New York Times article on Oswald Conference in New Orleans

[Douglas Caddy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/us/in-donald-trump-conspiracy-fans-find-a-campaign-to-believe-in.html

[Larry Hancock]

Perhaps the fact that the media does not take our work seriously is not entirely their fault?

[James DiEugenio]

That is a good point Larry.

But Jeff Morley also has a good take on this at JFK Facts.

It seems this is always what the MSM does on these occasions. This one was to exploit Roger Stone since he has been Trump's guru for awhile.

But they also did it at the Wecht Conference for the 50th. Time magazine sent a reporter there to cover it. Except he wasn't there to cover it. He was there to do a profile on John McAdams.

Got that. He was there to cover a spectator. And that was the ruse that was used to discredit and caricature it all.

As Morley said, why not cover some of the more credible people in the field? And he named a few.

I think we know why. Because they do not want to confront the new evidence.

[Pat Speer]

My sentiments exactly, Jim. That the paper of record reported on this conference, after ignoring the 2013 Wecht and 2014 Bethesda conferences, is a disgrace.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Pat Speer

[Larry Hancock]

Jim, I'm honestly not sure if its a matter of confronting the evidence or the fact that media in general, not just MSM but the hundreds of talk radio and internet blogging news sites have become entertainment sites, not news sites. News used to be reported, with relatively little comment - that was reserved for editorial slots as it was in newspapers. My view of media in general now is that its entertainment, driven by either sensation or "performance art - a type of trade-craft itself in itself. There is limited investigative reporting, now devoted to "fact checking" statements by people the media covers. The media in general has moved to the People Magazine" model - which appears to be what the public wants. This year's election campaign clearly shows that the public just wants to hear things that appeal to them or agitate them, they don't want both sides - which of course was forecast by the coming of "shock jocks" and agenda driven talk radio.

Does the public really have any interest in what we are turning up on the JFK assassination? Or are they more interested in hearing coverage of a bunch of nut cases...? Media is a business, so I suggest the later fits better with the entertainment model. It also reflects the fact that what Trump is really doing in this election is laying the groundwork for a new media empire, one that will be far more profitable for him than real estate. The Media I knew in the 60's is dead. People actually believe the talk radio celebrities and think reality TV is real. I'm not saying I like it, I'm saying that as far as the media are concerned we are about 20 years late. Don Henley described it all perfectly in his song "Dirty Laundry".

[Michael Walton]

Larry - I say this with respect to you but I'm really surprised that you would cut the "media" some slack ("it's a business so they can't help themselves").

This has been going on forever - look how Mark Lane couldn't even get his article published in the US and had to go to England to do it - and this was literally a month after the murder.

Then all of the subterfuge, suppressing of evidence, the CBS "reports" fiasco, the character assassination of JFK and on and on.

11/22 is, IMO, the worst thing to happen to this country since Lincoln was murdered. Look how the course of reconstruction was changed forever the minute Lincoln died and a Southern bigot took it over. Fast forward 100 years later. I know Kennedy was human like the rest of us, but he pretty much saved the country twice from potential nuclear disaster; he was reaching out to Russia and Cuba; he believed that Vietnam could be helped but without a total US immersion; and - POOF - he was gone. And look what happened afterward.

And the people working behind the scenes who put it all together know what happened. And that's why it's a very taboo subject, because that's what they want to continue to happen. Look the other way...nothing to see here.

As for us and many others, it's basically one loud echo chamber of dissent. It's not hard to follow the dots and put it all together, but all it takes is yet another wink and a nod and anything worthwhile is buried again by talking heads with smug smiles and eye rolling, another book published by a conglomerate "media" company propping up the WR, and so on.

[Larry Hancock]

I didn't say I was cutting them any slack - what I said is that there is a new reality in media. We need a little dose of realism now and then, at one point in time media was a business but also a profession. With media conglomeration it has become almost entirely a business. We can complain about that all we want; as I pointed out today's media is not the media I grew up with and that is a shame. But that media, when it was far more independent and investigative, missed the JFK story even though individual reports like Dorothy Kilgallon tried. Even LIFE did a second inquiry, directed towards conspiracy...only to have it internally aborted at the highest levels of management. The new media is generally far worse, and far more sensational but the public has to bear a large part of that fault - the media gives them what they want and we have moved into the age of sound bytes.

One of the few media efforts to reassert actual investigative reporting is the current Fact Checking initiative which I really admire; has that been getting a lot of praise? Do you see a loud public commendation and a turn to using Fact Checking and actual data before posting or in private discussions - I don't.

So - no I don't like it. No I don't think its what reporting should be. And it irritates me. If we want better then the public has to demand it, or somebody has to accumulate enough money to start their own retro media. Don't expect that from the new Trump media enterprise that will emerge next year, or from RT. Now I'm returning to my "no whining" zone. Maybe I'll take a listen to the Eagles "Get Over It" for a little inspiration first.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Larry Hancock

[Paul Brancato]

The public is being gradually dumbed down, and it all becomes self fulfilling prophecy when the 'public' prefers entertainment to news, and media companies compete for their attention rather than ours. The millions of educated people have virtually nothing to watch, and little to read or listen to which informs them. I think the situation is very different now than in the '60's, but also agree that we are still marginalized whenever it becomes necessary to do so. That's why I personally think that Clinton will accede to the demands of the Intelligence community if they object to some of the document release, and the mainstream media will barely cover it.

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, Clinton won't have anything to do with it - although after the beating she has taken over classification of emails there is no reason she should step into the middle of it, It will be very much routine, the Agencies will unredact what they think is OK, and release those. And they will designate some as being retained under national security guidelines - if you want those you can appeal or sue and hope that a Judge will override...which has proved to be pretty unlikely.

Its a big thing to us and I hope we will get some new information out of it, but the actual process is pretty clear and if any Agency decides to fight for a document or documents its going to be SOP to go after them. At least that's the way I see it - but that's one reason we are having a special panel on it at the JFK Lancer conference and throwing the question up to some of the best NARA researchers still in the game.

[James DiEugenio]

I understand your point Larry, about tabloidization, and I agree.

But my point was that the MSM has always done its best to marginalize, ridicule, demean and discount the good work done of the jFK case. With very few exceptions--so few you can name them on the fingers of one hand.

Next year will be both the birthday anniversary and the end of the declassification process. We will see how that proceeds. IMO, it will be a replay of the 2013 circus.

[Paul Brancato]

Didn't Obama in 2013 put off a document release until 2017 at the request of Intelligence agencies?

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, I don't claim to be an expert in this but my understanding is that the 2017 date was established in the JFK records act; when individual records are released or when redaction are removed before that point is up to NARA and to the agencies whose records it holds (we are talking about records in the NARA collection, not any new records).

I don't think there was any Presidential order involved, this process is driven by the law, by NARA and by the Agencies whose records are in question. Take a look at the following from NARA.

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/faqs.html

Having said that, I'll defer to folks that know much more about it - that's one reason why we are devoting a good bit of the Dallas conference to this subject, including one major panel on just that alone.

[Paul Brancato]

Complicated. Wonder why Trejo has so much faith in this?

Jim - what circus in 2013 are you referring to?

[James DiEugenio]

Paul:

I am referring to the three ring circus that Pat Speer described in his excellent recounting of the media coverage of the 50th anniversary. I think he called it The Onslaught.

It was one of the most powerful outbursts of collective schizophrenia I have ever seen. And it was manifested in every branch of the media from the press, to radio, to TV, to cable TV. Every single aspect was consumed with drumming that bongo, the WC was correct: "Nothing to see here." As Pat showed, it was overwhelming for their side, by a margin of something like 5-1. And when our side got anything in, it was then countered by the other. I mean when Tom Hanks puts a dying Vince Bugliosi on TV for something like a solid hour to broadcast his horrendously one sided book to the public? When Tom Brokaw hires that old reliable chestnut Gus Russo to do the same thing he did for Tom as he did with both Jennings, and Rather and PBS? When the mayor of Dallas blocks off every entrance to Dealey Plaza, and then brings in Homeland Security to screen the 5000 people he did allow in, and brings out a force of 200 policeman to make sure no one breaks through the barriers--and this included police on horseback--all this to deprive citizens of their first amendment right to assemble in a public place?

As I said at the time, I had never seen anything like that for any anniversary of any historical event in my entire life--and I am not a youngster. All of it to make sure that there was nothing from our side that got to the mass of the people to upset the WC cover up cake.

That is what I expect next year. Anyone who thought the WC cover up would die when a new generation of media got in house or when most of the WC members were dead--that was wrong. Before he died Specter got word to Shenon. And Willens looks like he will rattle his cage until his dying breath.

Understandable, in a Shakespearian kind of way. If you were part of a crime of that magnitude, you wouldn't want the public to know what you did either.

Edited October 20, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Chris Newton]

Hey Jim,

you forgot to mention Alex Jones' attempt to incite a riot. It reminded me, at the time, of Terry Norman's role at Kent State. I had my fingers crossed it would not escalate out of control.