distorting his relationship with Wright. The controversy, he says, is in response to Hillary Clinton’s accusation that the media has been too lenient with him. Wrightgate is the media’s way of proving they can be equally critical of both Democratic candidates. However, after thoroughly YouTube-ing the more popular news programs, I found this to be largely untrue. Most of the media coverage has not been very accusatory at all. Some networks have openly expressed regret in covering the story. Anderson Cooper said on his primetime show, Anderson Cooper 360, “People are talking about [Wright]. He’s clearly an issue that has been bubbling up in the campaign trail, so we end up covering it. But at the same time, it does feel completely off track.” Even Bill O’Reilly sympathized with Obama, saying “I don’t like the Revered Wright story…it hurts Obama, and I’m not sure that’s completely fair.” Of course, he then talked for 30 minutes about Wrightgate.A few weeks after the story made headlines, Obama responded in a speech he’d prepared himself. “I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy and in some cases pain,” he said.This was one of many denunciations Obama made of Wright’s “insidious and divisive” comments. However, he went on to say that he could no more disown his Wright than he could his own grandmother. After the speech Obama consoled his wife, who was weeping backstage. He then turned to his campaign staff and asked: “What’s next?”But the controversy was anything but buried. Soon after, during an interview with her traveling media, Hillary compared Wright to Don Imus, the shock jock who went too far. “Given the things we’ve all heard and seen, [Wright] would not have been my pastor.” she said, subtly fanning the flames of the Wrightgate controversy. Obama has claimed that the media has been covering the story too much. But I have point out: If this was McCain’s preacher, or Hillary’s, the media would still be frenzying over the story. Why? Because that’s their job, really. The media covers popular stories to garner ratings. But this leads us to another question: Why is Wrightgate so popular? We all wonder who has our president’s (or future president’s) ear. Questioning the spiritual advisors of our politicians is nothing new. When John F. Kennedy was elected president in the early 1960s he was forced to pledge his allegiance to the United States over the Pope because he was Roman Catholic. Simply put, Obama’s judgment is crucial to his candidacy, so the media has the right to question his advisors.