Why CBS Covered up the JFK Case (pt1)

[David Von Pein]

Regarding the Sevareid commentary shown earlier in this thread, is there some kind of transcript out there of what he says?

I quoted most of it in Post #6. Here it is again....

ERIC SEVAREID -- "What fed the conspiracy notion about the Kennedy assassination among many Americans was the sheer incongruity of the affair. All that power and majesty wiped out in an instant by one skinny, weak-chinned little character. It was like believing that the Queen Mary had sunk without a trace because of a log floating somewhere in the Atlantic. Or that AT&T stock had fallen to zero because a drunk somewhere tore out his telephone wires.

[...]

And so, three-and-a-half years later, there are people who still think some group of men are living somewhere carrying in their breasts the most explosive secret conceivable....knowledge of a plot to kill Mr. Kennedy.

These imagined men supposedly go about their lives under iron self-discipline, never falling out with each other, never giving out a hint of suspicion to anyone else.

And nearly three years after the Warren inquiry finished its painful and onerous work, there are not only the serious critics who point to the various mistakes of commission or omission....mistakes of a consequence one can only guess at, and of a kind that have probably plagued every lengthy, voluminous official investigation ever staged. There are also people who think the Commission itself was a conspiracy to cover up something.

In the first place, it would be utterly impossible in the American arena of the fierce and free press and politics to conceal a conspiracy among so many individuals who live in the public eye.

In the second place, the deepest allegiance of men like Chief Justice Warren, or of John McCloy, does not lie with any president, political party, or current cause. It lies with history....their name and place in history. That is all they live for in their later years.

If they knowingly suppressed or distorted decisive evidence about such an event as a Presidential murder, their descendants would bear their accursed names forever. The notion that they would do such a thing is idiotic."

Edited April 5, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Ron Ecker]

Sevareid was sort of right about one thing. We may not know the names of those who killed Kennedy, but their descendants will still "bear their accursed names forever."

[James DiEugenio]

Michael:

I imagine the Harold Weisberg archive at Hood College will probably have the transcript of the show.

DVP leaves out the beginning and the end of the screed, which I think are the most important parts.

Sevareid actually compares the critics of the WR--Meagher, Thompson, Popkin etc-- with those who say Hitler Lives.

Which has to be one of the most outrageous and absolutely batty comments ever made on network TV at that time. He should have been ashamed of himself. But, like I said, he was looking ahead to retirement and did not want to get Paley mad at him. As Upton Sinclair wrote, "Its hard to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it."

To look at Sevareid's commentary today is to be reminded of Garrison's warning at the end of his Playboy interview: fascism will not come to America in the name of anti-fascism, as Huey Long predicted--but in the name of national security. (Which is what attorney Huddleson told Manning and Midgley in Califonria.)

And it will be made up, not of fences with barbed wire, but will be an imprisonment of the mind, done by smearing and caricaturing those who dissent.

That is what this show ended up being about. Which is why its so important for us to recall that it did not begin like that at all. Roger's work proves that in spades.

Edited April 5, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Walton]

Sevareid actually compares the critics of the WR--Meagher, Thompson, Popkin etc-- with those who say Hitler Lives.

Thanks for the Hood College lead - I'll check it out. Wow! Amazing he lumps together assassination researchers with Hitler Lives.

UPDATE - Unfortunately, the Hood College archive only has transcripts of Parts 1-3 but not the "Hitler Lives" speech in Part 4.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Michael Walton

[Myra Bronstein]

You might want to point out, Jim, that Sevareid's rant was re-broadcast as part of CNN's Tom Hanks-produced, Vincent Bugliosi-fueled, program put together for the 50th anniversary, which was repeated if I recall six times in the weeks leading up to the 50th anniversary. I remember that you missed it when first broadcast. I'm not sure if it's available online. But just imagine the CBS special with Bugliosi hosting instead of Cronkite and you'll get the picture.

...

Great post Pat. Thanks!

[Jim Hargrove]

To Jim DiEugenio….

Thanks for the link to the Mail Order Rifle article on HarveyandLee.net in your new write-up about CBS… and, of course, for the terrific piece itself! It is written so clearly and convincingly; no wonder WC apologists feel compelled to try to criticize it.

Just from the referrals we’re getting from CTKA.net at my website I can tell that readership is very high. Congratulations…. And please keep the great work coming!

[James DiEugenio]

Don't worry, Part 2 is on its way.

That one will send Von Pein to Urgi Care for Valiums.

[Kirk Gallaway]

I love it! Always have. Sevareid's words are oh so true. Then and now. Which is why, of course, DiEugenio feels the need to trash Mr. Sevareid. Jim simply cannot accept the basic common sense—and truth—that resides within this one single sentence:

"The notion that they would do such a thing is idiotic."

Dave,Since you love those 60's news icons. I don't know if you've seen this.. But apparently some others at CBS had their doubts. No less than the executive producer of the CBS evening news at the time and the eventual producer of the most commercially successful TV news magazine of the 20th century, before his death expressed doubt that Oswald was the lone assassin and actually thinks that Nixon and LBJ have some insight as to who was really behind the Kennedy assassination. I would assume if he expresses that former Presidents might be privy, that he probably doesn't have the unquestioned respect that his colleague, Severeid and you have for the WC as well.

Of course this begs the question, why didn't he investigate it? Was it just a matter that he couldn't absolutely prove it, as he said?

Hewitt starts at 1:15, for some reason they sync up the audio at around 5:06. Then Nixon, Garrison and an excerpt I had never heard from Jesse Curry expressing his opinion of a frontal entry. Sallinger, Yarborough, Gorbachev

https://youtu.be/kNcQi46T6ME

Edited April 7, 2016 by Kirk Gallaway

[Michael Walton]

I've always found this one incredibly insightful too. The description on the YouTube page is hilarious BTW:

https://youtu.be/xd1wuXrVPjo

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, this thing is really getting out there.

It is the number one article at CTKA right now.

Its getting over 900 visits per day. Not hits, but visits. People are reading either some of it or all of it.

Part 2 is going up tonight. Stay tuned.

[Sandy Larsen]

Jim,

I wish also to thank you for writing this important article. It is very well written, and very informative. As usual.

I'm looking forward to reading Part 2. Thanks goodness your "stay tuneds" are measured in hours/days and not years/decades! (Just poking a little fun at another esteemed researcher posting here.)

Edited April 8, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Kirk Gallaway]

I enjoyed it it too Jim.

Here is a Walter Cronkite interview with John J. Mc Cloy about the Warren Report. In his intro he is acknowledged as the former high commissioner for Germany.

Not to get too psychoanalytical but what I'm struck with by Mc Cloy in the interview is how in answering Cronkite's questions that he's continually turning his head away from Cronkite as if to check his notes on what is presumably a spontaneous interview. It's as if he can't fix his gaze at his questioner and has to be continually retreat to himself. It's common for people to avert eye contact in an interview to perhaps collect their thoughts. But this "aside bobble head" quality of Mc Cloy looks very awkward. And Cronkite (who I was brought up with) acts like he's just thrilled and privileged that one of the esteemed Warren Commission members would actually condescend to answer questions from the public. This sort of fawning was very common among newsman to political leaders of that time.

As an adolescent i remember sort of liking Walter Cronkite, but I had no idea until later that people invested such a huge amount of trust specifically in their TV anchors.His anti Viet Nam War piece was the first thing I remembered from him that was in any way defiant. IMO, He did perfectly represent the people of that time who heartily wanted to believe in their country and wanted what was best for the country despite any say, party affiliations, but definitely had their blind spots.

https://youtu.be/vigbW8qdFks

[David Von Pein]

After just doing a quick initial scan of Part 2 of Jim DiEugenio's CBS article, which features Jim's almost non-stop griping and complaining about how evil CBS News was when it produced its four-part 1967 documentary special, "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report" (which is par for the course for a conspiracy theorist; I wouldn't expect anything less from Jimmy D.), I took note of two major misrepresentations concerning the Warren Commission's 1964 conclusions....

DiEugenio flat-out twists and distorts the facts when he says this in his article:

"On his one miss, the Warren Commission said that Oswald’s shot hit the curb beneath bystander James Tague. This then bounced up off his face, drawing blood." -- J. DiEugenio

Fact:

The Warren Commission did not definitively conclude that Oswald's "missed shot" was the bullet that hit the Main Street curb and caused the cheek injury to bystander James T. Tague. The Commission allowed for multiple other possibilities concerning Tague's wounding. Here's what the WC said on Page 117 of the Warren Report:

"Even if it were caused by a bullet fragment, the mark on the south curb of Main Street cannot be identified conclusively with any of the three shots fired. Under the circumstances it might have come from the bullet which hit the President’s head, or it might have been a product of the fragmentation of the missed shot upon hitting some other object in the area. Since he did not observe any of the shots striking the President, Tague’s testimony that the second shot, rather than the third, caused the scratch on his cheek, does not assist in limiting the possibilities."
-- Warren Report; Page 117

~~~~~~~~~~~

And then we have this oft-repeated myth once again being repeated by James DiEugenio:

"As the critics of the Warren Report had pointed out, the Commission had used two tests to see if Oswald could have gotten off three shots in the allotted 5.6 seconds revealed in the Warren Commission..." -- J. DiEugenio

Fact:

The Warren Commission did not specifically claim that Lee Harvey Oswald had only "5.6 seconds" to fire his three shots at President Kennedy on 11/22/63. Once again, if we turn to Page 117 of the Warren Report, we'll find proof that the conspiracy theorists who continue to attempt to promote the notion that the Commission had "allotted" only 5.6 seconds for the shooting are promoting nothing but a myth. Because here's what the Warren Commission said:

"Two bullets probably caused all the wounds suffered by President Kennedy and Governor Connally. Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants, and that the three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds."
-- Warren Report; Page 117





Also see:
JFK-Archives.blogspot.com / The "5.6 Seconds" Myth


DiEugenio, in Part 2 of his CBS article, also says that the press conference given at Parkland Hospital by Drs. Kemp Clark and Malcolm Perry was "filmed". But that is almost certainly incorrect. That conference was very likely not filmed (or videotaped) at all. A text transcript of the press conference does exist, of course, which can be read in its entirety on my site HERE, but there's never been any evidence that any video or film of the conference was ever made.

Edited April 8, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Ray Mitcham]

DiEugenio, in Part 2 of his CBS article, also says that the press conference given at Parkland Hospital by Drs. Kemp Clark and Malcolm Perry was "filmed". But that is almost certainly incorrect. That conference was very likely not filmed (or videotaped) at all. A text transcript of the press conference does exist, of course, which can be read in its entirety on my site HERE, but there's never been any evidence that any video or film of the conference was ever made.

"Almost certainly incorrect"

"Very likely not filmed"

That's settled it then.

.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Ray Mitcham

[David Von Pein]

"Almost certainly incorrect"

"Very likely not filmed"

That's settled then.

The Perry/Clark conference was either transcribed by a stenographer or was recorded on audio (otherwise, a verbatim transcript, which we DO have, could not possibly exist). But there's never been any video or film footage (with audio attached) that has ever surfaced of that conference that I am aware of. And as an avid JFK video collector, I've certainly searched for it over the years. But I've never found it anywhere.

I seem to recall seeing a snippet of silent film footage showing Dr. Perry at the conference, but nothing more than just a clip.

This topic, BTW, has been discussed recently at Jeff Morley's site too -- HERE.

Edited April 8, 2016 by David Von Pein