Jump to content
The Education Forum

How Max Holland Duped the Daily Beast


Recommended Posts

Max is up to his old tricks again.

This essay he published in Daily Beast is a piece  he has been marketing for over 15 years.  Apparently he still got Daily Beast to cough up a few bucks for a rerun, for the fourth time. Which shows how the new media is pretty close to the old media on the JFK case.  And also how Max refuses to acknowledge the facts decalcified by the ARRB.  And this is about 20 years on.  The Beast got suckered.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/how-max-holland-duped-the-daily-beast

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one wants to comment on how Max Holland sold a 16 year old essay to Daily Beast, and they then headlined it?

 

I mean to me that says it all about the supposed new online media.  And also about Max.  Not is he just not very candid, he is lazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've long suspected that Holland works for the CIA. Upon seeing his article, How the KGB Duped Oliver Stone, being published in the Daily Beast, I thought it would only be fair that readers be warned of that fact... if it is indeed a fact. And that they should be directed to your rebuttal, How Max Holland Duped the Daily Beast.

So I did some digging and found that Mark Lane states in his book, Last Word, that Holland does work for the CIA. I don't have the book, so I couldn't readily find his source or evidence for the assertion. But Lane does point out in the book that Holland writes regularly for the CIA's website. That, and Lane's good name, was good enough for me.

Unfortunately, when I went to post my warning to the readers of the article, I found that reader comments are not allowed for that article.

So yes, I wanted to comment... but couldn't.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I've long suspected that Holland works for the CIA. Upon seeing his article, How the KGB Duped Oliver Stone, being published in the Daily Beast, I thought it would only be fair that readers be warned of that fact... if it is indeed a fact. And that they should be directed to your rebuttal, How Max Holland Duped the Daily Beast.

So I did some digging and found that Mark Lane states in his book, Last Word, that Holland does work for the CIA. I don't have the book, so I couldn't readily find his source or evidence for the assertion. But Lane does point out in the book that Holland writes regularly for the CIA's website. That, and Lane's good name, was good enough for me.

Unfortunately, when I went to post my warning to the readers of the article, I found that reader comments are not allowed for that article.

So yes, I wanted to comment... but couldn't.

 

Google Books shows quite a few pages talking about Holland: https://books.google.com/books?id=nsItAgAAQBAJ&q=holland#v=snippet&q=holland&f=false

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is interesting Sandy.

No better way to deny an open debate about JFK than to prevent anyone from commenting on the source of the disinfo.

It always bugged me about Daily Beast that Tina Brown was the editor for about three years.  Her husband Harry Evans was the prime mover behind Case Closed, along with fellow Random House manager Bob Loomis.

And then Brown hired Posner as the Daily Beast's chief investigative reporter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is interesting Sandy.

No better way to deny an open debate about JFK than to prevent anyone from commenting on the source of the disinfo.

It always bugged me about Daily Beast that Tina Brown was the editor for about three years.  Her husband Harry Evans was the prime mover behind Case Closed, along with fellow Random House manager Bob Loomis.

And then Brown hired Posner as the Daily Beast's chief investigative reporter.

Not to be contrary, Jim, but there are a number of conspiracy websites--including yours and my own--that disallow comments.

As far as Max, I have great doubts he's taking marching orders from the CIA.

By pushing out a bunch of interviews with Putin in which Putin is allowed to make himself look like the good guy--at a time when it's quite clear to most everyone he is not--Oliver has made himself a target for both the left and the right. It was an opportune time for Max to dredge up his crap about Oliver and the KGB. So he did.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KennedysandKing.com does not have comments for the simple reason that we don't offer the technology to do so.

I thought Sandy was saying that they did not offer comments for that particular article at Daily Beast.  Am I wrong on this?  I thought they were like Huffpo and that they offered comments as a rule.

The ostensible reason that Max trotted out the article for the fourth time was the alleged anniversary of a 1967 article from the New Orleans States Item dealing with Jim Garrison's investigation. Max isolated two of the original article's 32 paragraphs in his piece.  (I have the article if you do not believe me.)  He then used a very dubious claim about the two paragraphs to say that  this was why Garrison pointed to the CIA as his prime suspect.  As I wrote in my article this was false on its face.  And I showed why.  Holland then tried to link Oliver Stone to that (spurious) claim for making the film JFK based upon Garrison's book. That film was released in 1991.  So I fail to see how Holland's article about Garrison's book and Stone's film relates to Stone talking with Putin in 2017.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim - I see Pat's point, if Holland's regurgitated article it in some way a hit piece on Stone. I really don't feel like reading any of it, so if I'm mischaracterizing the article my apologies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Not to be contrary, Jim, but there are a number of conspiracy websites--including yours and my own--that disallow comments.


The difference, Pat, is that news sites traditionally allow reader comments. Other sites may or may not.

That said, I just went to The Daily Beast website to see if I could determine what their commenting policy is. To my great surprise, I learned they did away with reader comments two years ago. I found this note regarding that move:

A Note to Our Readers

As of today, we will be removing the commenting function off our site.

08.19.15 3:59 PM ET

Like many of our fellow publications, we have noticed that the conversation around our articles is increasingly happening on social networks, not in the commenting section. More and more of you are reaching out directly to our authors to engage in lively and considered back-and-forth on Twitter, Facebook and other channels. We are hoping this decision will encourage and amplify more of this conversation.

Now, this doesn’t mean that commenting is gone forever: We are looking at multiple ways to bring you an upgraded commenting experience and would value your feedback at tech@thedailybeast.com.

Best,The Daily Beast Team


So apparently there are some ways that readers can respond. By Facebook or Tweeter, neither of which I use myself.

Presumably this means that a group of people who follow each other are able to discuss articles amongst themselves. There is no way to reach all readers of an article.

It is my opinion that the Daily Beast merely found a way to cut costs. Moderation is no longer needed.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

As far as Max, I have great doubts he's taking marching orders from the CIA.


One thing that is clear to me is that either Holland isn't much of a scholar, or he has found a niche that benefits him monetarily -- scholarship be damned. I've read some of his work, and I believe it's the latter. Which is why I refuse to read any more. (Thank goodness Jim D. is willing to do so.) IMO Holland is in the CIA's pocket.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Studies for Intelligence is an official CIA publication.  That was one of the places that Holland had the previous printings of this article published at.  And he did get paid for that printing, a thousand dollars.  He admitted that himself.

If Daily Beast paid him for this version, then he got paid again for dusting off a sixteen year old essay.  Which was my point.  This is how bad the new MSM is on the JFK case.  What with the last disbursements of the ARRB upcoming, with a genuine debate over how many of those documents exist, with a mock trial coming up in Houston, and this is what they give us on JFK?  A sixteen year old mildewed article based upon some very flawed premises?

Max may or may not be in cahoots with the CIA.  To me it does not matter.  Why should they buy what they can get for nothing?

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...