Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Sign in to follow this  
Tom Neal

Stephen King's miniseries 11.22.63

Recommended Posts

Has anyone watched this?

King began writing the book in 1971 before the release of his first novel, Carrie (1974), but he abandoned the project for many years. King claims he conducted "extensive research" including "visiting the 6th floor museum in Dallas" before he eventually concluded that LHO "acted alone." He has stated that his wife is a CT, so it's okay if people believe in conspiracy.

Bridget Carpenter states that before she began to write the screenplay she believed that Oswald acted alone, but soon changed her mind and now believes it was a conspiracy. Star and producer James Franco can't decide one way or the other.

I was hoping that with the rewrite of the book into a screenplay they would correct King's WCR version of Oswald's character. However...

* Oswald is depicted as raging and out of control in virtually every scene.

* Oswald times himself while he repeatedly disassembles and re-assembles his MC on the dining room table at home

* Oswald with MC and pamphlets is photographed by a laughing Marina who operates the camera with ease as George DeM. looks on

* Franco and his sidekick listen in to a PROLONGED beating of Marina by Oswald. They later show her with an OBVIOUS beating about the face depicting serious damage.

So much for a more up to date portrayal of LHO...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No wonder I can't being myself to watch it, despite a few friends telling me that despite its obvious slant it's still very entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No wonder I can't being myself to watch it, despite a few friends telling me that despite its obvious slant it's still very entertaining.

Hi Paul,

As a Sci-Fi drama, the first three episodes were interesting, and they were constantly raising the question of Oswald's guilt - mentioning various theories, so I thought maybe they would be reasonably fair to Oswald. But, now that I've seen episode 4, little or no hope remains of fair treatment for LHO.

More lies to feed the public...

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tom & Paul:

I'm finding the series interesting & entertaining in that it triggers questions I have carried inside my head concerning how exactly life works for all of us that were not answered by my religious teachers early in my life & as a young adult. Traveling back in time & re-existing is similar to the religious teachings that I received that our Creator, following our judgement upon our death, may or may not send the soul of the deceased back to fix whatever commandments were broken by the perpetrator while alive. That's if the soul isn't sent to hell, that is. Supposedly, deja vu moments occur because the erasing the new soul receives upon the 'do it again' process was flawed.

Basic questions I had as a child were never answered to my satisfaction; namely, do the parents create a person's soul during or after copulation, is the soul a phenomena of copulation or fertilization or is something else calling the shots on how the soul gets into any particular body? When does it get there anyway; during the development of the fetus, at birth or sometime thereafter? If my 1st memory in life was playing in a small backyard pool filled with water with my little sister, was that the moment my soul entered my little body at the time or was I sleeping inside my head up until that moment I still vividly recall? Do soul come from a soul bank? Who runs the bank?

My religious teachers had a consistent answer to all my questions concerning individual & universal existence: namely, when I am dead all things will be revealed to me. Same for all living souls. I heard this so much in my young life that I began to think being dead was a better option than life because I wouldn't have to work so hard learning stuff in school (lol).

There is a lot of 'LHO did it' propaganda in the series that those who know & understand how a 'Operation Mockingbird' media works in conjunction & response to payers providing the 'LHO did it' paychecks have come to expect from the people providing the paychecks. Actors & TV production crews have to eat; all have bills to pay.

The series fails to remind young viewers that LHO was (like many of us still alive) the product of a time when it was socially acceptable to beat children, wives, races other than Caucasians or people a majority just didn't want in their neighborhoods & territory. I understand laws still exist on the books that prohibit beating a wife after a certain hour. Children didn't call the police on abusive parents back in the day either. If I could have done so, the fetus my father beat & kicked out of my mother's stomach a couple years before 11-22-63 might have resulted in a murder trial & prison for him (now in his 80's & remarried to someone who knows nothing of this event). Some people carry guilt of murder inside them until they die. Not all are sent to prison on Earth. His judgment is yet to come.

11.22.63 has been receiving a lot of online criticism before & during this half-way point in it's shelf life. I urge those interested in the JFK case to stay with the series until it concludes & quietly address those deep, thought provoking questions portions of it stirs up in the mind. I'd like to see more people making the videos available online to those that have no means of viewing & discussing them.

Brad

Edited by Brad Milch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to expand on my prior comment for the benefit of those (like me) that believe most of what is available to the global public in JFK TV movies & documentaries plus printed media are shiny Operation Mockingbird productions in one way, shape or form & that what I have seen so far in King's TV mini-series raises the possibility that George de Mohrenschildt was LHO's handler & may have enticed/ordered him to murder JFK. The Mexican restaurant scene depicting LHO being introduced either to or by a shadowy CIA operative is, to my knowledge, new visual food for thought for the public to ponder over. Jake's (the main character) mission from his Vietnam veteran diner owner friend is to learn if LHO was ordered by his handler (de Mohrenschildt) to kill JFK & 'take him out if he takes a shot at General Walker'. If I recall correctly, Oliver Stone glossed over LHO's mysterious, wealthy petroleum geologist & professor friend in Stone's movie as just some rich guy that liked hanging out with LHO & Marina for their Russian language knowledge & use.

I can't avoid wondering that if 11.22.63 is indeed another 'Mockingbird' production, is the Agency coming clean after all these years or is it protecting some other potential perpetrators by muddying the waters via Stephen King in 2016?

Brad

Edited by Brad Milch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that this James Franco guy was supposed to be smart and worldly and literate, and that this Stephen King guy wrote a non-fiction book proving he was an intellectual, not like Dean R. Koontz who only has a steel vault in his basement to protect his manuscripts probably for money reasons, and not because he supposes his prose to be deathless genius.

If all so smart, why all so stoopit? Running out of options for lucre so have to pick a corpse? Maybe Dean R. Koontz be smarter with Oswald.

****

As far as I could go with this type of programming was to watch the miniseries The Kennedys, and that was only for the good actors in it.

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My cousin gave me King's book and I immediately looked at the back of the book where he bragged about his research. Well, it turned out that the bulk of his research was reading Posner and Bugliosi,. Thus, his portrait of Oswald as an unstable wife-beater.

I recently met the publisher of a well-known magazine. Upon telling him I'd come to believe there was yes indeed more than one shooter, he asked me, first, if I'd read Bugliosi's book, and then second, if it wasn't Oswald, then who did it. When I pointed him to my website, moreover, he took a quick look and said I'd clearly become obsessed with minutia.

I've been studying the thought patterns of both sides of the conspiracy issue as long as I've been studying the issue.

The thoughts of King and this publisher reflect the thinking of the vast majority of those working in the media, I'm afraid.

It goes something like this.

1. I am a smart person, and am able to discern truth more readily than those on the fringe.

2. People thinking there was a mass conspiracy and/or cover-up of Kennedy's murder are on the fringe.

3. I wish to lead a well-balanced life, and not become immersed in a topic dominated by those on the fringe.

4. Since I am to my own way of thinking open-minded, I owe it to myself and my readers/viewers to not simply regurgitate the government's conclusions regarding the death of President Kennedy.

5. I need to study a few reliable sources, then, before coming to any public conclusions regarding Kennedy's death.

6. Wait, here's a book by Gerald Posner--a member of the media in somewhat good standing. He immersed himself in the case and came out believing it was Oswald acting alone. I'll read that.

7. Wait, here's a book by Vincent Bugliosi--a member of the media in somewhat good standing. He spent decades on the case and claims he answered all the questions. His book is massive. I'll skim through that and pretend I read that. That way I'll seem really informed.

8. Wait, look at all this conspiracy stuff. Yikes. I suppose I'll have to skim through one or two of those if I'm gonna claim I have an open mind.

9. Hmmm... That conspiracy stuff didn't exactly bowl me over. Hmmm... This whole conspiracy thing is a bit messy. I can't go around telling people I have no idea what happened. Not after reading, gasp, upwards of two whole books on the case.

10. Well, okay then, Posner and Bugliosi win the day.

11. Wait. You're telling me some people have dissected Posner and Bugliosi's books and have shown that they made some serious mistakes? Now, that's too much for me to get into. I'm only willing to get my toe wet after all. So let's just assume these people are obsessed with minutia. That way I can escape without admitting I've been suckered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect it's much simpler that that, Pat. It's more along the lines of citizens of the USA are aware that the TV news & entertainment is controlled by the CIA & accept that what they are shown on TV is what the Company wants them to see, not to question it & quietly accept it as truth.

To illustrate this apathy, let's create a simple formula we all see at work on TV every day, day after day, 24/7. each time we turn on our TV sets & look around at what is being broadcast on different channels at the same time frame:

First, let's notice the multitude of female TV journalists appearing daily & nightly on TV news shows, broadcast after broadcast, presented with tight, hiked up dresses, displaying long, slim & shapely legs, high heeled feet stretched out across our TV screens (let's remind ourselves that low cut blouses & well endowed lady journalists are featured at the channels we visit most & that Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather & a host of other TV former news personalities & their female counterparts did not present TV news in a provocative manner of dress in years gone by). The female ‘news babes/news hotties’ will be the ‘A’ part that begins our formula.

Next, we'll add the 'eye candy' (‘A’) to what is called 'TV news reporting' (consisting of a journalist talking into a TV camera's lens while reading from scripts projected to the journalist on a TV monitor positioned off-camera). This is our ‘B’ portion of our formula.

Grab the remote & let's do some surfing by flipping from TV news channel to other TV news channels. Notice how many journalists are talking about the same story. (Occasionally, one might catch them at the same word in a identical sentence being read on another channel & be able to finish that sentence while changing channels). Identical newscasts makes up our ‘C’.

Next, we'll factor in what we know about Allen Dulles, his Operation Mockingbird creation & the CIA of 1963. Dulles' boys complete our formula as 'D'

When added up, what does our formula equal to? When used in 2016, does it indicate TV news is controlled by the CIA? Ask ourselves this: didn't all that Mockingbird stuff die out with the Cold War? [a fast answer can be found by simply googling 'Does The CIA Control the Media'.....don't panic after reading some of the material posted at the links & tear up your Broadcast Journalism degree. Some of the TV news reporters you see on TV on a regular basis are multi-millionaires. Megyn Kelly & Poppy Harlow are two examples of a CIA controlled media TV Journalists that's done quite well for themselves. Google their net worth & compare to what you or your parents have in the bank. Brace yourself for a shock when googling Bill O'Reilly & Anderson Cooper's net worth (both from the 'non-hottie' side of the fence. Getting caught lying about witnessing George de Mohrenschildt's alleged suicide apparently didn't impact O'Reilly in the wallet one bit). A Google search for the net worth of the great grandfather of 'LHO did it' spinmasters (Dan Rather) reveals big Dan rests comfortable at night with 70 million in his bank account. With the exception of Oliver Stone's JFK movie, the big money is in the 'LHO did it' spin, so don't trade off your TV news or acting job for flipping burgers just yet, lol). What looks like Big Brother focusing our attention away from what is being said & down below the tables & chairs may look to others like TV news gone wild & the Agency being blamed for it. What's coming down the line in the future for us, live anchor person chair frolicking & instant replays of it?

Don't be surprised if the results of our formula seems to some like the old sex, drugs & rock 'n roll baited hook fished to a public deemed interested in mostly two things in life: getting paid & laid. It’s used constantly in marketing. Who today asks why do all these news shows feature journalists reading basically the same thing at the same time, TV channel after TV channel, often at the same word of identical sentences at any given time in the broadcast on competing channels? How did that happen to non-monopolized USA TV broadcasters? Do all stations employ the same news director & upper management? To many, the answer is Mockingbird.

To those that feel that way, the solution is turn off the TV & go to the Internet for news & entertainment. When they do it's...OMG, Mockingbird is there too! Where hasn't that bird flown to? Doesn't it look like there's nowhere to run, nowhere to hide?

Ditto for the JFK visual, book & radio talk show productions; what the public sees & hears seems to be what the Company wants them to know in their version of JFK's violent removal from office 50+ years ago if the CIA is truly controlling the media. A good example of this is the JFK 'Unsolved History' series. The series on the JFK assassination raised the bar on broadcasting JFK disinformation imho; it would better work as examples in peddling snake oil (for those interested in learning what is wrong with that series, refer to Ed Forum's own Jim DiEugenio, Pat Speer & several other noted JFK researchers work appearing both online at websites & in their published books).

Those that work in the media & desire to 'work in this town' have no choice but to drink the Company 'LHO did it' kool aid if they desire to work, eat & pay their bills & prosper in their professions. I don't hold the actors, screenwriters, technicians & others that create TV movie presentations consciously at fault all the time if their production’s theme is ‘LHO did it’; I can understand that no one wants their hard earned work rejected because that usually leads to unemployment, near starvation & struggling for survival in the cruel, dangerous asphalt jungle known as 'the street'. I call this 'fear of Mockingbird wrath' (aka 'don't rock the boat' & I suspect it keeps a lot of TV & movie folks in line on the official JFK line without having to worry about their house or car being blown apart (lol) if that fear actually exists in the minds of the folks that create TV entertainment. 1984 readers’ fear of offending Big Brother that can lead to unpleasant, sometimes nasty things happening (like tax audits & creepy guys in suits & sunglasses following folks around) is a reality in some global minds.

I obviously can't speak for the global public (I don't know why so many people tattoo their bodies to look like the Sunday comics or why fellows go out in public with their mom's earrings on), but it seems to me that the members of the Ed Forum that put their best efforts online or the lurkers that visit to read those efforts are good indicators that continuing, non-sanitized, objective, fair & accurate JFK research is still valued around the globe, regardless of what is broadcast on TV, radio, Internet & printed media. The best of the best JFK researchers will always pull the wool cap back up over the eyes of those who may have fallen victim to spinmaster deceit. To me, that's why the Ed Forum is a national treasure.

In 11.22.63 & Stephen King's case, I find the mini-series worth watching, if only to attempt determining what flavor of kool aid Mockingbird operatives appear to be pouring down the global public's throat this year. Allen Dulles died a long time ago; the Agency he helped create has been at their game for a long time & they are still alive & kicking. Today, it has it's own Air Force!

For survivors of the JFK 50th onslaught of Mockingbird productions still scraping dung off their TV sets, it might be easy to feel that Mockingbirders enjoy toying with the minds of the global public about JFK's violent & mysterious death if one soaks in enough JFK material. The subject may appear to some so much like a cat toy that they begin to wonder who exactly is toying with their minds & why? Doesn't excessive toying with the global public's mind over the Kennedy assassination lead to this inevitable conclusion: If the public's mind is a cat toy, the toyer is the cat. In other words, if the global public suspects the 1963 CIA orchestrated the death of President Kennedy, doesn't it look now in 2016 that the Company spent more time, effort & money in the assassination's aftermath denying responsibility than it did in actually killing the doomed President & accomplished nothing; fooled very few?

Although I can understand boycotting this & other TV productions that present an 'LHO did it' slant without giving equal time to the evidence that 'LHO Didn't Do It', I find this particular mini series acting excellent (I expect several well deserved Emmys & similar awards this year for the mini-series), the vintage cars real eye candy treats & the memories the late 1950's & early 1960's this TV mini-series triggers (some that have nothing at all to do with JFK) well worth spending my time when I'm in a mood to reminisce, recall, reflect & wonder how I managed to survive that insane period in this country's & the world's history. I don't expect the series to solve the mysteries behind JFK's horrific public death. I have no axe to grind with Mr. King & those gifted pros that have created 11.22.63 (well, perhaps one: I spilled my movie popcorn & soft drink all over my high school car’s interior when Carrie’s hand shot up from the ground in his movie, ‘Carrie’. It took me the better part of a week to clean that mess up). According to my religious teachers, I need to patiently wait for & be content to learn the truth when the Big Boss that created & put me here gives me that information once He unplugs me. TV shows don't upset me all that much this late date in my life's journey.

At this midway point in the series, do I foresee a time when the Company publicly confesses to Caroline & her children that 1963 Agency operatives murdered her father & her children's grandfather? Nope. Is this mini-series going to insinuate to us that LHO's rich petroleum geologist friend worked for the Russians (or Cubans) & pulled off the JFK assassination behind the Agency's back while it did it's National Security thing in 1963? It might. If it's a true Mockingbird production, the finger of suspicion will always be pointed away from the Agency.

Allen Dulles wouldn't have wanted it any other way.

Brad

Edited by Brad Milch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brad - just don't drink that Koolaid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks:

I too read the King book (got it for XMAS from my kids) and it was a bit long but an interesting premise. I agree that it fuels the imagination some, but I don't think he undertook it to find out the "truth" but rather to imagine an alternate outcome. If you think about it, the Oswald story and JFK murder really is a horror story ... which is right up King's alley.

To expect any journalist or media celebrity to venture into the vortex of the JFK story and unravel the truth from the mountain of expert disinformation is asking quite a lot. Some of the more wise researchers (e.g. Joseph McBride) have recommended taking a small part of the story, digging into it, and dissecting the facts to take what I'd call small bites of the elephant. Here is what David Talbot writes:

For over 20 years I have studied the assassination and have come to believe that the American electorate's persistent majority belief in a conspiracy is rooted as much in a gnawing sense that the President of the United States is not the supreme authority in the land (no matter how many insist on calling POTUS ‘the must powerful man in the world,’) as anything else. It is this sense that unseen persons and powers operate above and outside of elected authority which undergirds the passionate insistence that more than one shooter is responsible for what happened on November 22, 1963. That such ‘outlaw’ elite authorities are apolitical and never abusive of their unbridled power is nonsense, the electorate is sure.

This particular discussion thread is interesting to me ... it asks why writers like King and news media in general are unable to get to the deeper truths in this JFK story that seem so obvious to us. One reason that I've found - the resistance or even ridicule that a JFK conspiracy buff experiences - is the inability of some to acknowledge that your own government would be capable of such sinister behavior. As a scientist and engineer, I can attest that doing one's "homework" and research is hard work. I'd submit that many do not have the patience or wherewithal to stay with a difficult subject, particularly this one, where so many intentional obfuscations exist. In fact, many suspect an active and current opposition to learning the truth.

The next generation wants Twitter and tweets - sound bites on the evening news - and does not read books anymore. A paragraph on Facebook is more than enough. A text as opposed to a phone call. Who has the time or patience to read a book? Or worse, do original research?

Gene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too read the King book (got it for XMAS from my kids) and it was a bit long but an interesting premise.

Ha ha ha ha. I've never seen a King book that isn't "a bit long," which is why I've never tried to read one. I just wait for the movie. But I won't watch this one, just like I'll never watch another Tom Hanks movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought 11-22-63 by King. I was so angry about what I had read. The only reason that book sold was because of the title. It was a long, drawn- out tale about a romance in the past. The Kennedy Assassination had little to do with the plot. I have not watched the series. I cannot believe someone as smart as Stephen King thinks Oswald did it alone. Like someone said earlier, it could be an Operation Mockingbird stunt.

Kathy C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought 11-22-63 by King. I was so angry about what I had read. The only reason that book sold was because of the title. It was a long, drawn- out tale about a romance in the past. The Kennedy Assassination had little to do with the plot. I have not watched the series. I cannot believe someone as smart as Stephen King thinks Oswald did it alone. Like someone said earlier, it could be an Operation Mockingbird stunt.

Kathy C

I studied a lot of essays and articles written around the 50th, Kathleen, and have spoken and/or exchanged emails with a number of super smart people who feel certain it was Oswald acting alone. And their thinking goes something like this...

1. I am a smart person, and am able to discern truth more readily than those on the fringe.

2. People thinking there was a mass conspiracy and/or cover-up of Kennedy's murder are on the fringe.

3. I wish to lead a well-balanced life, and not become immersed in a topic dominated by those on the fringe.

4. Since I am to my own way of thinking open-minded, I owe it to myself and my readers/viewers to not simply regurgitate the government's conclusions regarding the death of President Kennedy.

5. I need to study a few reliable sources, then, before coming to any public conclusions regarding Kennedy's death.

6. Wait, here's a book by Gerald Posner--a member of the media in somewhat good standing. He immersed himself in the case and came out believing it was Oswald acting alone. I'll read that.

7. Wait, here's a book by Vincent Bugliosi--a member of the media in somewhat good standing. He spent decades on the case and claims he answered all the questions. His book is massive. I'll skim through that and pretend I read that. That way I'll seem really informed.

8. Wait, look at all this conspiracy stuff. Yikes. I suppose I'll have to skim through one or two of those if I'm gonna claim I have an open mind.

9. Hmmm... That conspiracy stuff didn't exactly bowl me over. Hmmm... This whole conspiracy thing is a bit messy. I can't go around telling people I have no idea what happened. Not after reading, gasp, upwards of two whole books on the case.

10. Well, okay then, Posner and Bugliosi win the day.

11. Wait. You're telling me some people have dissected Posner and Bugliosi's books and have shown that they made some serious mistakes? Now, that's too much for me to get into. I'm only willing to get my toe wet after all. So let's just assume these people are obsessed with minutia. That way I can escape without admitting I've been suckered.

In short, people who have busy successful social and professional lives, a la most famous journalists/writers, are extremely reluctant to dig beyond Bugliosi. I have emailed a number of these people over the years, and have tried to point them to my take-down of Bugliosi,

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter9b%3Areclaiminghistoryfromreclaimin2

which is both thorough and definitive, and have never received a concession from any of those citing Bugliosi as the final word. It's almost like they're members of the Flat Earth Society.

But I don't believe it's because they are innately more entrenched than those on the conspiracy side. It's just that the scales are balanced against them. Let me present an analogy. There are let's say 100 issues revolving around the Kennedy assassination which people think suggest a conspiracy. People like Posner and Bugliosi are wrong on let's say 20 of them, whereby there are still 20 good reasons to suspect a conspiracy. And where there are another 20 that could go either way. Now, let's say that the bulk of conspiracy theorists are wrong about 60 of them, and that there are 20 of them that could go either way. Well, the mainstream supporters of Posner and Bugliosi that even do a little digging see that Posner and Bugliosi are in the wrong but 1/3 as often as the bulk of conspiracy theorists.

Well, in their haste, that's all they need. They assume Posner and Bugliosi are correct on the other stuff as well. And move on.

So... That's one of the reasons I spend so much time arguing against what I perceive to be conspiracy nonsense. While some think the more the merrier, and the more reasons to doubt the official story we can come up with the more successful we will be in spreading that doubt, I suspect the opposite is true, and that the more nonsense we house under our tent the harder it gets to pull those on the fence into our tent.

I mean, really, if you are a mainstream journalist or historian, who are you gonna throw in with? The guy who hasn't combed his hair in a month with a manila folder filled with photo-copied pictures of chemtrails, who says Kennedy was killed by 13 shots from 4 different locations? Or your colleague who says he's studied all the reasons to suspect a conspiracy, and feels certain there's no there there?

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is one way to look at it.

Another way is to see it from the top down.

Excellent example is the experience of Roger Feinman at CBS in 1967. Roger was a worker bee there who witnessed how the 1967 CBS series was constructed from a to z. Seeing it from behind the scenes, he witnessed what actually happened, and how the presentation violated several tenets of CBS own Standards and Practices code.

He began to complain about how dishonest it was. And he used some of CBS own internal memos to prove his case to his superiors. To no avail. None. What happened instead? CBS moved to terminate him. But they had to go through an administrative process. At which Roger was able to subpoena certain documents. So although they got rid of him, he managed to spirit away what was probably the best archives of internal memos ever to show just how twisted that show really was, and how the orders came down from the top.

What very few people know is this: the CBS series actually started as a very fair concept, made by none other than Les Midgley, a high up journalist producer at CBS. He proposed a fair and honest debate format between some of the WC counsel and some of the critics, to be moderated by a neutral judge. Now, would that have been a treat for the public?

No go. As Midgley's proposal went up the ranks, it was eventually modified and then vetoed by CBS president DIck Salant. The proposal was sent out to two lawyers on the West Coast, if I recall, they were affiliated with Stanford. When it came back to Salant, the fix was in. And I mean really in.

Well, Mr. Midgley saw the writing on the wall. And instead of fighting it, and losing his job like Feinman, he reversed field. He joined the cover up. And what a cover up it was.

Three of he major consultants for CBS were: Jerry Hill, John Lattimer, and John McCloy.

http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md17/html/Image0.htm

The AV essay that Roger put together on this was the finest work I ever saw on just how bad the media is on the JFK case. Because it was so data specific about what had happened.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the script to Roger's marvelous documentary film:

http://ctka.net/Feinman%20CBS-ABC%20cover_assn%202-3.pdf

Unfortunately he made me take down the film since he wanted to revise it. He then passed away before he completed the revision.

But everyone should read this, its invaluable.

I made a mistake about the two Stanford lawyers. One was a Stanford Dean of Law, the other was a private attorney. It was this guy who brought Alvarez on board as another consultant.

I should also add, Gordon Manning was also interested in doing a special that would be fair. But after the West Coast tour, he gave up. Midgley still had some kick in him. But he ended marrying someone who worked at the White House in April, then he got a promotion to run CBS Nightly News. So there he went.

What is so fascinating about Roger's work is that it reveals how frustrated upper management was with Edward R Murrow. They set up a secret committee after he left called CNEC. Well Salant submitted the proposal to that committee also.

Again, read it. It tells us more about how the real media operates in America than any other work I know.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×