Busted in Jena.

January 12, 2008 6:48 AM

Busted in Jena.My path crossed the Jena Six by chance. The BBC broadcast a documentary called “Race Hate in Louisiana” in May 2007. When I watched a copy of it in June, I was dumbfounded. I quit my job a week early, packed the car with my cameras, and drove to Jena.
posted by chunking express (47 comments total)

Also, Michael David Murphy is a pretty good photographer.
posted by chunking express at 6:50 AM on January 12, 2008

I was all prepared to be excited by this, but there didn't seem to be much there there. When I read:

The case had all the makings of a national superstory; two scoops of die-hard Southern prejudice, protests over a racially-charged judicial system, and nooses swinging from a schoolyard tree. But beneath the outrage and rhetoric, the story of Jena was more complicated than it seemed.

I thought he was going to tell us that the black kids had put up the nooses themselves, or the white kid who was attacked was really black, or something. But he didn't really present anything beyond die-hard Southern prejudice, protests over a racially-charged judicial system, and nooses swinging from a schoolyard tree. Nice pictures, though.
posted by languagehat at 8:44 AM on January 12, 2008

I was also disappointed. I hope this isn't the best the new Fray publication has to offer.
posted by dobbs at 8:50 AM on January 12, 2008

Hey MeFites! Thanks for linking up this story. (I'm Derek, MeFi user 44 and creator of Fray.) I just wanted to point out that there are lots of other stories from issue 1 online if this one isn't your cup of tea, with even more in the issue, which we should be getting back from the printer next week. (Very stoked.)

On a less stoked note, Michael David Murphy, who wrote and shot this story, recently had his apartment broken into and all his camera gear stolen. So if any of you have any spare camera gear or want to help, drop him a line.
posted by fraying at 8:59 AM on January 12, 2008

The story was crap, but the pictures were excellent.
posted by tkolar at 9:36 AM on January 12, 2008

Damn, does every story have to have earth-shattering revelations? It was short and sweet about something important...
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:10 AM on January 12, 2008

Although glossed over in the article, there were more than photos about the money. NPR says $500,000 is missing an unaccounted for.

Also, here's another set of photos by the same guy. I like this link better.
posted by drstein at 10:34 AM on January 12, 2008

My last day in Jena, CNN stopped by the courthouse, and they aired a brief story a few days later. Their report was buried as soon as Paris Hilton was released from jail.

God damn it.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 10:43 AM on January 12, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

i for one enjoyed the piece. it reminded me of how alienated and hopeless i felt around the time of the jena protests. certainly, from a racial perspective -- i was teaching undergraduate pre-service teachers in a course which dealt with the politics/sociology of race in education (among other things), and our class' discussions were tense (of 25 students, only 3 were black -- and that was the largest number of non-whites i'd *ever* had in a section of this course).

but there were so many other things, too -- the sense that these protests didn't have the same feeling* (from what i could see, at a distance, as i toured the web for primary content). i didn't have much of a sense that the people felt they might be heard. many of the t-shirts were quite slickly produced, and that just didn't sit well with me. as is only a propos, other groups -- with no overt connection to the happenings in jena -- showed up to lend their "support" (and brandish signs with their own logos...yes, HRC, i'm looking at you).

the meaning and experience of democracy are changing, and i for one appreciate being witness to others' expression of these phenomena.

plus, the only place citizen journalists have to reflect and connect is the web. it's not easy, to dedicate months of your life -- as a volunteer -- to covering a story. examining your own biases. building relationships. communicating information which would not otherwise be shared or experienced outside a localized community. i can empathize...i've been "covering" the hate-crime-style murder of a 35-year-old racist, drug-dealing ex-con in micro-town indiana. so, i find it fascinating to read stories like this -- ones which both chronicle an event and provide a sort of insta-reflection on the part of the observer.

but then again, i'm just an action researcher -wannabe. i'm a pretty serious geek for this stuff. so, thanks, chunking express, for posting this -- i hadn't heard of fray before.

*i know, i know, "same feeling....as what?" my particular perspective is from the anti-war rallies on campus before (and during) the first gulf war. but in general, i refer to the fact that many of those in attendance have never known a united states that wasn't led by a bush or a clinton...and they just seem/ed, oh....i don't know...different. i'm at a loss for words (all evidence to the contrary) to express it more pointedly. their helplessness is darker, more hopeless. disturbing.
posted by CitizenD at 10:58 AM on January 12, 2008

i, too, was hoping for more out of this, and fwiw, i think it's crappy journalism. the most intriguing point for me is this:

Back in June 2007, before Mychal Bell went on trial as the first of the Jena Six defendants, I pulled up a chair in the LaSalle Parish Courthouse to look at documents from the case and read the witness statements. Or, I tried. The spelling and grammar of the students was so poor, it was hard to piece together what exactly happened.

it's interesting that murphy never does tell us exactly what happened. nor does he do much more than regurgitate the most superficial recounting of events without ever once claiming to have uncovered any truth.
the thing i appreciate about jena is the spirit, and i suspect the press so focused on the atmosphere that they never found the soul.
posted by msconduct at 11:25 AM on January 12, 2008

Christ, wasn't this whole thing debunked a while ago?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1024/p09s01-coop.htm
posted by enamon at 11:27 AM on January 12, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

thanks for linking to that, enamon. i remember reading it but had no idea where it was.

and it's good to see fray growing. i've always thought fray (and mefite 44 in general) was pivotal in helping to give direction to and set the bar for excellent internet. now derek ... will you bring back kvetch?
posted by msconduct at 11:35 AM on January 12, 2008

"they just seem/ed, oh....i don't know...different....their helplessness is darker, more hopeless. disturbing."

I have noticed this as well. I remember just being frustrated with the turnout and the apathy during Gulf War I, but I really thought people would start to get on board by II. But truly, most of these protests are started by the young - and I won't say that there is no activism or idealism in today's youth, but I do see a fatalism that is pretty depressing. We can't all be jaded and cynical...it just doesn't work that way. If the 20 yr olds give up, what hope is there for anyone else?
posted by The Light Fantastic at 11:35 AM on January 12, 2008

Christ, wasn't this whole thing debunked a while ago?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1024/p09s01-coop.htm

Ok. I read that, and I have to say that debunked nothing. The assistant editor of The Jena Times is not what I consider a reliable source, and many of his facts are a bit suspect to me, especially this one:

"According to the expulsion committee, the crudely constructed nooses were not aimed at black students. Instead, they were understood to be a prank by three white students aimed at their fellow white friends, members of the school rodeo team. (The students apparently got the idea from watching episodes of "Lonesome Dove.") The committee further concluded that the three young teens had no knowledge that nooses symbolize the terrible legacy of the lynchings of countless blacks in American history."

Right. No one in Louisiana knows a thing about nooses. But they ALL watch Lonesome Dove. okeedokee.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 11:42 AM on January 12, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]

The spelling and grammar of the students was so poor...

...had no knowledge that nooses symbolize the terrible legacy...

Why do I get the feeling that those two things relate to each other? Oh yeah, edjimication.
posted by M Edward at 12:45 PM on January 12, 2008

The assistant editor of The Jena Times is not what I consider a reliable source

Right, because he's just a professional journalist who lives there and has been following the case from the beginning. You, from your armchair and armed with a few random items picked up from mass media and a shitload of preconceptions, are far better placed to judge these things.
posted by languagehat at 1:02 PM on January 12, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

Sure racism is a problem that doesn’t ever want to die. But a facile media that earns its bread and butter by pushing shallow, cliched stories only makes things worse. And its not just the MSM pushing dog food between deaths by disasters and bombings. I’m a big fan of Amy Goodman and Democracy Now. But, as Dylan says, “everybody got to serve someone....” and she served political correctness on that story.
posted by Huplescat at 1:23 PM on January 12, 2008

Craig Franklin, the assistant editor, is married to Mychal Bell's teacher, Kim Franklin, who has biases of her own, it seems. Given his connections, I'm reluctant to accept Mr. Franklin's editorial as the gospel truth on Jena.
posted by longdaysjourney at 3:16 PM on January 12, 2008

'The BBC broadcast a documentary called “Race Hate in Louisiana” in May 2007. When I watched a copy of it in June, I was dumbfounded..... I uploaded the photos to my site and put together a video about the case. Without trying, I’d beaten mainstream media to the story.'

The BBC, the largest broadcasting corporation in the world, isn't 'mainstream media'? I don't care how good his photographs are, this guy's a colossal arse.
posted by Hogshead at 3:35 PM on January 12, 2008

According to the expulsion committee, the crudely constructed nooses were not aimed at black students. Instead, they were understood to be a prank by three white students aimed at their fellow white friends, members of the school rodeo team. (The students apparently got the idea from watching episodes of "Lonesome Dove.") The committee further concluded that the three young teens had no knowledge that nooses symbolize the terrible legacy of the lynchings of countless blacks in American history.


I just...I don't know about that...
posted by voltairemodern at 3:47 PM on January 12, 2008

This was found on the Kansas City Star, linked through Topix.net. The original is a 404. (Damn news sites!)

"Lessons from Jena."
posted by drstein at 4:30 PM on January 12, 2008

thanks, drstein. that's closer to the version of the story i've heard but seldom read. i know one of the activist journalists who helped to break the story, and it's been my experience that he tends to have a rather narrow focus that conveniently fits his world view. i don't doubt that the politi-speak in the first article is an attempt to spin the story in favor of the school board, but i do think that by and large, the bigger spin was the one broadcast into millions of homes every night on the evening news.
posted by msconduct at 5:01 PM on January 12, 2008

You, from your armchair and armed with a few random items picked up from mass media and a shitload of preconceptions, are far better placed to judge these things.

Ouchers!
posted by Wolof at 6:00 PM on January 12, 2008

I'm Derek, MeFi user 44 and creator of Fray.

Am I the only one who finds brandishing one's low mefi user number unseemly? I just don't get how this necessarily correlates with the quality of the story or whatever else he's aiming at with this statement.

Are we supposed to bow?
posted by marble at 7:15 PM on January 12, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

The Light Fantastic said: (in reference to the editorial from the Jena local paper)

Ok. I read that, and I have to say that debunked nothing. The assistant editor of The Jena Times is not what I consider a reliable source, and many of his facts are a bit suspect to me, especially this one:


So in other words, because of what you've read in mainstream media, you've painted this professional journalist with the broad brush of racism and declare him an unreliable witness to his own town?

The Light Fantastic when on to quote a section of the article thusly:

"According to the expulsion committee, the crudely constructed nooses were not aimed at black students. Instead, they were understood to be a prank by three white students aimed at their fellow white friends, members of the school rodeo team. (The students apparently got the idea from watching episodes of "Lonesome Dove.") The committee further concluded that the three young teens had no knowledge that nooses symbolize the terrible legacy of the lynchings of countless blacks in American history."

However, he intentionally left off the leading sentence of the paragraph which was:

An investigation by school officials, police, and an FBI agent revealed the true motivation behind the placing of two nooses in the tree the day after the assembly.

So, the FBI is in bed with the racists, are they? Why the need to eliminate that sentence LTF? I mean, did you think nobody else read the article and would remember that the FBI made the report about the nooses?

My point is this: You're claiming to have more journalistic integrity than a working journalist with a career history. His facts have been verified by the police, by court documents, by the FBI. Your assertions that he is not reliable, however, are without proof.
posted by dejah420 at 7:38 PM on January 12, 2008

The committee further concluded that the three young teens had no knowledge that nooses symbolize the terrible legacy of the lynchings of countless blacks in American history

Maybe it was a rodeo prank. Nevertheless, you need to be a whole other kind of stupid to not think that nooses in a tree are going to upset the black populace. Seriously. You don't need to listen to Billy Holiday to know what's up.
posted by chunking express at 9:42 PM on January 12, 2008

An investigation by school officials, police, and an FBI agent revealed the true motivation behind the placing of two nooses in the tree the day after the assembly.

So, the FBI is in bed with the racists, are they? Why the need to eliminate that sentence LTF? I mean, did you think nobody else read the article and would remember that the FBI made the report about the nooses?

And...how exactly do you "investigate" motivation? You ask the kids why they did it. It doesn't matter whether G.W. asked them why they did it, all you have to go on is their word.

I read the CS article, and I asked myself whether or not I was forming my opinion out of bias - and the answer is no. I personally am not too convinced of either side of this story. But when I read an article like the one in question, in which EVERY single item of the story is refuted 180 deg. the other way (in often difficult to believe ways...I mean, really, Lonesome Dove?) - there's some part of my brain that has to call Shenanigans. Especially when the guy is so entrenched in the town culture. One would love to think that a local editor would be neutral, but that story really stretched my imagination (as does the "innocent victims of racism").

So, thanks for the vote of confidence, but I haven't fallen for either story (unlike you?)
posted by The Light Fantastic at 10:24 PM on January 12, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

Am I the only one who finds brandishing one's low mefi user number unseemly? I just don't get how this necessarily correlates with the quality of the story or whatever else he's aiming at with this statement.
Are we supposed to bow?
posted by marble at 10:15 PM on January 12

Uh, marble, I hate to tell you (and whoever favorited your comment), but the "brandishing" was all in your head. All Derek said was "MeFi user 44"; how is that different from me saying "MeFi user 14752"? Is he supposed to not mention his user number because people with a bad case of MeFi ParaNoia might feel bad because it's lower than theirs? Jesus.

I haven't fallen for either story (unlike you?)

Sorry, not convincing. I'm not the one who impugned a professional journalist for no reason but gut feeling, and if you have that strong a gut feeling it says to me you have fallen for some story that happens to be different from the one that so upset you. As dejah says, that one is backed up by evidence all along the line; yours is backed up only by your indignation.
posted by languagehat at 6:10 AM on January 13, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Sorry, not convincing. I'm not the one who impugned a professional journalist for no reason but gut feeling, and if you have that strong a gut feeling it says to me you have fallen for some story that happens to be different from the one that so upset you. As dejah says, that one is backed up by evidence all along the line; yours is backed up only by your indignation.

It's a good thing that I could care less about convincing you, then, isn't it?

I'm not the one who impugned a professional journalist for no reason but gut feeling

That made me laugh! Thanks!
posted by The Light Fantastic at 11:15 AM on January 13, 2008

Languagehat: Ok so we've got two journalists squaring off against each other. Which one should I believe and why? Not a challenge, just looking for a reasoned explanation.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 12:14 PM on January 13, 2008

"It's a good thing that I could care less about convincing you, then, isn't it?"

So… You do care about convincing him?

The asst. ed of the Jena Times seems credible to me—what grounds do you have for dismissing his reportage? I mean, besides the Y'all Racist macro?
posted by klangklangston at 12:34 PM on January 13, 2008

The asst. ed of the Jena Times seems credible to me—what grounds do you have for dismissing his reportage?

I found the fact that his wife teaches at the school to be a little bothersome. I mean, he's hardly going to want to portray his wife's place of employment as the haunt of modern day Klansmen, is he?

Not that this caused me to doubt anything specific that he wrote, but it made me think he'd be more likely to give the school's account the benefit of the doubt than someone with no dog in the race might have done.

That said, none of these people come out of this with any credit. The obvious dirtbag in this story is the DA who made the decision to try these children as adults. Do we really believe that the DA would have charged six white kids in the same situation with attempted murder? I don't see it somehow. There's a repeated pattern of discrimination against young black men in the US criminal justice system, of which this seems to be yet another example, and yet this reporter seems to be determined to ignore that more important, larger point, by focusing on the fact that the young black men who were involved were no angels.

So while his smaller point -- that the bulk of media reporting on this issue has made errors in their attempt to portray a preconceived idea of a small racist southern town -- is unarguably true, it certainly seems to avoid any discussion of the possibility that there's a deeply embedded pattern of structural and institutional racism -- as exemplified by this DA that institutions like his newspaper have traditionally been willing to sweep under the carpet.

Reading his timeline brings home to me just how much of a moron this DA actually is, and the extent to which he played a role in creating tension at the school, but not only is there no sense of the Jena Times guy being critical of the DA -- instead, he bends over backwards to prefer his account of his actions over that of black parents and students. Good ole boys together?

Furthermore, he keeps on reiterating how the attack (and the Jena 6 do seem like a bunch of scumbags) had nothing to do with the noose incident, but his account makes it pretty clear that it occurred against a backdrop of racial tension in the town, in which the media had reported the noose issue as racially motivated, local parents had complained on that basis, and there appears to have been an ongoing history of inter-racial group attacks.

Clearly, race played some part in this incident. Rather than clarifying the role that it played, this reporter seems to want to obfuscate it. He may well think that doing so is the most desirable approach from the point of view of community relations, but it's hardly going to inspire trust from minority communities.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:12 AM on January 14, 2008

Also: the original article sucked too.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:15 AM on January 14, 2008

Am I the only one who finds brandishing one's low mefi user number unseemly?.....
Are we supposed to bow?

I'm jonmc, MeFi user 58 and creator of nothing in particular. Yes.
posted by jonmc at 4:56 AM on January 14, 2008

We all know it has been downhill for MetaFilter since user 17428. Damn that handsome sonuvabitch.
posted by chunking express at 6:21 AM on January 14, 2008

"I found the fact that his wife teaches at the school to be a little bothersome. I mean, he's hardly going to want to portray his wife's place of employment as the haunt of modern day Klansmen, is he?"

Ad hominem logic.

"Do we really believe that the DA would have charged six white kids in the same situation with attempted murder? I don't see it somehow. There's a repeated pattern of discrimination against young black men in the US criminal justice system, of which this seems to be yet another example, and yet this reporter seems to be determined to ignore that more important, larger point, by focusing on the fact that the young black men who were involved were no angels."

More ad hominem logic—that this DA is part of a system that discriminates against black men doesn't mean that these black men are necessarily being discriminated against. Further, it's easy to see a reason for ignoring that point—it's tangential (at best) to the fact that several of these kids have multiple violent assaults on their records. Oh, and hey, you want a way to avoid the racism endemic to American justice? Try not cold-cocking some kid and then stomping the shit out of him while he's unconscious. Or is that only wrong when you're white?

"as exemplified by this DA that institutions like his newspaper have traditionally been willing to sweep under the carpet. "

Really? What evidence do you have that this newspaper has traditionally been willing to sweep corruption and racism under the carpet? I mean, frankly, fuck you—that's one hell of an assumption to toss out without one good goddamn of evidence.

"Furthermore, he keeps on reiterating how the attack (and the Jena 6 do seem like a bunch of scumbags) had nothing to do with the noose incident, but his account makes it pretty clear that it occurred against a backdrop of racial tension in the town, in which the media had reported the noose issue as racially motivated, local parents had complained on that basis, and there appears to have been an ongoing history of inter-racial group attacks."

Good ol' post hoc ergo propter hoc, huh?

"Clearly, race played some part in this incident."

Bullshit. Clearly, race played some part in the reporting of this incident and the media coverage. But it is not clear that race was an essential part of six guys beating the shit out of another guy, just because they happen to be of different races.

Feel free to prove something any time, instead of just impugning reputations based on stereotypes.
posted by klangklangston at 10:50 AM on January 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Yeah, that stereotype of a man who's wife is directly involved in the story ending up writing something biased is really way out there.

I'm sure he would have written the nastiest story possible about her employer, no matter what the cost to her.

There's no reason for that to cast doubt on his account at all.
posted by tkolar at 11:23 AM on January 14, 2008

Wait, when was his wife DIRECTLY involved? I mean, you must have a source for that, right? You wouldn't just be tossing up more bullshit, because that'd be contrary to critical thinking, wouldn't it?

His points are verifiable through public documents and by news archives.
posted by klangklangston at 11:26 AM on January 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Wait, when was his wife DIRECTLY involved?

When she was employed DIRECTLY by the people he was writing a potentially negative story about.
posted by tkolar at 11:33 AM on January 14, 2008

His points are verifiable through public documents and by news archives.

Which adds points towards his credibility, as opposed to the wife thing which subtracts some.

Ignoring potential conflicts of interest does no good for anyone. And saying "Of COURSE he's an unbiased, objective observer. He's a JOURNALIST!" is downright silly.
posted by tkolar at 11:44 AM on January 14, 2008

"When she was employed DIRECTLY by the people he was writing a potentially negative story about."

No. Perhaps you need to refresh your memory about what "directly" means. His wife has a tangential involvement with the story, in that she's employed by the school. But even arguing that the school has an interest that's being served by this story is stretching credulity.

And, c'mon, arguing that this journalist, who has covered the story since the beginning, is more biased than the legions of activists who are crying racism? That's fucking bullshit, first class. His wife being involved doesn't lessen any of the points he's making, and you haven't presented any evidence than it does—all you've got is ad hominem reasoning. Which is bullshit.
posted by klangklangston at 12:02 PM on January 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Actually, what I've got is a bunch of different stories being told by a bunch of different people and I'm trying to judge their relative credibility.

IMHO the editor has more credibility than most of the activists, but that doesn't make his version of the story the gold standard.

In particular I am struggling to grasp the "The committee further concluded that the three young teens had no knowledge that nooses symbolize the terrible legacy of the lynchings of countless blacks in American history." bit, particularly the fact that the writer apparently felt fine just dropping that in there and continuing on.

If you're going to come anywhere within ten miles of publishing that quote in a public paper, you had better damn well spend a paragraph explaining why you're willing to take it at face value. Otherwise I'm going to lump you in with the people who said it in the first place as "perhaps a tad bit too credulous and in a hurry to get this matter closed."
posted by tkolar at 12:25 PM on January 14, 2008

"If you're going to come anywhere within ten miles of publishing that quote in a public paper, you had better damn well spend a paragraph explaining why you're willing to take it at face value. Otherwise I'm going to lump you in with the people who said it in the first place as "perhaps a tad bit too credulous and in a hurry to get this matter closed.""

Did you read the sentence that preceded that, as mentioned prior here by dejah420? I don't find rural kids=retarded all that hard to believe.
posted by klangklangston at 1:24 PM on January 14, 2008

I don't find rural kids=retarded all that hard to believe.

Neither do I.

I do find it hard to believe, however, that an unbiased and objective editor writing an article about the "real" state of racism in Jena would include something that provocative and then just let it go. At the very least I would expect a sentence suggesting that this stunning level of ignorance of the racial history that the kids are are heir to is a problem.

My take away about the author is that he doesn't recognize that as a problem. In fact, he seems to be pushing the idea that these kids' ignorance of the overt symbols of southern racism are a *positive sign*.
posted by tkolar at 1:56 PM on January 14, 2008

Uh, "is a *positive sign*". I are not a rural kid.
posted by tkolar at 1:57 PM on January 14, 2008

This-- from the Atlantic-- is the Jena article that does have stuff beyond what has already been covered elswhere. Much more interesting and better written.
posted by Maias at 6:44 PM on January 14, 2008

Sadly, the rest of it is behind a wall-- it was linked on another site so I thought it was full link. Sorry!!
posted by Maias at 6:45 PM on January 14, 2008