Site logo

Prometheus 6

All respect and no restraint

Revs Redux

Media "Discovers" Jena Six 30 Seconds After Sharpton, Jackson

ABC News gave some attention to the Jena Six in a brief blog post, but the first full fledged article on their website comes, courtesy of the AP, only with the news of Sharpton's visit to Jena. Forbes, The Chicago Sun-Times, The Chicago Tribune, and the LA Times found space and time for coverage of the Jena Six only after Sharpton's announcement that he was visiting Jena. America's most prestigious newspaper, the New York Times, opened its hallowed pages to the story only to note that Sharpton was becoming involved. This only days after the Times owned International Herald Tribune gave American citizens in France the lowdown on the Jena Six.

Of the mainstream news organizations that decided this story was newsworthy prior to Sharpton's visit, (all weeks after the BBC) Fox News has posted exactly four articles from the Associated Press on the subject, all of which omit major details in the case, and one of which is about Sharpton. CNN covered the story, poorly, in a brief segment that ends all but calling for Mychal Bell to be sent to prison for decades for a schoolyard fight in which he may not even have participated. It omits that Justin Barker left the hospital the night of the beating and attended a school function that evening. Likewise, an NBC news segment omits vital details. And while the Associated Press did not give coverage to the NAACP's call for justice for the Jena Six, they did cover their press release on Michael Vick.

I've figured out an analogy

...that works.

I hope that they are able to get something accomplished, and the increased transparency is helpful.
But while not ambulance chasers they are the equivalent of rainmakers. There are a few possible explanations for the phenomenon you describe:
1. Jackson and Sharpton come...and their presence immediately sparks a media outrage.
2. Jackson and Sharpton both figure the odds of the media coming, and decide to make an appearance.
3. Someone calls both the media and the revs, running a bait and switch.
4. The two events just so happen to come together.
We can toss out 4 of course. Probably 3 as well, though it is possible. #1 is the narrative that works best for the two of them....though the Shaquanda Cotton case doesn't fit this at all. #2 is the one that makes the most sense to me. I remember dealing with one of Sharpton's associates during a sit-in in Michigan, and his questions all revolved around media presence. Will the media cover the story? How big did I think this story was? Did it make sense for him to come?
Working on the assumption that at every point there are a number of actions like this that they COULD participate in, and the secondary assumption that their resources are limited, they are going to choose issues that are likely to fit a couple of key criteria:
1. The media will cover the case.
2. They can win.
3. They can be perceived as playing key roles in the victory.

Actually, I figure the

Actually, I figure the Reverends notify the media themselves. That's part of drawing attention to things. And yes, I'm also sure they figure the odds of the media showing sometimes. Everyone does. Sen. Clinton does.

I dont know if 2 fits here

I dont know if 2 fits here because there was barely a sniff about this case.  I'm thinking there is more attention that has been given to the mother in West Palm Beach who was gang raped in Dunbar Village than what is going on in Jena, LA.

But I guess someone could say because the guilty are black they dont want to touch it.  

I'm of the belief they will never be able to do anything right, particularly in the eyes of some black folks. I wonder what would happen if they just packed up, went away and were never heard from again.

The reverends rarely deal

The reverends rarely deal with intra-racial conflict the likes of which you describe unless it is on the cultural front (both reverends have long called for rap artists to curtail their lyrics). And for me it isn't so much about "not doing anything right." 

The comparison with Sen. Clinton for example is an apt one but for the fact that Clinton can be voted out of office. Neither of the reverends can...which means that the flip side of them "not being able to do anything right" is that they really can't do anything wrong. Sure they'll have negative press about them, but what is the adage about bad press?
This site best viewed with a jaundiced eye