Talk:Jena Six/Media

message: I recently found out about this case from the YouTube video The Jena 6. The article seems to be overall well sourced, but obviously has some formatting issues and needs significant clean up. Please leave suggestions and commentary. --Coldbourne 00:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bell's criminal past has been in the article since it was released... It's under the "Mychal Bell" section of "Trial, prosecution, and legal proceedings". Ophois 18:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Seeing as the convictions were on his juvenile record, nobody knew about the prior incidents until they were brought up.Ophois 20:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: YouTube

message: The case of the Jena 6 has highlighted a new dimension to the world of public debate, namely online activism.  As evidence by the increasing popularity of websites such as Facebook, Youtube, Wiki and others, more and more people are researching topics online and sharing their opinions.  
This new forum has increased peoples ability to get much more factual information where people do not need to rely on the mainstream media to provide biased reporting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peskytruth (talk • contribs) 22:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Online activism has been an important aspect of this case.  The mainstream media, contrary to what many right-wingers believe, actually ignored this case for months.  Why don't you jump in and start the Online Activism section of the article and we'll see where we can go from there? Qworty 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just made a section on internet and Blogs that talks about this. There is a lot of great information out there about how the word spread so fast before mainstream media picked up this story. futurebird 19:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have had trouble adding to the section on internet blogs etc.. any thoughts?  It is an important aspect of this case and I strongly believe that without this level of internet discussion this case would not be a topic of discussion around the world.  Mainstream media are paying attention because they have been forced to catch up. Peskytruth 06:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know why there should be any trouble with this new section it's well sourced. . futurebird 12:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online Activity 

message: Many news sites seem to contradict what NPR says with regards to Justin Barker bragging. It's been acknowledged that he taunted one of the Jena 6 (more specifically Bailey). The article also seems outdated (July 30) considering the recent influx of facts (which I assume can be attributed to increased national media coverage).Jim 05:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a specific example of a source that contradicts NPR? Ophois 22:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: apologies, contradict is probably the wrong word to use. However, most reliable sources I see refer to it as taunting. None of us were there(presumably) so we don't know what Barker's demeanor was when he was saying this. It just seems more sources use a word less potent. Sorry for the late responseJim 05:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since when is NPR not a reliable source? 209.159.98.1 17:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must have misunderstood. I wasn't asserting that NPR is an unreliable source. I was stating most reliable sources have referred to it as taunting. If you really want me to question NPR, look at some of the information they present in citation 3. Compare that to the information we have now.Jim 18:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPR quote with regards to Justin Barker "bragging" 

message: Apparently we have another "duke rape scandal" here, where the mass media is getting everything wrong by heresay, either that or the bias in wording of this wiki is atrocious. please read the entireity of the chronology in the Jana times to get the real info. http://www.thejenatimes.net/home_page_graphics/home.html
:Have you read the article here? Other than a few facts, it basically matches up with the timeline in your reference. However, thank you for providing it, as it does give some good info. Ophois 02:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uhh, no. This wiki is full of bias. The "claim" that the prosecutor looked at the black students with his pen comment is complete lie. The fact the FBI and the US Atorney for the state have thoroughly reviewed everything in the town including all these side events and have found no evidence of any infringement of civil rights is buring in a bunch of confusing text slapped together in random places. I still don't even see how any of the "other" things have anything to do with the Jena 6.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.117.71 (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if their claim was false (that part has been removed anyway), it was still a cited claim, which was followed by the administrators and people saying otherwise. And I find it interesting that you ask why the side incidents are on this page, when the article you reference details nearly all the side incidents on this page. The side incidents are in this article because a) some of the incidents involve those accused, b) they are still connected to the whole story by the media and everyone else, whether they influenced the attack or not. Ophois 02:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  a) No, they do not. Where do you come up with this? More MISinformation? b.) proof? I think a history of spouse and child abuse were pretty connected to bobby cutts mudering his unborn child and the childs mother. But no-no. That's nto allowed! I can't "prove" they have anything to do with each other. So why is it that is evoked to protect Bobby cutts image, yet we have all these other incidents which there is no proof of a connection to the Jena 6???? Race and bias at wikipedia? Nah, that never happens.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.117.71 (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, I guess you didn't even read the article you gave... according to your article, Robert Bailey was involved in at least 2 of the 4 preceding events. Ophois 03:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And by the way, the wiki article on the Cutts case does mention allegations of previous abuse. Please fully read stuff before arguing about them. Ophois 03:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh, it mentions allegations of abuse, but what kind of abuse and directed at WHOM and just how severe was it? And btw, the Sherif's department in Jena already released a statement that there was no connection found between earlier incidents and the attack of Barker. But as usual at wikipedia, everything is amde up on the fly and the only POV that ever gets in is the guy with a mod in his back pocket.68.187.117.71 05:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMPORTANT Jena times

message: I removed part of the columnists section because those facts have appeared in news stories (which is why we have them in the article). If we want to mention facts left out, then we need a source that points out that stuff, not just columnists who give facts. There should be a lot of links throughout the discussion page for the Controversy section that we were going to make. Ophois 17:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK.  I think we are seeing more and more columns commenting on how the packaged story differs from the reality.--Wehwalt 20:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columnists 

message: Shouldn't "or that the jury was all-white because none of those summoned who showed up were black" by changed to something more like "or that the jury was all-white because none of the african americans summoned for jury duty that day showed up to serve" because wasn't it verified that several african americans were part of the jury selection summons sent out that day? The way it currently is written it leaves some confussion if any blacks were summoned at all in the process, and I thought that issue was resovled, that summons HAD been sent to blacks, it's just none bothered to show up on the day of jury selection.  If I'm wrong and this wasn't resolved in the media earlier, ignore this. And if no blacks were even part of the jury summoning process at all, even in the mailings, shouldn't that then be added (since given the population demographics that would be odd). Either way, it seems like it would be relevant to one side or the other.
: Crap... Sorry for deleting your reply Ophois... I was trying to correct a typo and something else and accidently removed your response. If I knew how to put it back I would but I only know how to screw wiki up not fix it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.188.221 (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's okay. Thanks for pointing out the mistake. It's been fixed. Ophois 19:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under Newsreporting