Rachel Maddow disses LHO

[Richard Coleman]

I generally enjoy Rachel's rants because they're usually about people and things I despise – Republicans for example – but she went over a factual and historical cliff recently. She invoked LHO and his Carcano rifle which he used to kill JFK with (NOT!) to illustrate the need for better gun control laws. I believe this was on March 11, but I wasn't able to find it either on her blog or the MSNBC site. It is, however posted on You Tube.

I believe it was on March 11.

Is there anybody in this forum who has access to Rachel's staff or producer, who could maybe bring to their attention the fact that LHO didn't shoot anybody? I'm going to try by email, but I seriously doubt it will be read. Maybe if they got bombarded by responses from the research community, they'd take another look at the case. I know, probably not, but we can always hope.....8^\

The comments at YT tend toward calling her a xxxx, but I think she is probably misinformed. Rachel doesn't come up as a xxxx to me (except to the Foxes and their miserable ilk).

[Richard Coleman]

Sorry. The video is at

[Bernice Moore]

Thanks Richard; always amazing, how deliberately uneducated the media always deliberately appears...like they pretend to know no better, well i imagine that must be, the number one qualification in being hired...b

[Sean Murphy]

Who was Maddow's consultant on this? Gary Mack?

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Maybe we ought to combine these 2 threads on this topic: http://educationforu...showtopic=20025

Edited March 19, 2013 by Robert Morrow

[Richard Coleman]

Robert:

I was unaware you had started a thread on the same subject. However....

rhetoric like “media ignoramuses “, a “murderous psychopath” who was a “big supporter of gun control” (I support gun control; so do a lot of people. What does that make us?) I do NOT sign onto.

Rachel Maddow, in my opinion, is not just another “media ignoramus”. Your opinion that LBJ ordered Israel to attack the Liberty – irrelevant.

Your tone – shrill if not hysterical – is not constructive and if someone connected with media or the RM show (I'm not holding my breath, but still...) happened to read it, they would be confirmed in their views that JFK researchers are nutty and happily continue to ignore us.

I'd just as soon keep my thread separate. But thanks for the offer.

[Pat Speer]

You nailed it, Richard. People like Rachel are under the spell of people like Matthews, who are in turn under the spell of people like Bugliosi. They don't want to be associated with the "fringe" so bend to the right on this issue, without really giving it all that much thought. I have read--somewhere, I can't remember where--that Chuck Todd has actually studied the case, and is a bit like Jeff Morley in that he is not afraid to question the status quo. If any mainstream journalist hears our screams in the dark, and gives the CT community a fair shake, it might very well be him.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I think that Rachel Maddow is best seen as one more Role Player of Today's Completely Corporate democrats.

The job of MSNBC is to keep the flame of belief alive-- belief that the Democrats, 49 years after an unacknowledged coup d'etat-- are even trying to prevent right wing policies.

They are not. They are their chief enabler, playing the role of the cowcatcher on the Republican locomotive. Their job is to prevent a REAL opposition to the Republicans, like that which existed to some extent with the New Deal Coalition, from ever reaching enough eardrums to matter.

Do the MSNBC crew SEEM to the left of most Democratic mummies like Reid, Pelosi, Gillibrandt, and the war criminal Hillary Clinton? Yes, often it is their ROLE to do so. However they know that most of the party is mute, and only a tiny sliver of mostly upper income and upper middle class voters have the time to hear their pathetic pretense that the Democrats are fighting back.

They KNOW the right wing message is broadcast while the MSNBC is narrowcast. Their job is to keep the Democrats who might otherwise point out that the emperor has no clothes from doing so.

Seen in this light, is is absolutely no surprise at all that the MSNBC crowd is just as bad as the Chomsky the fake leftists, and Bill O'Reilly who sites Noam in his brief note on "sources" which Mr. FOX uses in lieu of a single footnote... and then is reviewed by The New York Times.

Many will think this interpretation too "top down, Machiavellian etc" I would suggest that they go back and read more on WWI, WWII and Cold War Communications Research. There is a good reason why Communications Research is not mediated into wider audiences with "middle brow" books. That middle brow would be the end of the game, and MSNBC's work to keep us moving ever further right would soon be over.

By "RIGHT" I here mean on economic and so called "National Security" i.e. eternal war issues.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

[Don Jeffries]

I don't know why this would surprise anybody. Rachel Maddow is a typical mainstream journalist. And I have never heard, in 35+ years of studying this case, any television reporter question the official lone nut version of JFK's assassination. It really is like they sign a pledge, upon getting their big break in the msm, that they will always publicly support the "Oswald acted alone" story.

I used to regularly watch C-SPAN's daily "Journalist Roundtable" for many years. Before they started making callers use different numbers as "Democrats" or "Republicans," or "Independents" (and yes, the "independent" number is much harder to memorize), they would usually have a good number of unscreened, "extremist" callers. Whenever any "forbidden" topic was broached, the host would normally cut the caller off abruptly, and the journalist-and I mean EVERY journalist-would kind of snicker and say "I've never been one to believe in conspiracy theories." I've heard this same, word for word response, on many other talk shows over the years. Evidently, there isn't a journalist out there, at least any one who has garnered significant air time, who believes there has ever been any conspiracy.

The whole debate between "left" and "right" is orchestrated and controlled, so that no one with a public voice ever dares to venture outside their strict, narrow parameters. Marginal issues like Gay Marriage are what differentiates the Democrats from the Republicans, and they simply don't effect the lives of very many Americans. No one will address things of true importance, like the disastrous impact of Free Trade, or the nature of our corrupt, counterfeit fractional banking system. Needless to say, even the most "daring" politicians or social commentators from both ends of the spectrum (think the Pauls, Kucinich, Michael Moore, Pat Buchanan, Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader) are not going to publicly state Oswald didn't do it, or that 9-11 was an inside job.

We have to stop paying attention to these overpaid presstitutes, as Gerald Celente calls them. They are all well-paid spokespersons for the corrupt state. We are making our own media by using the internet wisely, and everyday more and more people find it to be their best source for information. The msm is a dinosaur media, and it's really almost sad to watch them pretend they still matter. Alex Jones has more viewers than Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and co. can ever dream of. The Drudge Report gets more views than all the msm sites combined on the internet. The nature of media is changing rapidly, and the msm's lame attempts to co-opt it with sites like Huffington Post are just embarrassing.

[Don Jeffries]

Jim, Jesse Ventura first brought to attention the fact that Ariana Huffingtion has an official policy of "no conspiracy theories" at the Huffpo. Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change questioned her about this, and she admitted it.

You're right, she sure loves being some kind of minor celebrity.

[Sean Murphy]

Who was Maddow's consultant on this? Gary Mack?

Gary Mack has emailed to answer my question:

Sean,

Yet another wrong assumption on your part. I don't watch or advise Maddow, so she must be listening to her lefty pals who've found the CT viewpoint is lacking evidence?

Gary

The mistake of course is Gary's. I never assumed he was Maddow's adviser, I simply asked the question. It would of course be very unfair to assume that anytime WR-supporting simplifications are being blithely spouted by a prominent figure that Gary must necessarily be to blame.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

"lefty" friends, like Chomsky and Seymour Hersh who like quoting CIA sources on the Kennedy's? McLefty is more accurate.

There is one thing you will never, ever see get a second of airtime. A real leftist who states that JFK was a conspiracy. Not allowed.

[Richard Coleman]

My sense is that Maddow has a really smart staff, probably as smart as any around. If that's the case, there must be SOMEBODY over there who has a decent perspective on the assassinations. If so, then I guess it's just a question of how corrupt they are....or she is... In any case I'm sure we'll hear more from her as the 50th gets closer.

BTW, her "treatment" of the death of Hugo Chavez was an absolute disgrace. It could be shown on Fox without a word changed. Disgusting. My respect for her definitely has been blasted waaaaay down.

[Cliff Varnell]

Who was Maddow's consultant on this? Gary Mack?

Gary Mack has emailed to answer my question:

Sean,

Yet another wrong assumption on your part. I don't watch or advise Maddow, so she must be listening to her lefty pals who've found the CT viewpoint is lacking evidence?

Gary

85% of the American people find the CT viewpoint convincing (most recent poll).

As manager of the 6th Floor "Lone Nut" exhibit Gary Mack should take such a repudiation personally, I think.

[Sean Murphy]

I continue to admire Gary Mack for the range and depth of knowledge he brings to this case. Again and again he has gone beyond any conceivable call of duty in sharing his expertise with researchers who need help sourcing information and or clarifying various archival matters.

Gary's refusal to align himself with any specific CT claim is pretty understandable. He does have to be careful given his position as Sixth Floor Museum curator. And one can only imagine how badly burned he felt by the Roscoe White fiasco back in the 90s. 'Won't get fooled again' is not in the last analysis a bad motto to bring to this infernal case.

It is important also to acknowledge that Gary continues to reaffirm--at least when pressed--his personal suspicion that there was more to this whole thing than Oswald.

But therein lies the problem. Gary takes Oswald's guilt as the sixth-floor shooter as 100% read. You would have to go back quite a few years to find any evidence that Gary has the least flicker of doubt that Oswald was at that window firing with that gun. Not so much as a hint that there might be anything problematical about any aspect of the official evidence or any element of the witness stories. Not so much as a gesture towards the possibility that any claim contained in the Warren Report's account of what happened in the TSBD in those minutes is even questionable. Instead we get one insufferably smug restatement after another of the irrational assumption that Oswald's guilt is 'History' backed by 'hard evidence'. When was the last time you saw Gary injecting the merest note of caution when devious black-and-white statements are made by LN advocacy fanatics like David von Pein or John McAdams? No wonder those goons think the world of him. He has become all but indistinguishable from them.

Gary, in short, has gone from a somewhat gullible CT researcher to a very gullible Oswald-did-it spokesman.

It's all very unfortunate.