John Simkin

Some interesting articles on the subject: http://www.infowars.com/facebook-google-are-cia-fronts/ http://www.consciousape.com/2012/05/03/google-bankrolled-by-the-cia/ http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/14-01-2010/111657-google_china-0/ http://endthelie.com/books-and-reading-material/google-cia-nsa-connections/#axzz2V8gjNlRB http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/debunking-google-in-bed-with-cia/

Article in the Daily Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10090287/Hay-Festival-2013-Dont-sign-up-to-Goves-insulting-curriculum-Schama-urges.html Prof Schama, who visited classes as part of his research, called the finalised document “insulting and offensive”, “pedantic and utopian” and accused Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, of constructing a “ridiculous shopping list” of subjects. The new curriculum proposes to teach children history in chronological order, and is intended to give them a sense of the triumphs of the British people. But, speaking at the Telegraph Hay Festival, Prof Schama — who acknowledged his own contribution to the plans — said that the syllabus was like “1066 and All That, but without the jokes”. “This is a document written by people who have never sat and taught 12-year-olds in a classroom,” he told an audience of teachers. “None of you should sign up to it until we trap Michael Gove in a classroom and tell him to get on with it. “You want to say to him, 'Let’s go into a class of nine-year-olds and do the kingdom of Mercia with them. I would love to see how you would do that’.” He added the new syllabus would require teaches to “whoosh” through the English, Scottish and Irish civil wars in “something like 45 minutes”, while the French Revolution received “a drive-by 10 minutes”. “The list of subjects seems to be essentially memories of A-levels circa 1965, embalmed in aspic and sprinkled with tokenism,” he said. “Tokenism of the wrong kind.” He claimed that the proposals were too focused on white males, with too much emphasis on “how Britain influenced the world” rather than vice versa. He added that the “insulting, offensive, imperviousness of what it takes to unite together the history of the glorious heritage of Britain” could be demonstrated by the inclusion of Clive of India, who established the supremacy of the East India Company in 18th-century Bengal. Calling him a “sociopathic, corrupt thug”, who made “our most dodgy bankers look like a combination of Mary Poppins and Jesus Christ”, Prof Schama said the topic would not help ethnic minority children understand their own place in the world. “History is not about self-congratulation. It’s not really about chasing the pedigree of the wonderfulness of us,” he said. “Nor about chasing the pedigree of the reprehensible awful nature of us. “History is meant to keep the powerful awake at night and keep them honest.” Among the omissions from the curriculum he condemned as “astonishing” and “staggering”, Prof Schama named the concept of “puritanism” and the “relationship between religion and secular power”. He also referred to Mr Gove’s “pedantic, utopian scheme of knowing the names of all the main Chartists” and the “relentless emphasis on moving on to the next thing”. His speech was roundly applauded by the audience of history teachers, some of whom pledged “anarchy” in the face of reform. One secondary school teacher promised to “circumvent Gove and his National Curriculum until Ofsted [the education watchdog] come in”, while another warned it would leave children feeling “bored and manipulated”. Saying that he remained sympathetic to the idea of reform, Prof Schama added: “I’m sure Michael Gove did not actually want to give us 1066 and All That without the jokes, but that’s pretty much what we’ve ended up with.” Pointing out an alleged error in the original proposals, he added: “How much faith you put in a document that seemed to believe Adam Smith was English? It is truly astonishing.” He ended by urging the audience: “Tell Michael Gove what you think of it. Let him know.”

This works better if you use someone's else computer. One of the things Google does is to remember the websites you visit and takes that into account when delivering results.

We have several discussions about the power of Wikipedia to present the establishment view of the past. However, a far larger problem concerns Google. Most people use the Google search engine when they want to discover information about the past. If Wikipedia have produced anything on the subject, even if it is only a few lines, it also appears as the first link available. However, up until recently, the ranking system seemed fair and alternative views appeared fairly high up. However, on 22nd May, 2013, Google introduced a new search system called Penguin 2.0. It claims that this new system will hurt websites that use certain spam techniques. However, I think it is an attempt to prevent anti-establishment views from appearing near the top of the search requests. To test this out do a search for "History of the CIA" at Google. What sort of image do these websites provide of the CIA? Then try it using other search-engines. See list below. I get my results from the UK so it might be different for you. http://www.bing.com/ http://uk.altavista.com/ https://www.ixquick.com/do/search http://search.lycos.com http://www.webcrawler.com/ http://www.info.com/ http://www.infospace.com/ http://www.search.com/ http://www.excite.com/ http://www.goodsearch.com/

It is very important to get JFK assassination news into the Daily Mail online. Globally it is the most visited newspaper website, according to ComScore, whose methodology gave the site 50.1 million unique visitors for October 2012, ahead of the previous leader, The New York Times' site, which received 48.7 million visitors in the same month. Of course, one of the reasons that it is read by so many people is that it includes so many political conspiracy stories. It is one of the ways that the internet has undermined Operation Mockingbird.

Dallas Morning News By ROBERT WILONSKY Updated: 28 May 2013 02:27 AM On Memorial Day came word that yet another Kennedy assassin "investigation" commenced filming here: ReelzChannel's JFK: The Smoking Gun, a self-proclaimed Canada-Australia co-production focusing on the research done by Australian police officer-turned-crime novelist Colin McLaren. He's just the latest in a long line of folks to proclaim he has "managed to solve a crime that is every bit as shocking and incredible today as it was when it happened 50 years ago," per today's heads-up. Says the release, "This two-hour special with dramatic recreations takes audiences back to that tragic day in Dallas at Dealey Plaza where the shooting took place, to Parkland Hospital where the president was pronounced dead, to the Bethesda Naval Hospital where the autopsy was conducted and to the witness testimonies and proceedings at the Warren Commission that have remained controversial to this day. Ballistic experiments, CGI and 3D animation are also used to enhance the viewers' experience." Janis Burklund, director of the Dallas Film Commission, says today that JFK: The Smoking Gun is hardly the sole Kennedy-assassination doc being shot here. But it's hard to keep count of them all: "Some are movies, some are docs," she says, "and some don't need permits." And some have wrapped - like, say, that British production tentatively titled JFK: The Lost Air Force One Tapes, which had the chopper hanging around Dealey Plaza last summer. Then, of course, there are the features being made outside of Dallas, among them the Tom Hanks-produced Parkland (which was filmed in Austin and prepped for a November release) and National Geographic's Killing Kennedy, based on the book by Bill O'Reilly, who apparently began his research during his tenure at WFAA-Channel 8. The latter is being filmed in Virginia. Another conspiracy-theory feature film, Dallas in Wonderland, is said to be in pre-production. And the filmmakers did talk to Burklund about filming here, but she says nothing ever came of it. "I don't know if they're afraid of Dallas," says Burklund of those productions' decision to stay away from Dallas. "That was part of the conversation we had with Dallas in Wonderland. They were asking how we could assist, and I told them we need to read a script and get an idea of how much they planned to spend, and we never heard back. My guess is, in their case at least, they weren't funded. A lot will announce in the hopes of generating interest." Says Burklund, yes, her office at Dallas City Hall has "had a flood of inquiries" in recent months, and that "it's fair to say there's been an increase in interest" in filming something Kennedy-related. "But we always have Kennedy stuff looking here," she says. "I don't think it's ever going to go away. I think what will happen, though, is what happened with the 40th anniversary - the influx of live newscasts from Dealey Plaza as the anniversary approaches. That will be huge." http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2013/05/yet-another-film-claiming-to-solve-kennedy-assassination-jfk-the-smoking-gun-starts-filming-in-dallas-today.html/

On 29th November, 1963, Life Magazine published a series of 31 photographs documenting the entire shooting sequence from the Zapruder film. It was only later discovered that the critical frames that depicted the rearward motion of Kennedy's head had been printed to indicate a forward motion. James Wagenvoord, the editorial business manager and assistant to Life Magazines Executive Editor, realized that a mistake had been made: "I asked about it when the stills were first printed, (they didn't read right) and then duped for distribution to the European and British papers/magazines. The only response I go was an icy stare from Dick Pollard, Life's Director of Photography. So being an ambitious employee, I had them distributed." http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwagenvoord.htm

See Peter Mandel's article in the Huffington Post on this subject: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-mandel/my-dad-and-jfk-assassinat_b_3294456.html

On 6th December, 1963, Paul Mandel wrote an article about the assassination of John F. Kennedy in Life Magazine. "The doctor said one bullet passed from back to front on the right side of the President’s head. But the other, the doctor reported, entered the President’s throat from the front and then lodged in his body. Since by this time the limousine was 50 yards past Oswald and the President’s back was turned almost directly to the sniper, it has been hard to understand how the bullet could enter the front of his throat. Hence the recurring guess that there was a second sniper somewhere else. But the 8mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed – toward the sniper’s nest – just before he clutches it." Jim Marrs has argued: "The account is patently wrong, as anyone who has seen the film can verify. The reason for such wrongful information at such a critical time will probably never be known, as the author of this statement, Paul Mandel, died shortly afterward." His son is objecting to comments about his father here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-mandel/my-dad-and-jfk-assassinat_b_3294456.html

Thank you for posting this excellent article about the dangers of relying on Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. John, Wiki bio gives a balanced array of opinion on "Best Evidence". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lifton Spartacus bio gives a one-sided view of that book - and (imo) bizarrely cites a Lifton piece on Garrison as a primary source for a bio on Lifton. And follows that "primary source" up with another very odd choice - the self-serving blurb from "Best Evidence". So while both fail to give a balanced view of the man - let alone delve into his sub-ethical dealings with others in this "community", at least the book gets some semblance of balanced treatment from wiki. I'm sorry to say that the Spartacus entry reads like a paid ad. Until you make the choice to fix those bios, criticising wiki looks a bit like the pot and kettle and while it may have it's share of problems with editors, you have yours with moderators. Neither you nor wiki however, are inclined to heed such criticism. For myself, I believe both you and wiki have built something worthwhile, flawed as it is. You have missed the point of the article. The reason that history departments in schools and universities do not allow their students to use Wikipedia as a “source” is not because it is inaccurate on occasions, but because we do not know who produced the article. To an historian this is vitally important. We need to ask questions about the person who produced the source. This is what you have done with your comments about my page on David Lifton. You know from past experience that I consider David a good source of information on the JFK assassination. You can then use this information to question my interpretation of my biography of him. In the same way that I can use the knowledge that you have had a long-running dispute with Lifton and that might influence your comments on him. Readers can also use the knowledge that you have criticised me in the past on this forum about my interpretation of different aspects of the JFK case. Also, because you know who the author of the Spartacus Educational, you can contact me about factual mistakes on my website. You have yourself done this in the past and when you show me that it is a factual inaccuracy rather than a different interpretation of the evidence, I have corrected it. Virtually everyday I get emails from people about changes they want on my pages. Often they are related to the person concerned and concerns family details. Sometimes it is from people who are experts on the subject. If it concerns factual inaccuracy I make a correction. Wikipedia on the other hand allows in theory anyone to correct entries. In reality, very few people are allowed to correct entries. Controversial subjects are especially well protected by gatekeepers. Writing history is about interpreting the evidence. It is also about selecting the evidence to interpret. For example, recently I criticised the Wikipedia entry for Billie Sol Estes. Not because it included any false information but because it did not include information that showed the importance of his case against Lyndon Baines Johnson. This becomes a real problem when nearly all the newspaper obituaries relied so heavily on the Wikipedia entry and did not consider the appropriate evidence. There are several problems with Wikipedia. The most important point is that it suggests that it is possible to produce objective history. Jimmy Wales is actually on record as saying this. Secondly, it always appears first on Google searches for any subject you search for. Even when the entry is only a couple of lines, it appears above other more detailed sources of information. As most people have not studied history to a high level, they are extremely vulnerable to the idea that this information is reliable.

Thank you for posting this excellent article about the dangers of relying on Wikipedia as a reliable source of information.

Report in today's Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/17/alexander-litvinenko-widow-slams-william-hague The widow of Alexander Litvinenko has launched a blistering attack on William Hague and David Cameron, accusing them of sabotaging the inquest into her husband's murder and hiding the Russian state's role in his death. Marina Litvinenko said she was "utterly dismayed" after a coroner on Friday upheld an application by Hague to keep crucial evidence from the inquest secret. Sir Robert Owen reluctantly agreed to exclude material which suggested Russia's state agencies were behind Litvinenko's cold-war style killing. Owen also agreed to suppress documents that examined whether UK officials could have done more to prevent his murder. A furious Mrs Litvinenko said on Friday: "The effect of today's ruling is to protect those responsible for the murder of a British citizen on the streets of London, and to allow the Russian government to shield behind a claim for secrecy made by William Hague with the backing of prime minister David Cameron." She said there had been "increasing signs over the past year" that the government was moving to strike what she called "a secret political deal with the Kremlin". She cited increasingly warm recent meetings between Hague and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, and Cameron's talks on Syria last week with Vladimir Putin in the Russian beach resort of Sochi. Afterwards the two leaders announced that Russia and the UK were resuming intelligence co-operation. The former Labour government severed all contacts with Russia's FSB spy agency in 2007 after concluding it had played a leading role in Litvinenko's assassination. Putin is the agency's former chief. Mrs Litvinenko added: "This is a very sad day, a tragedy for British justice which has until now been respected around the world, and a frightening precedent for all of those who have been trying so hard to expose the crimes committed by a conspiracy of organised criminals who operate inside the Kremlin." In his ruling, Owen said the inquest scheduled to take place later this year might now result in an "incomplete, misleading and unfair" verdict. The coroner said he would consider inviting Theresa May, the home secretary, to hold a public inquiry instead. The inquiry could hear the sensitive evidence buried by Hague in secret sessions. On Friday Mrs Litvinenko said that since the inquest had effectively abandoned its search for the truth, she had therefore written to the coroner asking him to initiate a public inquiry within five days. The inquiry could begin on 2 October 2 – the date originally set for the inquest. Owen, who is a judge, could preside over it. Litvinenko died in November 2006 after two former KGB agents – Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun – allegedly slipped radioactive polonium into his tea at London's Millennium hotel. The Kremlin has refused to extradite the two spies, who have both vigorously denied Litvinenko's murder. Mrs Litvinenko's lawyer, Ben Emmerson QC, had previously accused Hague of attempting to stage a cover-up and of placing Britain's trade interests with Moscow ahead of justice. Both Hague and Cameron were shamelessly "dancing to the Russian tarantella", he told a pre-inquest hearing. Litvinenko's close friend Alex Goldfarb said it was now apparent that Hague was indeed hiding evidence in the case in order to appease the Kremlin. "It's obvious: the government are trying to protect their relations with Putin. They have their reasons. "They want Russian co-operation and investment. But in this case it's being done at the expense of justice." Goldfarb said it was practically meaningless to soldier on with an inquest if it could no longer examine the role of Russia's spy agencies, nor damning evidence indicating that the polonium used in the murder plot came from Russia. He added: "They [Hague and Cameron] appear more concerned about chemical weapons in Syria than polonium spread around the streets of London." In his ruling, the coroner said the secret evidence held by the British government "does establish a prima facie case as to the culpability of the Russian state in Mr Litvinenko's death". This evidence will now not be revealed. Owen made clear his unhappiness with this situation and admitted it made it difficult for him to carry out the "full, frank and fearless investigation" he originally promised. Litvinenko's widow and other interested parties now have 14 days to challenge the coroner's decision. But they have little chance of success – not least because they have been kept in the dark as to what the secret evidence includes. Hague's lawyers have shown "samples" of the controversial material in closed-door hearings held over several days. National newspapers and the BBC had joined forces to oppose Hague's secrecy application and on Friday expressed their dismay at the ruling. Jan Clements, a lawyer acting for the Guardian and other media groups, said: "It would mark a low point in open justice if evidence concerning the responsibility for and preventability of the killing of Litvinenko were only heard in a secret hearing." Hague applied for a public interest immunity certificate (PII) on 7 February. He argued that if sensitive evidence were revealed it might damage the UK's "national security and/or international relations". Critics complained this wording was excessively vague. The coroner did eventually reject a part of Hague's PII claim, but the subject was redacted and is shrouded in mystery. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MDlitvinenko.htm

There is a good obituary in the Guardian on Billie Sol Estes in the Guardian today by Michael Carlson. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/17/billie-sol-estes It is very different from those that have appeared in American newspapers. Although they have mentioned that their was a link between Estes and the JFK assassination. None of them went into any detail. Most of their reports were based on what appeared in Wikipedia. Carlson does go into detail and uses material that appears on my webpage on Estes. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKestes.htm I am pleased that Carlson picked up on the fact missed by Wikipedia and the American press, that John Cofer defended Estes in court in October 1962. Cofer was LBJ's lawyer who represented him in the 1948 ballot-rigging case. Mac Wallace, on the advice of LBJ, employed Cofer when he was convicted of the murder of John Kinser. Cofer's main role was to represent the interests of LBJ than those of his client. One of his most important functions was to keep Estes from testifying. LBJ promised Estes that he would make sure that he would make sure he did not go to prison. (In the same way as he stopped Wallace from going to prison when he was found guilty of murdering Kinser - now that is power). However, in the case of Estes, he was unable to keep his promise and that is why Estes made his statement in 1984. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcofer.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwallaceM.htm

The ideas of John Maynard Keynes helped to solve the economic crisis in the 1930s. Although his ideas were rejected by his own government led by Ramsay MacDonald, they were accepted by Franklin Roosevelt. It has huge relevance today as Germany and Britain believe, like MacDonald, that you can solve the economic crisis by cutting back government spending. Yet history shows us that this cannot be done.

Alex Ferguson, who recently retired as manager of Manchester United, has admitted that he is extremely interested in the assassination of JFK. Gordon Brown, the former British prime minister, is also a student of the case. Over the years he has communicated with Ferguson on the assassination. According to Ferguson: "Gordon sent me 35 CDs on it, which was brilliant of him." Ferguson, a staunch socialist, was an active trade unionist at the time of the assassination: ""As a young man, Kennedy was my era. At the time, I was very much involved in the trade unions and I was very ideological, so Kennedy presented a new vision of politics. He had his critics and I have read some fantastic books on it, but in his time as President, I don't think anyone had to deal with so many issues and he dealt with the lot in this three years in office. I have a copy of JFK's autopsy report. I got a letter from the lad who runs the JFK assassination committee and he sent me the report. I also have a brand new copy of the Warren Report signed by the former president, Gerald Ford, which is the only one he signed, so it's one of a kind."

Last week Education Secretary, Michael Gove used a conference at Brighton College to criticise material produced by Russel Tarr for his Active History website: http://www.activehistory.co.uk/ You can read about the original speech here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/13/mr-men-teacher-michael-gove?CMP=twt_fd Russell's reply can be found here: http://www.activehistory.co.uk/gove.php It has also been discussed here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22538237 http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/hilary-robinson/michael-gove-mr-men_b_3270738.html

As Pete Kendall reported in the Hood County News (21st November, 2003) The book’s political intrigue begins with the 1940s. “I knew Lyndon then. I made a million dollars with government contracts in the’40s,” Estes said. He and Johnson were not close friends, he said. “I don’t think Lyndon had any close friends,” Estes said. “I think he had associates, people he could use. If he couldn’t use you, he didn’t have time for you.” There was never a time, Estes said, that he and Johnson stopped associating, even as Estes was headed to prison. “He promised he was going to get me out of my trouble,” Estes said. “He told me if I wouldn’t talk, I would not go to jail.” Estes has had no contact with LBJ’s other long-ago associates, he said, since the book’s publication. “About all of them are dead, really. I think I’m about the last one standing.” That’s partly why, he said, he wasn’t interested in doing a book sooner. “I’ve been accused of being dumb,” he said, “but I’m not stupid.” Estes is aware of other assassination theories. He puts no stock in any. “I’ve got the facts, and I know the story, and I don’t care what anybody else says. My deal will stand up.” One particularly popular conspiracy premise involves the Mafia. “Vito Genovese told me they didn’t have anything to do with it,” Estes said. Genovese was among the most powerful Mafia chieftains of the 20th century. “He told me that in 1966 when we were in prison together,” Estes said. “I knew him real well.”

Considering the death of Billie Sol Estes I thought it might be worth reviving this thread. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKestes.htm

Interesting article that covers the survey and provides details of books, documentaries about to be published. http://www.reporternews.com/news/2013/may/12/50-years-finding-profit-truth-jfk-case/ I am looking forward to the Errol Morris documentary.

The Daily Mail, the newspaper with the largest online readership in the world, has an article about the JFK assassination today: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2322981/Former-Nixon-aide-claims-evidence-Lyndon-B-Johnson-arranged-John-F-Kennedys-assassination-new-book.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Stone

I have been away on holiday. When I arrived back I had this email from Associated Press: An Associated Press story about the JFK Assassination that is embargoed for published until Sunday, May 12 has been posted on your website at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20181.It needs to be removed immediately and not be reposted until after the embargo deadline. Thank-you, Brian Brian Colburn AP Customer Support

Paul, I am in a position to reply to some of your questions now. It has just been brought to my attention (cudos to Culto) that Peter Janney has sunk to a new, lower, low I could not have anticipated, despite my low opinion of him and his book. This presentation by Janney apparently was recorded on 11 April, just two weeks ago. At the 37:00 mark, he is talking about Crump trial witness, William L. Mitchell. Janney (at 37:30) "....In his testimony at trial, Mitchell attempts to frame Ray Crump." Janney (at 38:30) "...That allegedly sparked a telephone conversation between the two at the end of March, in 1993, where Mitchell told Damore how Mary Meyer had been murdered in what he termed was a CIA operation. Despite many years of searching it was not until last summer that the trail of William L. Mitchell.... this is in August, 2012 now, had become known. I promptly brought this information to my chief intelligence researcher, Roger Charles, who enlisted the support of another Pulitzer nominated investigative reporter by the name of Don Devereaux. What we uncovered was that William L Mitchell entered Cornell University.... The video you have posted only goes to the 27th minute. Could you give us the link to the rest of it?

In 1942 Donald Ogden Stewart began working with I. A. R. Wylie, who had just published a novel entitled, Keeper of the Flame, that had been inspired by the activities of Charles Lindbergh and the America First Committee. Stewart later recalled: "The Keeper of the Flame was perfectly made for my desire to contribute to an understanding of democracy's war by exposing the danger of un-Americanism within our own gates. The story begins with the five-star funeral in a small town of one of America's favorite sons, someone like, say, General MacArthur. Spencer Tracy is a New York reporter who has been sent to cover the event and attempts in vain to obtain an interview with the widow (played by Katharine Hepburn). Accidently they meet, and he becomes increasingly suspicious that the lady is not telling the true story about her husband's death. Finally he becomes convinced that in some way she was responsible (for the death of her husband)." Eventually she confesses that she had not saved her husband from the accident because "Her husband, the great national hero, had become the spearhead of a plot to overthrow the Roosevelt-like government and substitute a Mussolini-type dictatorship... The backers of this coup were a group in the extension of the power of the people a dangerous challenge to their own type of Free World. The plot had in those days strikingly believable parallels, including Hitler's successful takeover of his country with the backing of Krupp, Thiessen and other powerful Germans." The film, Keeper of the Flame, directed by George Cukor, was screened for the Office of War Information's Bureau of Motion Pictures on 2nd December, 1942. The Bureau's chief, Lowell Mellett, was unhappy with the picture and disapproved of its anti-capitalist message. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer head Louis B. Mayer, also hated the movie, as he felt it equated wealth with fascism. Stewart claimed that Meyer "walked out in a fury" of the New York City premiere "when he discovered, apparently for the first time, when the picture was really about". Republican Party members of Congress complained about the film's left-wing message and demanded that Will H. Hays, President of the Motion Picture Production Code, establish guidelines regarding propagandization for the motion picture industry. Stewart regarded Keeper of the Flame as "the most radical film of his that Hollywood could accept. The authors of Radical Hollywood: The Untold Story Behind America's Favorite Movies (2002) have pointed out: "Keeper of the Flame is a brilliant and badly underrated film, not only because Tracy draws out Hepburn step by step, raising her confidence in herself rather than breaking her down, but also because the familiar idea of rich and ruthless totalitarians attains here as high a statement ever made in a major film." Martha Nochimson, has argued in Screen Couple Chemistry (2002) that the film is a "truly provocative in that it was one of Hollywood's few forays into imagining the possibility of homegrown American Fascism and the crucial damage which can be done to individual rights when inhumane and tyrannical ideas sweep a society through a charismatic leader." After the war the the House of Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) began investigating the entertainment industry. Attention was drawn towards Keeper of the Flame and by 1950 David Ogden Stewart was blacklisted. Unable to work in Hollywood he moved to London. As a result his passport was taken away and was unable to return to the United States. He died in London on 2nd August, 1980. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAogden.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/apr/22/news-corp-reaches-settlement-shareholders?INTCMP=SRCH News Corp reaches settlement with shareholders Rupert Murdoch was accused of running News Corporation as 'personal fiefdom' in lawsuit brought against directors News Corporation has reached a $139m (£91m) settlement with shareholders over a lawsuit claiming that its board of directors put Rupert Murdoch's interests ahead of the company over the phone-hacking scandal and the acquisition of his daughter Elisabeth's TV company Shine. The suit was brought against News Corp directors including Murdoch, his sons James and Lachlan and the former British Airways boss Rod Eddington. According to the shareholders the board had "disregarded its fiduciary duties" and allowed Rupert Murdoch to run News Corp as his "own personal fiefdom". The Amalgamated Bank, Central Laborers Pension Fund and City of New Orleans Employees' Retirement System first launched their suit after News Corp's 2011 purchase of Shine. They subsequently amended their complaint to include the hacking scandal. Shareholders alleged that the board had ignored "clear and unmistakable warnings that News Corp's business practices were not only unethical, but also illegal". The board was also "an outright accomplice to Murdoch's self-interested breaches of duty", according to the suit. The lawsuit accuses Rupert Murdoch of treating News Corp "like a wholly owned family candy store" and argues that a fair price was not achieved for Shine. News Corp paid $675m for Shine, the maker of Masterchef. Elisabeth Murdoch received $214m in cash from the sale, according to government filings. "Amazingly, at about the same time that the police turned up the heat on son James in early 2011, Rupert told the board that News Corp should buy a business owned by his daughter Elisabeth," the suit claimed, referring to James Murdoch's then central role in dealing with the hacking scandal as executive chairman of News International, News Corp's newspaper arm. "There was no pretence of negotiating the deal's terms," according to the shareholder lawsuit. As part of the settlement, which is awaiting court approval, News Corp agreed to tighten oversight at the company and to set up an anonymous hotline for whistleblowers to report misconduct. The settlement, which will be covered by insurance, was brought against directors on behalf of shareholders and the money will be paid back to the company by the insurer. It is the largest ever reached in a so-called derivative lawsuit in Delaware chancery court, said Jay Eisenhofer, partner at Grant & Eisenhofer, who represented Amalgamated Bank. In a statement, the company said: "News Corporation acknowledges the meaningful role the plaintiffs and their counsel played in the company's continuing efforts to enhance the important compliance and governance structures and policies that the board and management of News Corporation have adopted over the last year and are adopting as part of the settlement." The hacking scandal has led to over 100 arrests and is still under investigation by the US authorities. News Corp is planning to split its assets in two, with its newspapers and publishing assets keeping the News Corp name while the TV and Hollywood media assets will be renamed 21st Century Fox.