James Aronson and the media coverage of the JFK assassination

[John Simkin]

For the first three weeks after the assassination the mainstream media reported that Lee Harvey Oswald had been the lone gunman responsible for the death of John F. Kennedy. However, James Aronson, the editor of the left-wing, National Guardian, had considerable doubts about this story. In the first edition of the newspaper after the assassination, he used the headline: “The Assassination Mystery: Kennedy and Oswald Killings Puzzle the Nation”.

In his book, Something to Guard: The Stormy Life of the National Guardian (1978), Aronson recalled that soon after the assassination he was contacted by a journalist working for the New York Times, who asked him if Oswald subscribed to the National Guardian. Aronson replied he could find no record of Oswald receiving the newspaper. Aronson took this opportunity to raise questions about the newspaper’s investigation into the assassination: “I took advantage of the call to air my doubts about the lone assassin theory being fixed in the public mind. What was the New York Times doing to validate or disapprove this theory?” The journalist replied “Look, Jim, you worked here and you know the answer: don’t look this way – they won’t do it.”

Soon afterwards Aronson “heard that a maverick New York lawyer named Mark Lane had done some careful leg and brain work to produce a thesis casting doubt on the lone-assassin theory – and even whether Oswald had actually been involved in the crime.” Aronson contacted Lane who told him that the article had been rejected by thirteen publications. Aronson offered to publish the article. At first Lane hesitated because he was still waiting to hear from two other publications he had sent it to. After they also rejected it, Aronson published the article on 19^th December, 1963.

The 10,000 word article was the longest story in its fifteen-year history. It was presented as a lawyer’s report to the Warren Commission and titled A Brief for Lee Harvey Oswald. Aronson argued in the introduction: “The Guardian’s publication of Lane’s brief presumes only one thing: a man’s innocence, under US. Law, unless or until proved guilty. It is the right of any accused. A presumption of innocence is the rock upon which American jurisprudence rests… We ask all our readers to study this document… Any information or analysis based on fact that can assist the Warren Commission is in the public interest – an interest which demands that everything possible be done to establish the facts in this case.”

Aronson later admitted: “Few issues of the Guardian created such a stir. Anticipating greater interest we had increased the press run by 5,000, but an article in the New York Times about our story brought a heavy demand at the newsstands and dealers were calling for additional copies. Before the month was out we had orders for 50,000 reprints.”

Aronson offered the article to both the United Press International and the Associated Press but both agencies rejected it. However, the article was published in several European countries and was discussed in most leading newspapers throughout the world. Some newspapers attempted to rubbish the article by describing it as “left-wing propaganda”. Bertrand Russell wrote to The Times complaining about this treatment: “Mr. Lane is no more a left-winger than was President Kennedy. He attempted to publish his evidence… in virtually every established American publication but was unsuccessful. Only the National Guardian was prepared to print his scrupulously documented material… I think it important that no unnecessary prejudice against this valuable work of Mr. Lane should be aroused, so that his data concerning a vital event may be viewed with an open mind by people of all political persuasions.”

At first the national press attempted to ignore Lane’s article. The only other publication in the United States that was willing to discuss the issue was the New Republic. In an article published on 21^st December, 1963, Jack Minnis and Staughton Lynd, the authors of Seeds of Doubt: Some Questions about the Assassination, raised questions about five different categories of evidence in the case.

In January, 1964, Walter Winchell made a vicious attack on Mark Lane and the National Guardian in his regular newspaper column. He described the newspaper as “a virtual propaganda arm of the Soviet Union” and called Lane an “agitator” seeking to abolish the Un-American Activities Committee. Aronson was also attacked by those on the left. For example, I. F. Stone, denounced Aronson as being part of the "lunatic fringe".

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKaronsonJ.htm

[David Josephs]

Thanks for the great article John...

It always amazes me how "patriots" always look to destroy the very traits that make us FREE AMERICANS...

It is our expressed RIGHT to try and abolish the UAAC... or support it with our full hearts...

In the very same way Minchell can say what he does about Lane... Lane can say the same about the goverment...

Yet one is a hero, the other a commie agitator.... Welcome to Amerika

[Paul Brancato]

The Guardian article was my introduction to Mark Lane, and when he started speaking publicly in NYC I went to a few of those events. I recall attending a debate between Lane and Belli sometime in 1964 at the Manhattan Center. I could not find a reference to that debate on google but I know it happened. Perhaps it was after the debate at Masonic auditorium in SF, because Belli walked out of the NYC event saying something like 'if you can't trust the FBI who can you trust'?.

[John Simkin]

Thanks for the great article John...

It always amazes me how "patriots" always look to destroy the very traits that make us FREE AMERICANS...

It is our expressed RIGHT to try and abolish the UAAC... or support it with our full hearts...

In the very same way Minchell can say what he does about Lane... Lane can say the same about the goverment...

Yet one is a hero, the other a commie agitator.... Welcome to Amerika

The background to the publication of the article can be found in Mark Lane's, Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? (1991). At the time, Lane was a practicing criminal attorney and a former member of the New York State Assembly. He had read a statement in the New York Times by Jean Hill who claimed that she had watched the motorcade from the grassy knoll facing the Texas School Depository Building. Hill and her friend, Mary Moorman, who was taking Polaroid pictures of the motorcade, were only a few feet away from Kennedy when he was shot. Hill thought the shots had come from behind her on the grassy knoll. Lane contacted Hill who told him that as soon as the firing stopped she ran towards the wooden fence in an attempt to find the gunman. However, Hill and Moorman were detained by two secret service men. After searching the two women they confiscated the picture of the assassination.

Lane later recalled: "In the weeks following the assassination I analyzed the case, setting my analysis alongside what was then known about the case as I had done a hundred times before for clients I had represented. The difference was that there was no client… When I completed my analysis of the evidence and the charges, I had written a ten-thousand-word evaluation.” A copy of the article was sent to Earl Warren. In a letter sent with the article, Lane wrote: “It would be appropriate that Mr. Oswald, from whom every legal right was stripped, be accorded counsel who may participate with the single purpose of representing the rights of the accused.”

Mark Lane also tried to find a magazine to publish the article of the assassination. “The obvious choice, I thought, was the Nation. Its editor, Carey McWilliams, was an acquaintance. He had often asked me to write a piece for him… McWilliams seemed pleased to hear from me and delighted when I told him I had written something I wished to give to the Nation. When he learned of the subject matter, however, his manner approached panic.” McWilliams told Lane: “We cannot take it. We don’t want it. I am sorry but we have decided not to touch that subject.” Lane got the same response from the editors of Fact who said the subject matter was too controversial. It was also rejected by The Reporter, Look, Life and the Saturday Evening Post.

It was at this time that James Aronson contacted Lane who told him that the article had been rejected by thirteen publications. Aronson offered to publish the article. Lane told him that “I would send it to him but I would not authorize him to publish it. He asked why. I said that I was seeking a broader, non-political publisher and that if the piece originated on the left, the subject would likely never receive the debate that it required.”

Lane now took the article James Wechsler, an editor of the New York Post. He also rejected it and said that Lane would never find a publisher and “urged him to forget about it”. Lane now told him about Aronson’s offer. Wechsler, according to Lane was “furious” when he heard this news. “Don’t let them publish it… They’ll turn it into a political issue.” By this time the article had been turned down by seventeen publications and so Lane decided to let Aronson to publish the article in the National Guardian.

I think this is all evidence that the cover-up by the media began within hours of the assassination. This could only have happened because the machinery for such a cover-up was already in place. In other words, Operation Mockingbird. What is really interesting from Lane's account, this also included the so-called "liberal" newspapers and magazines. Only the far-left, National Guardian, was willing to publish this article.

[Dawn Meredith]

I always marvel at the fact that anyone who goes to school in this country, at any level, is taught that there exists a free press. How easily people are fooled. Sheeple indeed.The bigger the lie the more it is believed.

Dawn

[John Simkin]

I always marvel at the fact that anyone who goes to school in this country, at any level, is taught that there exists a free press. How easily people are fooled. Sheeple indeed.The bigger the lie the more it is believed.

Dawn

The control of the media by the CIA became public knowledge in April 1976 when the Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Government Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities was published. “In examining the CIA’s past and present use of the U.S. media, the Committee finds two reasons for concern. The first is the potential, inherent in covert media operations, for manipulating or incidentally misleading the American public. The second is the damage to the credibility and independence of a free press which may be caused by covert relationships with the U.S. journalists and media organizations.”

[Mike Rago]

I always marvel at the fact that anyone who goes to school in this country, at any level, is taught that there exists a free press. How easily people are fooled. Sheeple indeed.The bigger the lie the more it is believed.

Dawn

The control of the media by the CIA became public knowledge in April 1976 when the Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Government Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities was published. “In examining the CIA’s past and present use of the U.S. media, the Committee finds two reasons for concern. The first is the potential, inherent in covert media operations, for manipulating or incidentally misleading the American public. The second is the damage to the credibility and independence of a free press which may be caused by covert relationships with the U.S. journalists and media organizations.”

It is not just the CIA, it is many intelligence agencies for many countries, including the UK¹ and Israel. Any country that is perceived to be our friend is given access to our media and ultimately to the hearts and minds of the American citizen. I suspect the CIA is less involved than other foreign countries that have a large interest in the direction of foreign policy of the United States.

It goes without saying that countries which are perceived to be enemies of the US or those same allies are refused access to our media.

¹In fact it is from information that you provided that I believe the UK uses our media for their own interests cannot remember the threads in which you mentioned this.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Mike Rago]

I think this is all evidence that the cover-up by the media began within hours of the assassination. This could only have happened because the machinery for such a cover-up was already in place. In other words, Operation Mockingbird. What is really interesting from Lane's account, this also included the so-called "liberal" newspapers and magazines. Only the far-left, National Guardian, was willing to publish this article.

I think you are right.

Here is an interview with Orville Nix by Mark Lane from the video Rush To Judgement. In this interview Mr. Nix tells us that he did not give a copy of his film to the government until December 5 1963. He said that his film got lost in the processing plant. Mr. Nix was filming for United Press International¹.

I do believe there is evidence that the Nix film has been altered. There are people that we know exist at particular locations (from other photographic evidence) that do not appear in the Nix film.

¹The E.W. Scripps Company controlled United Press until its absorption of William Randolph Hearst's smaller competing agency, INS, in 1958 to form UPI. With the Hearst Corporation as a minority partner, UPI continued under Scripps management until 1982.^[1][2][3

Edited November 15, 2012 by Mike Rago

[John Simkin]

The Guardian article was my introduction to Mark Lane, and when he started speaking publicly in NYC I went to a few of those events. I recall attending a debate between Lane and Belli sometime in 1964 at the Manhattan Center. I could not find a reference to that debate on google but I know it happened. Perhaps it was after the debate at Masonic auditorium in SF, because Belli walked out of the NYC event saying something like 'if you can't trust the FBI who can you trust'?.

Mark Lane does not mention this in "Plausible Denial" but James Aronson does mention a meeting at the New York Town Hall on 18th February, 1964, that was "filled to overflowing".

[Bernice Moore]

Thanks for the great article John...

It always amazes me how "patriots" always look to destroy the very traits that make us FREE AMERICANS...

It is our expressed RIGHT to try and abolish the UAAC... or support it with our full hearts...

In the very same way Minchell can say what he does about Lane... Lane can say the same about the goverment...

Yet one is a hero, the other a commie agitator.... Welcome to Amerika

The background to the publication of the article can be found in Mark Lane's, Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? (1991). At the time, Lane was a practicing criminal attorney and a former member of the New York State Assembly. He had read a statement in the New York Times by Jean Hill who claimed that she had watched the motorcade from the grassy knoll facing the Texas School Depository Building. Hill and her friend, Mary Moorman, who was taking Polaroid pictures of the motorcade, were only a few feet away from Kennedy when he was shot. Hill thought the shots had come from behind her on the grassy knoll. Lane contacted Hill who told him that as soon as the firing stopped she ran towards the wooden fence in an attempt to find the gunman. However, Hill and Moorman were detained by two secret service men. After searching the two women they confiscated the picture of the assassination.

Lane later recalled: "In the weeks following the assassination I analyzed the case, setting my analysis alongside what was then known about the case as I had done a hundred times before for clients I had represented. The difference was that there was no client… When I completed my analysis of the evidence and the charges, I had written a ten-thousand-word evaluation.” A copy of the article was sent to Earl Warren. In a letter sent with the article, Lane wrote: “It would be appropriate that Mr. Oswald, from whom every legal right was stripped, be accorded counsel who may participate with the single purpose of representing the rights of the accused.”

Mark Lane also tried to find a magazine to publish the article of the assassination. “The obvious choice, I thought, was the Nation. Its editor, Carey McWilliams, was an acquaintance. He had often asked me to write a piece for him… McWilliams seemed pleased to hear from me and delighted when I told him I had written something I wished to give to the Nation. When he learned of the subject matter, however, his manner approached panic.” McWilliams told Lane: “We cannot take it. We don’t want it. I am sorry but we have decided not to touch that subject.” Lane got the same response from the editors of Fact who said the subject matter was too controversial. It was also rejected by The Reporter, Look, Life and the Saturday Evening Post.

It was at this time that James Aronson contacted Lane who told him that the article had been rejected by thirteen publications. Aronson offered to publish the article. Lane told him that “I would send it to him but I would not authorize him to publish it. He asked why. I said that I was seeking a broader, non-political publisher and that if the piece originated on the left, the subject would likely never receive the debate that it required.”

Lane now took the article James Wechsler, an editor of the New York Post. He also rejected it and said that Lane would never find a publisher and “urged him to forget about it”. Lane now told him about Aronson’s offer. Wechsler, according to Lane was “furious” when he heard this news. “Don’t let them publish it… They’ll turn it into a political issue.” By this time the article had been turned down by seventeen publications and so Lane decided to let Aronson to publish the article in the National Guardian.

I think this is all evidence that the cover-up by the media began within hours of the assassination. This could only have happened because the machinery for such a cover-up was already in place. In other words, Operation Mockingbird. What is really interesting from Lane's account, this also included the so-called "liberal" newspapers and magazines. Only the far-left, National Guardian, was willing to publish this article.

''

''Hill thought the shots had come from behind her on the grassy knoll. Lane contacted Hill who told him that as soon as the firing stopped she ran towards the wooden fence in an attempt to find the gunman''

John, just letting you know that the above information is in error, Jean and Mary were both on the South side of Elm , facing the fence and the grassy knoll.........take care....best b..

[Paul Brancato]

John - must have been Town Hall. Anyway, I was there, and that's how it ended.