Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> Lawbeat

Legal News

: Lawbeat

Jena 6 portrayed in shades of gray, but incompletely

By Mark Obbie

Amy Waldman makes an important contribution to the reporting and commentary on the Jena 6 controversy in the January/February issue of The Atlantic (only a tease available here). Unfortunately, she and her editors oversell what her story actually accomplishes. But, so long as readers wear a strong pair of hype-reduction sunglasses while reading her piece, they'll gain valuable insights into this race-drenched criminal case in Louisiana.What does Waldman do well? Based on her own reporting, she explains why it pays to be skeptical of the claims that Mychal Bell, the most prominent Jena 6 defendant, was railroaded by flat-out racists, both at school and in the courts. She points out that Bell's juvenile record, including an assault that Waldman reports on more fully than before, make him less worthy of the image bestowed on him by protesters and other critics of the prosecution: that of the persecuted innocent. By the same token, Waldman deflates the prosecutor's and other whites' claims of purity, showing them to be patronizing, at best, toward the blacks in their town. Jena's "racial cliquishness" belies its white leaders' claims of racial harmony, Waldman writes. She makes her case clearly and convincingly that, as she puts it, "Neither [side's] version was correct -- and both were. The reality was complex enough that people could assemble a story line, buffet-style, to suit their outlook." She does, in this aspect of the story, what a good magazine writer should do: come in after the crisis is over to tell, through original reporting and fresh analysis, what truths were distorted or missed.I fault her, though, for not explaining more. What were Bell's codefendants' roles in the beating? What kind of histories and reputations do they have? What was the legal rationale for charging -- pretty clearly over-charging -- Bell with attempted second-degree murder? What evidence was produced at the trial to justify, or not, the felony verdict of aggravated second-degree battery? What, besides political compromise, justified the plea deal for misdemeanor second-degree battery? And how were other beatings and fights handled by those courts? These aren't just another layer of detail, or off the core point of the piece. They are the proof to support the writer's point of view about Bell's and the DA's actions.If Waldman fell short, her editors went overboard. The headline and deck are part of the problem:Too many questions are ignored to hold out this story as "the truth" about the case. It's only a slice of the case, more personality and impressionism than hard facts. And where did that dek come from? The story doesn't even try to broaden the focus to everything that America does with race controversies. Now that The Atlantic has said as much as it's likely to say on this case, who else will step up with a more complete, but similarly nuanced, portrait of a race-and-crime controversy that was overblown by advocates and poorly explained by too many reporters?For my previous posts on the Jena 6 case, go here, here, here, and here.

Full post as published by Lawbeat on January 10, 2008 (boomark / email).