Law School Discussion

Thoughts on the Jena 6

GoldenAfro

  • ****
  • 392
  • Like It's Golden
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #230 on: October 14, 2007, 08:53:04 PM »
I think I was being unclear.  It must have been my failure to use ALL CAPS for emphasis. 

 :D  LOL

Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #231 on: October 15, 2007, 12:35:07 PM »
Seems that lots of it has been reported inaccurately

Some of us have known this for quite a while. 

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #232 on: October 16, 2007, 12:54:24 AM »
While this is all marginally interesting if not particularly surprising, I don't really see the relevance.  Two nooses or three?  Eh.  I don't think anyone was hammering on the number.

Someone (I don't remember who -- Pseudo Nym?  Galt, even?) posted some Whitlock earlier in the thread.  I hadn't, however, seen this column.  I know Alan Bean professionally, and I find it absolutely reprehensible that Whitlock -- whose agenda goes nowhere and does nothing for anyone -- would criticize Alan Bean for trying to draw attention to the issues surrounding and underlying the Barker beating.  Maybe it would be helpful to read a credible journalist's (and not a third-rate sports columnist's) account of what happened in Tulia.

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #233 on: October 17, 2007, 12:09:30 AM »
final_id, are you basing your accusations that Alan Bean is a liar on anything beyond Whitlock's column?  I agree that it's disappointing that journalists would print any advocate's version of events without fact-checking and talking to other sources, but I don't see any evidence that Bean has lied.  The inaccuracies Whitlock cites are either unattributable to Bean or seemingly inadvertent.

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #234 on: October 17, 2007, 10:38:51 AM »
My disappointment with Bean stems mostly from the Associated Press reports. Whitlock (IIRC) works on a daily newspaper instead.

The article (which was posted much earlier in the thread) highlights some inaccuracies and disputes in Jena Six reporting.  From where do you draw the inference that Bean is "LYING"?  I'm not disputing that reporters got some of the story wrong -- we agree about that, though I don't think it's as significant as you do -- but your accusations seem unfounded.

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #235 on: October 17, 2007, 11:25:25 AM »
I had understood that when it was pointed out to him recently that there were several factual inaccuracies in the reports he gave to Gannett, Chicago Trib, and BBC, Bean responded, that he knew he had changed many specifics in order to gain greater notoriety.

Where did you get this "understanding" of yours?  This isn't what the Whitlock column said, and it certainly isn't what the AP story said. 

Quote from: final_id
For example, it's pretty clear now to some AP reporters here, that Bean chose to name it as three rather than two nooses. How many nooses, is not germane to the question of whether or not an offensive symbol was presented -- one is enough. But how many IS germane to the question of whether or not he presented facts as facts. If he presented 3 as a fact, yet knew otherwise, he lied about the number. It seems this is the case.

There are other discrepancies -- misquoting deliberately Walker's speech madly out of context, and identifying it as a deliberate and selective threat to black students to intimidate them (fact: it was presented to a combined, racially mixed, whole-school assembly as part of an attempt to quell growing strife), from which the "stroke of a pen" comment was misleadingly extracted by Bean. Stating the nooses were placed "immediately" (Bean's word) after a student requested he be allowed to sit under the tree, when in fact there was a two month delay. Stating the shotgun incident involved a melee at a mixed, all-students-invited, school-sanctioned party when in fact it took place at the front door to a private residence as part of gatekeeping that prevented an assembled and aggressive one-race group from deliberately crashing (violently) a single-race (admittedly therefore racist) private party. Stating that Bell  regularly attended church -- Bean knew that he didn't, because a fellow preacher had been to Bell's home to request his more regular attendance and had reported such to Bean -- and drawing the further inference from that, that Bell is a paragon of virtue. With a juvenile arrest and punishment record which Bean is familar with. Bean doesn't just spin doctor, present facts in their most beneficial possible light, make sure people see the consistent trends behind the facts. He changes facts. Medgar Evers he ain't.

These are inaccuracies but not lies.  Saying something that turns out to be false is not necessarily lying (if you don't know what I mean, do you also have trouble with see/watch, hear/listen?  Read some Wittgenstein). It is not surprising to me that an out-of-town activist with limited connections to the town would have trouble getting a handle on all the complicated facts -- some well preceding his arrival -- swirling around in this case.  You may have additional information from these AP reporter friends of yours, but I don't think you've presented a lick of evidence that Bean is a liar, and you should be more careful about throwing around such accusations.

Quote from: final_id
Please don't make the mistake of understanding that I know utterly what I'm talking about....

Don't worry.

Quote from: final_id
Again and again I find myself saying, "Emmett Till he ain't."


Haven't we been through this already?

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #236 on: October 17, 2007, 08:45:13 PM »
I may be totally wrong about Bean. I'm sorry that any questioning of his character seems to have caused some here to get angry at the questioner. If his character were unimpeachable, then questioning it would be no threat.

It's not a "threat"; it's insulting to someone I respect a great deal -- and aggravating since it's clear you're building up a case against him out of thin air.*

Can you point me to the part of your post where you recounted your evidence about Bean's "deliberate distortions" and lies?  There is none.  You know why?  Because he came to town when he heard about the arrests, talked to the families and accused kids and his other community contacts, recorded their statements, and then put together a set of press releases and other advocacy materials based on what they said and his own observations of life in Jena.  If, for instance, as you're sure to repeat soon enough, the town minister later approached him and said, "I'm concerned these boys don't come to church as much as they need to," it doesn't make his previous statements that the boys were churchgoers mendacious, and it doesn't make him "dastardly"; it means he was misled. 

Moreover, it's not even in his interests to lie, since he's not getting anything out of this (not even personal glory, since no one except readers of Tulia has ever even heard of Friends of Justice or Alan Bean) and it could only hurt the credibility of his advocacy and his relationships with journalists (his principal asset in this world). He's trying to help people he thinks were aggrieved based on what the hundred or so people with whom he spoke told him.  Did he miss something along the way?  Should he have been more careful?  Was he too trusting?  Perhaps, but that's the job of the journalists to sort out.   He doesn't have the same ethical duties to cross-check and seek opposing viewpoints that he would if he were one of them.  He's just a guy concerned about what happened, trying to draw attention to what he sees as a racist injustice. 


*And if you seek further explanation for my crankiness with you, here you go: You are a pretentious know-it-all; you constantly spew misinformation (not lies); and you've been hostile to me, without cause, one too many times.  I'm generally pretty nice.  Ask anyone.

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • *****
  • 6525
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #237 on: January 02, 2009, 11:07:47 AM »