James DiEugenio Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 Below is a very nice analysis of how the liberal magazine The Nation changed its coverage about the Kennedy assassination once the WR came out. And what is worse, once it came out, that verdict became more or less that magazine's view of the case forever under McWilliams, Navasky and Vanden Heuvel. See for example, Cockburn during the Oliver Stone ruckus, and then Max Holland as their correspondent on the ARRB. This is how it started: https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-nation-s-editorial-policy-from-the-assassination-to-the-warren-report Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph McBride Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) See my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE for an account of my two Bush articles I managed to get published in The Nation during the summer of 1988, and some of their questionable behavior during that period (including their connections with U.S. intelligence), and how they killed the third article I wrote in time to be published before the 1988 presidential election, a well-documented piece about Bush and James Parrott and his rightwing cronies, after they commissioned me to do two months of additional research in D.C. and Texas. Edited August 16, 2017 by Joseph McBride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now