Al Sharpton and Chicago Tribune correspondent, Howard Witt appeared on the O’Reilly Factor a couple of nights ago to talk about Jena 6 money.  I don’t usually watch the Factor (largely because my wife and I didn’t break down and get cable until a few months ago).  But I was watching Wednesday night because an O’Reilly staffer had asked me to appear with Witt and Sharpton.  Inevitably, I was bumped, but I tuned in nonetheless.

Howard Witt knew he was on the show to state whatever facts could presently be discerned: a lot of money has been donated directly to the Jena 6 parents; to date, no accounting of this money has been made; contrary to internet rumor, there is no evidence that the money is being used inappropriately; Dallas-based radio personality Michael Baisden has also collected money; no one knows how much Baisden has raised or how the funds have been dispersed; Mr. Baisden has accused James Rucker’s ColorofChange organization of “shady” dealings; ironically, ColorofChange is the only organization associated with the Jena 6 fundraising effort to have made a full financial disclosure.

From these facts, Fox News conjured up a headline that says far more about Fox News than it says about the Jena 6 fundraising effort: “New Reports Claim Nearly Half a Million Dollars Donated to Jena Six is Missing.”

Howard Witt never hinted that any funds are “missing”.  He merely stated that spurious claims have been made by Mr. Baisden; that it is Mr. Baisden who needs to account for his Jena-related fundraising; and that the parents need to quell unfounded rumors by making a full financial disclosure.  The parent-controlled account lies in a bank in Jena, Lousiana.  I repeat, no funds are missing.

Bill O’Reilly and Al Sharpton understand one another.  Bill needs to have Al on his show every so often because Al knows how to turn it on for the cameras.  Al likes to be on the O’Reilly show because his status as a civil rights celebrity depends on being celebrated–and in America, that means being asked to appear on shows like the O’Reilly Factor.  By having Sharpton on his program, Bill deflects criticism that he is a racist nut-job. 

As Jon Stewart suggests, the American conversation has devolved into a Hardball-style screaming match between liberal and conservative partisans.  When ratings are at stake, nuance spells death.  Darth Vader needs Luke Skywalker; Luke needs Darth.  Bill needs Al; Al needs Bill.

Bill asked Al about Michael.  Al defended Michael.  The man asked a few questions; answers were given; case closed.

I wish it were that simple.  Ever since Michael Baisden, Al Sharpton et al entered the Jena fight, James Rucker has been putting out fires.  I have been with the ColorOfChange leader in Jena on several occasions and I’ve witnessed the agony.  Mr. Baisden has been tapping out a narrative of suspicion re: ColorofChange for months now.  Long before the September 20th march, I was on a radio talk show in Chicago.  A caller said, “I’ve been hearing over the radio that money raised for the Jena 6 isn’t getting to the families.  I gave $25 so those kids could hire good lawyers; should I be asking for my money back.”

“Well, Dr. Bean,” the host replied, “what advice would you give this woman?”

It wasn’t hard to stick my finger in that particular dam-leak.  Unfortunately, thanks to Mr. Baisden’s irresponsible rhetoric, similar questions were being posed in contexts where no one was around to provide simple answers. 

Meanwhile, Mr. Baisden was asking his listeners to send their Jena 6 contributions (more accurately, their Mychal Bell contributions) to him.

I never had a problem with Michael Baisden raising money for the Jena 6.  James Rucker didn’t have a problem with it either.  But how do we explain the constant anti-ColorOfChange innuendo?

Al Sharpton doesn’t think an explanation is necessary because Michael Baisden did so much to bring thousands of people to Jena.  I’m sorry; but success in one arena, however significant, doesn’t give anyone a free ethical ride. 

In fact, the very success of the march on Jena unleashed a string of consequences, some good, some bad, some downright ugly. 

Would we have seen 20,000 marchers in Jena without the involvement of Mssrs. Baisden, Jackson, Sharpton, etc? Obviously not.  If it had been left to the folks planning the event prior to the involvement of the celebrity figures (ColorOfChange, student groups at traditionally black colleges like Howard, the Black Blogoshere, Friends of Justice, etc.) we might have seen 2,500-5,000 people in Jena on September 20th.

Would a smaller rally have been a bad thing?

It all depends.  If the goal was to flex organizing muscle and send a signal, the massive turnout was terrific.  But if we’re talking about improving the legal fortunes of six young defendants, the waters muddy.

Why have we not received a full financial accounting of the Jena 6 moneys under the control of the parents? 

For one thing, until last week, no one had requested an accounting. 

But there’s another reason.  Until recently, the Jena 6 families have been so distracted with constant demands for interviews and invitations to appear in places like DC and Atlanta, that they haven’t had the time or energy to worry about how much money was in the bank account.

Al Sharpton’s people called Friends of Justice to get contact information for the families in Jena–that was the last we heard from them.  On July 31st, at the conclusion of a rally that drew 300 people to Jena from across the country, the original grassroots organizers were sitting under a big white tent with representatives from all six Jena 6 families.  The mood was relaxed.  Hopes were high.  Morale was strong. 

Then we got the call from our first civil rights celebrity.  Al Sharpton told the parents that he would come to Jena if two conditions were met: (a) he wanted several SUVs to pick up his entourage in New Orleans, and (b) he wanted to be the familys’ sole media representative.

The results were predictable; a few parents quickly acceded to Sharpton’s demands; others were adamantly opposed; a third group wasn’t sure what to do–they had no problems with Sharpton’s involvement, but they weren’t fussy about the terms.

 Sharpton solved the problem by giving the lion’s share of his attention to one family while ignoring those unwilling to play by his rules.  Soon Jesse Jackson was focusing on a second 6 family.  Nothing helps fundraising more than having a real live Jena 6 victim to show off in Chicago.

How did the families feel about this?  They didn’t know how to respond.  When your child’s life is on the line you want all the allies you can get.

Meanwhile, communication between the Jena 6 families became increasingly difficult.  Initially, parents would get together to count the money, keep the books, and write thank you notes.  But as the media circus expanded from one ring, to two, then three, the parents stopped getting together.  Phones were ringing from dawn to dusk.  Some parents had mixed feelings about the barrage of interest; others stopped answering their phones.  Some were willing to tolerate the hype for the sake of the fight; others withdrew in disgust.

The oft-lamented lapses in judgment (a defendant shoving money in his mouth on MySapce; two others “thuggin” for the cameras at the BET awards) cannot be fairly evaluated apart from this context.  The behind-the-scenes trauma of the Jena 6 and their parents should be nobody’s business–these people deserve their privacy.  But it is now in their best interest that a few salient facts be disclosed.

The young man who stuffed the bills in his mouth was mimicking the behavior of the rags-to-riches Hip Hop artists he listens to.  His MySpace page was getting hits from immature adolescents across the country.  In their eyes, the young defendant was a full-blown celebrity.  So he did what celebrities do–he put on a little show for the cameras following a script created by the performers he admired. 

This kid lives below the poverty line.  His mother is too poor to afford a car.  He shares an eight-by-eight bedroom with his younger brother.  Was the video a mistake?  Obviously.  But the entire affair was a direct (albeit unintended) result of the Sharpton-Baisden celebrity show.  Al and Mike can handle the hype–adolescent boys cannot.

Consider the BET fiasco.  Who invited these kids to travel to Atlanta?  Who handed them the tickets?  When they showed up in Sunday-go-to-meeting suits, who suggested they change into the Hip Hop duds?  Who’s idea was it to parade vulnerable defendants in front of the cameras?  In a celebrity culture like ours, a standing ovation was inevitable.  Of course the kids “thugged” for the cameras–they watch BET, so they know the drill. 

Now, suppose only 2500 people had come to Jena on September 20th; would the event have been frontpage news?  Probably not.  Would invitations to DC, New York and Atlanta have been issued if student leaders and no-name grassroots organizers had been in charge?  Nope. 

Now let’s flip the equation.  Apart from the celebrity factor, there would have been no MySpace video (and if there had been, nobody would have noticed).  Apart from ersatz, media generated star-power, the Jena 6 defendants would never have been invited to Atlanta to hand a trophy to Kanye West and mug for the cameras. 

More significantly, apart from the Al-Michael-Jesse show, the families would have maintained their initial unity.  You wouldn’t see a confused father being crudely manipulated by a media celebrity on national radio.  Mr. Witt wouldn’t have had an article to write and Mr. Sharpton wouldn’t have been asked to appear on the Factor.

Furthermore, the pre-celebrity media attention the Jena 6 story generated was perfectly sufficient to attract the attention and concern of gifted attorneys nationwide.  These dedicated men and women were lining up behind the Jena 6 long before September 20th.  Most of the attorneys currently involved in the fight for justice are media-averse individuals who do their best talking in the courtroom. 

Can you attract attention to injustice without celebrity support?  I wish I knew.

But one thing is clear: if your hands wander too close to the celebrity fire they are likely to get burned. 

I had nothing to do with attracting celebrity figures to this fight.  I can take no credit for the Jena 6 phenomenon that swept the nation in September.  Thus, I refuse to take responsibility for the media-generated fiascos that followed in the wake of this event. 

The Jena 6 parents have held up admirably under the onslaught.  They know they need to get the money into the hands of a trustee with a reputation for integrity, and they will.  Money isn’t missing.  This was a minor problem with a simple solution until celebrities started firing inexplicable broadsides at grassroots organizers.

The media’s interest in the money shows that Jena has legs.  We won’t be seeing any headlines until things fire up in the courtroom.  So let’s all sit back and let the lawyers work quietly behind the scenes.  The fate of the Jena 6 is now in their hands.

New Reports Claim Nearly Half A Million Dollars Donated to Jena Six is Missing

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Fox News

BILL O’REILLY, HOST: “Impact” segment tonight, you may remember the case of the Jena Six. African-American high school students charged with beating a white student after a racial incident at Jena High School, in Arkansas.

Reverend Al Sharpton and other civil rights leaders rallied to assist the six students. And reports say about $500,000 was raised for their defense.

Now there are questions about where that money has gone. Pictures of defendant Robert Bailey with $100 bills have surfaced on the Net. Two other defendants appeared well heeled at a music awards event they traveled to.

Joining us now from Washington, where he’s leading a march for justice on Friday, is Al Sharpton. And from Dallas, Texas, Howard Witt, who broke the story for The Chicago Tribune.

You know, I like The Chicago Tribune. I think it’s one of the few newspapers in the country where you get an honest appraisal of the news. But if you had to put a headline on this story, Mr. Witt, what would it be?

HOWARD WITT, CHICAGO TRIBUNE: Well, I think the headline would be lots of question marks around the funds that were collected for the Jena Six defendants. There’s been rumors about the fate of that money floating around the Internet as you mentioned for quite a while now. Several weeks, but the controversy really broke into the open last week when Michael Basin, who’s a prominent black talk radio host based here in Dallas, actually went on the air and accused a group called Color of Change of having actually somehow been shady with the money.

The irony of that is that Color of Change, which has raised about $212,000 for the Jena Six defendants, they’re the only group in all of this that actually has been completely transparent about how they have distributed the money. And they’ve basically shown how they have paid it all out to the attorneys.

There’s a lot of other questions regarding the rest of this money hanging out there. And including Michael Basin himself, who until I started asking questions about it, he himself was not forthcoming about how he had distributed the money. So there’s a lot of questions.

O’REILLY: OK, how many charities are there? And they’re not really charities because they were just funds set up. But how many funds are there that are helping these defendants?

WITT:Well, it’s an unknown question how many there really are. There’s a lot of Internet scammers out there who were raising money on behalf of the Jena Six. And no one knows where that money went.

But of the big major groups, there’s Color of Change which is an Internet based civil rights group and an established group. There’s the NAACP. And there’s a group called the Jena Six Defense Fund. That is money that is controlled by the parents themselves. And it’s sitting in a bank account in Jena, Louisiana, controlled by the parents. Those are the major sources.

O’REILLY:All right, so the parents themselves are controlling — now we hear that the parents have bought Escalades, big cars, are driving around in them since these funds were established. Is that true?

WITT: No, I — I have no — see no evidence that that’s true. That’s one of the rumors that’s out there. There’s no evidence that that’s the case. The problem is in the absence of any kind of transparency about this money.

O’REILLY: Yes, you don’t know. You don’t know. But you haven’t found out that they did indeed spend money on expensive cars? That you haven’t found out, OK.

WITT: No, there’s no evidence that they’ve misused the money, but no one knows for sure because.

O’REILLY: Well, what — all right, what about this Robert Bailey, the picture where he’s holding $100 bills and his mother says that he earned this money parking cars. Do you know anything about this specifically?

WITT: Yes, in fact, I talked to his mother about that. Not parking cars. He works as a parks maintenance worker down there in Jena. She claims that that’s money he earned on his job. It could be.

The question is, you know, it wasn’t a very smart thing for him to do to be seen posing with this money, because again it just seems like

O’REILLY: Yes, $100 bills, I mean, that’s a lot of park maintenance.

All right, Reverend Sharpton, now when you have this kind of a flow of funds — and you’ve been doing this for a long time — into a system where there is an umbrella accountability here, one agency is accountable, the others aren’t, there is, you know, the perception that something may be going wrong because a half million dollars is a lot of dough. How do you see it?

AL SHARPTON, REV., CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER:Well, I think, first of all, let’s not confuse many of us that were involved had nothing to do with the fundraising. National Action Network, my group, had nothing to do with any of the funds. And so when we say civil rights leaders protested and put all that in with who’s on the Internet, those are not the same parties.

Secondly, I think that when you talk about the group Color of Change did over $200,000, that’s half of the money that you’re saying was raised. So half of it, you are saying is transparent.

As I understand state law, that you make annual reports. And people are required to report what they did in `07 and `08. So are we asking here for people to have to do a transparent report before it is due? And whether or not that is a legal requirement is another question, I don’t know.

I would be — I’m very happy to hear him say that there is no evidence that the parents have bought Escalades. There’s no evidence of people running around, misusing the money personally with the family. So I think this is all about a distraction.

I think Michael Basdin, because he was one of the moving forces of the protests, has this for Friday, was concerned about that and concerned about the families. And he legitimately raised it. He used his platform to do it.

When there was answers, he apologized. And I think that’s the responsible thing to do. But I think in any movement, there’s always distractions. At the end of the day, what are we saying? The parents we don’t think did anything. We don’t know who did, but it just looks funny.

O’REILLY: Well, it looks funny. And whenever you have cash, you guys know, whenever there’s cash coming in, you got to account for it.

SHARPTON: All right. Well, let me ask a question. Do you, Mr. Witt, have any evidence that someone has done something wrong with the money? Who? I mean, let’s say. Rather than tarnish a movement for justice with some ifs and maybes, be straight. What is it that you’re saying is happening?

O’REILLY: Well, I think he’s just raising questions. I mean, Mr. Witt — as a journalist, I would raise them, too.

SHARPTON: Well, let’s raise the question about unequal justice. Let’s raise the question about the cost.

O’REILLY: Well, I think we’ve already done that, reverend. You’ve been on this program and every other program raising the questions.

SHARPTON:You’ve been very fair about that, Mr. O’Reilly. But what I’m saying is to raise the question without any substantive charge is really a distraction.

O’REILLY: No, no, no. That’s where you’re — reverend, now if I’m going to train you in journalism, you got to listen to me now.

SHARPTON: All right. Go ahead.

O’REILLY:You raise the question and then evidence comes forth.

SHARPTON: Right.

O’REILLY: It’s like Watergate.

SHARPTON: And my question is.

O’REILLY: You have a little evidence, and then it starts to grow. This is a legitimate story.

SHARPTON:My question is if you are showing me journalism, the question is that if you’re already saying there’s no Escalades, there’s no evidence of splurging, then what is the question?

O’REILLY: The question is where’s the other $250,000? And what’s being done with it? Gentlemen..

SHARPTON: And who are you asking the question.

O’REILLY: And we will stay on this story. Reverend.

SHARPTON: And you need to ask those that raised it, because.

O’REILLY: And we are going to do it. We’re going to do it.

SHARPTON: (INAUDIBLE) did not raise the money.

O’REILLY: All right.

SHARPTON: And I think he would tell you that.

O’REILLY: If you want to get some exercise, you can join the reverend in D.C. on Friday. He’ll be marching for justice as we do here every day on “The Factor .” Gentlemen, thanks very much.