The writer, a local journalist, makes an extremely powerful case that everything we know about the Jena 6 isn't true. He's written a commentary, and the form requires that we either take his word for it or not. I find him compelling, but would prefer a well-sourced news story on the same topic.

Struck by the lack foundation, I went to the linked chronology, where virtually nothing has any back up evidence and, once again, it's all the media's fault. The deck is stacked: a verbatim of the principal's rambling radio claim that the school is safe gets about 800 words, a verbatim of the DA's disjointed claim that he wasn't threatening the black students gets about 900 words plus another roughly 400 for others' (agreeing) interpretation of his remarks. Meanwhile, a black parent's statement to the school board gets only a mention, even though she read it from a prepared text that should have been easy enough to obtain and been roughly 600 words to print. A very detailed description of a fire that everyone agrees was ... More »

This commentary is suspect from the beginning because it denies the significance of the nooses. And, if the nooses were really so inconsequential, why was the tree cut down? The tree's fate is never mentioned, either in the Christian Science interview, nor in the chronology offered by the Jena newspaper. As far as I'm concerned, this story, lacking names of virtually all sources, should never have achieved the level of being printed in a major paper.

Although there are numerous places where the author offers specific evidence supporting his claim, it also appears that there are a number of alternative interpretations that are not very carefully considered.

I had read much of the background and context information presented here in the Charlotte Observer several weeks ago. As I recall, it was a wire service piece. While both articles help tone down the hype, neither has addressed why charges of attempted murder were lodged by the DA in a case where the victim according to many accounts, supposedly corroborated by many witnesses, attended a school event that evening.

It is important to have Mr. Franklin's version of the events. But, just because he lives there, has covered the story from "the very beginning," and his wife is a teacher at the school does not necessarily give his version credence. It gives his version. And this artcile has no other version or other source.

Fairly good journalism because it presents an alternative view from the publicly held stories of the time. Having a link to persue the story further is good and gives the reader the chance to get any questions answered that still linger.

If this author is right, most of what has been reported about this incident thus far is wrong! According tot he author, "The media got most of the basics wrong. In fact, I have never before witnessed such a disgrace in professional journalism. Myths replaced facts, and journalists abdicated their solemn duty to investigate every claim because they were seduced by a powerfully appealing but false narrative of racial injustice." Powerful stuff...

Article includes multiple inaccuracies, ranging from opinions stated as facts ("Jena is a wonderful place to live for both whites and blacks") to implied falsehoods ("Jena 6 as Model Youth. While some members were simply caught up in the moment, others had criminal records" -- this implies more than one of the Jena 6 had criminal records, when only one actually did) to outright lies ("the [noose-hanging] incident did not meet the legal criteria for a federal hate crime" - the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, Donald Washington, stated that the incident was indeed a federal hate crime, but they opted not to prosecute because it was committed by juveniles). With multiple inccuracies and many more statements ... More »

This article presents information collected directly in the town by a journalist who is thoroughly familiar with the issue and the background. The article is written clearly and provides much information. The issue is a significant one for the press especially because of the thorough mishandling of the Duke University lacrosse team members issue. Here seems to be another example of ideological slant in the majority of the media distorting their reporting in a similar way. This national newspaper deserves credit for providing a more accurate picture of the events in question.

Although it's very possible that this account of the Jena 6 situation is true, I have no reason to believe this person anymore than I do the officials involved. The problem is that if this was a racial thing, why should I trust the authorities involved? That's really what the media went after, that the authorities acted in a racist manner. If the information in this story is true, there must be some way to verify it without references the very people who are being accused of racism.

The story reads as extremely opinionated and offers no independent evidence that the author's views and interpretations are any less erroneous than the presumed myths he decries. For example, to claim that hanging a noose near a racially mixed school is not a prevocative racial gesture, given the well known and much publicised racial history in Louisiana and its recent situation in New Orleans, is at least a very naive view of the motives of the noose hangers, or worse, is biased and provocative in itself.

The CSM is a reliable source. I do wish they named another source or two. The media does sensationalize stories. That's why I know more than I want to about Paris & OJ. Is mass-media too embarrassed to report this version of the story?

Keep up the good work.

No, unless it is offered as a column, not a news article.