Jim DiEugenio spanks The Post

[Don Jeffries]

Jim DiEugenio is one of the few people in the JFK assassination research community who seems to understand just how putrid our professional "journalists" are in this country. If we had an independent mainstream media, with curious reporters, editors and producers who desired to publish the truth, then I would not have been able to write a book like Hidden History. Forget any muckrackers out there, feverishly trying to expose corruption. I'd settle for a media that simply questioned official sources. 

High-paid journalists, along with what I call the court historians, are tremendously vested in these official narratives, of both important political events, and even very old slices of history. For instance, the government still is blocking the request from the descendants of John Wilkes Booth, to have the body buried in Baltimore's Green Mount Cemetery exhumed. And they are stopping the exhumation of an even older historical figure, Meriwether Lewis, as well. High profile historians have a reputation to uphold, as do professional "journalists." For decades, they have insisted that any and all "conspiracy theories" are absurd. Thus, if DNA testing proved that the body in Green Mount, for instance, was not Booth, they have a lot of explaining to do. 

The Post is the kind of film that exemplifies everything wrong with our media, and our society. The entire gist of the film is to make establishment liberal-type heroes (the kind of man Tom Hanks imagines himself to be, I suppose) out of an editor and publisher who, in reality, did everything they could to appease the powerful elite in this country. More importantly for those interested in this particular subject, they slandered the true heroes who investigated a crime that "professionals" wouldn't, and did everything they could to cover up the truth about the JFK assassination. The reason why Donald Trump maintains any support at all is because his "fake news" proclamations are directed primarily at sources that undeniably have never produced any accurate reporting on any significant subject. 

I believe that most Americans today are historically illiterate. They don't even know anything about the "fake" official narratives, so how do we expose the lies and cover ups behind them? I only read some of the threads here now, and am frankly shocked at the level of discourse. Jim DiEugenio has a great deal of patience. If you've studied this case to any degree at all, you should know how big this conspiracy was, and how the cover up continues. And you certainly should be able to spot a piece of disinformation like The Post for what it is. 

[Joe Bauer]

1 hour ago, Don Jeffries said:

 

The Post is the kind of film that exemplifies everything wrong with our media, and our society. The entire gist of the film is to make establishment liberal-type heroes (the kind of man Tom Hanks imagines himself to be, I suppose) out of an editor and publisher who, in reality, did everything they could to appease the powerful elite in this country. More importantly for those interested in this particular subject, they slandered the true heroes who investigated a crime that "professionals" wouldn't, and did everything they could to cover up the truth about the JFK assassination. 

I believe that most Americans today are historically illiterate. They don't even know anything about the "fake" official narratives, so how do we expose the lies and cover ups behind them? I only read some of the threads here now, and am frankly shocked at the level of discourse. Jim DiEugenio has a great deal of patience. If you've studied this case to any degree at all, you should know how big this conspiracy was, and how the cover up continues. And you certainly should be able to spot a piece of disinformation like The Post for what it is. 

Here! Here!

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks so much Don.  As you say, the media is the problem in a lot of ways.

BTW I should add that a few years ago, there was a good PBS documentary on the subject, called The Most Dangerous Man in America.  That is worth seeing today as an antidote to this Hanks/Spielberg pastiche.

And I think it was a little before that there was a cable TV film on the subject called simply The Pentagon Papers.  It starred James Spader and Paul Giamatti. That was also a more honest presentation of the story.  BTW, if I recall correctly, that film was originally scripted by Eric Hamburg and John Dean.  They were then bought out to the point their names are not on the final version.

BTW, in those two renditions, the Washington Post figures very little.

[James DiEugenio]

When I first heard about the film I called Daniel Ellsberg. I was a bit stunned when he told me that the picture was not being based upon his fine book Secrets.

I said what is it about then?  He said it was going to be about Kay Graham and her decision to publish the PP.

I asked him, well you are a consultant then are you not?

He said, no, not really since he was not under contract.  

I said, well, what about informally?  He said they called him once.

That must have been when they changed the script to include the prologue, after  NYT lawyerJim Goodale went spastic after reading the first draft.

You really have to wonder who does the research for these people.

[Joe Bauer]

Is the "Most Dangerous Man In America" available on You Tube?

Last night, my wife and I viewed our latest mail received Net Flix film "Mark Felt- The Man Who Brought Down The White House" starring Liam Neeson as Felt.

Most of the critic's views and ratings of this film were less than good, but much of their reviews were based on structure, style and presentation as one would expect.

I am curious what others here, esp. Jim Di thought of the film from a content point of view.

The only mention of the Washington Post were two or three very brief scenes of Felt meeting or talking to Bob Woodward. Bradley and Graham were never mentioned once.

What was totally intriguing ( if true ) was what was really going on between Nixon and his criminal gang and the FBI and especially Mark Felt who apparently single-handedly prevented Nixon and his cronies ( including L.Patrick Grey and the nefarious William Sullivan ) from taking over control of the Agency to squash the entire Watergate affair.

Again, this story if true, reveals Mark Felt as a true American hero.  Much more so than I ever realized.

The film is heavy from start to finish and totally focused on a single plot line only ( except the search for Felt's missing daughter ) so I can see why it did so poorly at the box office. But it's message of government watchfulness and whistle blowing responsibility is timeless in it's importance

...and the film was "uncannily" reflective ( I mean SPOT ON ) of what is happening today with Trump and the current investigations into his possible criminal misdeeds.

Also, what always angers me about that time period was how Nixon and his entire cabal framed themselves as the "Law and Order", "Moral Majority" party that America so desperately needed to defend itself against free love hippies and black coddling commies like certified World War II hero George McGovern.

But even more outrageous is how the majority of voting Americans embraced that lie ( the 1972 election was a landslide ) and allowed our country to be run by those crooks who were THE OPPOSITE of ... the true good guys.

Americans who fell for that crap and voted for the lying crook Nixon should have been called to account for their stupidity, ignorance and irresponsible empowerment of that disaster ( TWICE! ) and told to "think and read more" about who is really good and moral when it comes to choosing who leads us. Especially now!

But, I feel those Nixon voters never gave a seconds thought to their huge and costly mistake in judgement and discernment in their voting choices back in 1968 through 1972...hence still voting for future Republicans who would again and again repeat that BS that they are somehow more moral than Democrats or others. Will the majority of future American voters ever learn? 

Mostly, up to now, they have not.

 

Edited January 28, 2018 by Joe Bauer

[James DiEugenio]

Joe:

It is not a good film.  The whole thing about Patrick Gray was really pretty bad.  Especially since he had posthumously published a book that vitiates what happens on screen. But further, his son went through the Bernstein/Woodward archives at Texas, and he found out that Deep Throat was a composite.  It was not just Felt. Its in his book, called In Nixon's Web.

Here is my review: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/11/01/rearranging-the-watergate-myth/

 

Edited January 29, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Joe Bauer]

Just read your review.

Very informing and thought provoking as always.

Much to mentally chew on.

Still, the historical reality remains that Nixon and his staff were truly majorly corrupt and their exposing and removal might very well had not happened were it not for the actions of a few key high position beltway people no matter their personal agendas.

And I have a hard time accepting L. Patrick Grey in this affair as someone much less complicit and knowingly unethical than the L. Patrick Grey in the film "Mark Felt" for the same reasons the confirmation hearing committee expressed.

Looking at Hunt's files with John Dean and Erlichman and then destroying these? Grey didn't fully understand the potential legal conflict of interest and consequences of this meeting and that action?

By the way, I am a huge fan of Neeson. And of Diane Lane.

Lane's part in the Felt film was limited but with her equally professional understated talent, she enhanced every scene she was in and her co-star's performance as well.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Joe Bauer

[Douglas Caddy]

John Simkin posted this on Facebook today:

"I would argue that "The Post" film is part of Operation Mockingbird."

 

[James DiEugenio]

That's really funny.  In the best way.

I guess my review has caught on a bit, I have four interviews scheduled.

 

[B. A. Copeland]

Hey there Jim, I basically wanted to contact you concerning this book I have recently seen:

https://www.amazon.com/Road-Not-Taken-Lansdale-American/dp/B07892WGPB

Any thoughts? I'm sure you, Len, Valentine and Newman among others would probably be interested in this work. I'm also fearful to read it for obvious reasons lol...

 

* Back on topic for me! (even though this has a bit to do with Vietnam, but I apologize Jim!)

Edited January 29, 2018 by B. A. Copeland

[James DiEugenio]

It has everything to do with Vietnam.

Max Boot is an inveterate PNAC/Neo Con CFR member.  And this is a  part of their effort at rehabbing the US mistake in Indochina.  Which, in a different, lesser way, the Burns/Novick mini series was. 

Its the whole "noble cause" excuse.  Like somehow the killing of four million people in Vietnam, and at least one million in Cambodia, was something noble.

But that is how nutty these neocons are.  They are simply off the charts fruitcakes.

They do not want to admit the obvious truth, which is we should have never been there.  Which is what Kissinger admitted the night of our final retreat from the top of the CIA station by helicopter. When we left about 400 people there who still wanted to get out.

BTW, I should add, Ken Burns' previous mini series, The Civil War, did the same thing; with its overwhelming use of Shelby Foote as the main talking head. Erich Foner, one of the best Civil War/Reconstuction historians alive, refused to be part of it when he saw the direction Burns was going in.

Edited January 30, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[B. A. Copeland]

32 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

It has everything to do with Vietnam.

Max Boot is an inveterate PNAC/Neo Con CFR member.  And this is a  part of their effort at rehabbing the US mistake in Indochina.  Which, in a different, lesser way, the Burns/Novick mini series was. 

Its the whole "noble cause" excuse.  Like somehow the killing of four million people in Vietnam, and at least one million in Cambodia, was something noble.

But that is how nutty these neocons are.  They are simply off the charts fruitcakes.

They do not want to admit the obvious truth, which is we should have never been there.  Which is what Kissinger admitted the night of our final retreat from the top of the CIA station by helicopter. When we left about 400 people there who still wanted to get out.

BTW, I should add, Ken Burns' previous mini series, The Civil War, did the same thing; with its overwhelming use of Shelby Foote as themain talking head. Erich Foner, one of the best Civil War/Reconstuction historians alive, refused to be part of it when he saw the direction Burns was going in.

Ahhhh ok....well this is what irritates me. This book just came into a local library....yet I see nothing from you, only 1 from Newman, etc. The libraries in an area I was visiting had hardly any good books. They did have Garrison's work, Conspiracy (1st Edition mind you, which is probably the better version?) but I'm in talks to get a nice slew of good books in. Would you mind sending me a PM of a more personal way to contact you? Please and thanks Jim and thanks for responding to my message. Unfortunately its what I figured....more historical mess.

[Paul Brancato]

I just watched The Post. It is clearly not journalism, but very good entertainment. I think Pat Speer makes a good point. The movie uses the Pentagon Papers story to make an idealistic statement about what a Free Press should be. The protagonist, a woman, makes a courageous decision. We need courageous leaders, especially women, now more than ever. If as Simkin says the movie is a Mockingbird operation, what is their purpose? No one watching it knows the historical innacuracies, but they do get the message. 

[Douglas Caddy]

Paul: Beautifully written. Your insight is right on the target.

[Thomas Graves]

19 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Paul: Beautifully written. Your insight is right on the target.

Douglas,

I cannot help but concur, Counselor.

--  Tommy