The Kennedys and Civil Rights: How the MSM Continues to Distort History

[Guest]

Jim alas won't see this unless he once again wrong-browsers, but in my rush to do other things I neglected to make the most salient point:  In response to my post, he makes two long and impassioned defenses of JFK's greatness as a President and the quality of JFK's civil rights record vis-à-vis that of his three immediate predecessors.  These impassioned defenses are completely irrelevant to the point I am making.  I find it difficult to believe that Jim doesn't recognize that his defenses of JFK are irrelevant.  For purposes of this discussion, I will stipulate that JFK was the greatest President in U.S. history and that Abe Lincoln's record on civil rights pales in comparison.

Jim introduced his essay with the statement that it is further evidence of a "Posthumous Assassination" of JFK by the "Mainstream Media" that has been ongoing since at least the nineties for the purpose of "taking the sting out of the assassination."  My point - which has nothing to do with how great JFK or his record on civil rights actually were - is that this thesis will not withstand scrutiny.  It is, in my opinion, indicative of the sort of conspiracy paranoia commonly referred to as tinfoil-hat thinking.  Unfortunately, too much tinfoil-hat thinking slides by on these forums without being challenged.  (I am by no means suggesting that all conspiracy theorizing is tinfoil-hat thinking.)

I simply mentioned that the consensus of actual Presidential historians has always been that JFK should be ranked around 12th (and that his civil rights record is good but not great) but that the general public places him far higher.  This in itself makes the supposed Mainstream Media conspiracy virtually impossible to defend.  Are Presidential historians part of this conspiracy?  And if the conspiracy exists, why is it having no effect on public opinion?  Surely the Mainstream Media shapes public opinion to a far greater extent than do Presidential historians.  Why do others of us who are exposed to the Mainstream Media all day every day see no evidence of any such conspiracy?

Jim, both in his initial response and his rebuttals, either completely missed my point (unlikely) or knowingly attempted to steer the discussion away from it because yolk was dripping off his face.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Guest

[Ron Bulman]

7 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

First off, Happy #93, Bobby! 11/20/25!

W. Neiderhut-, I'm familiar with the one alleged picture of George Bush at Dealey Plaza talking with other men that I showed to you.. Can you please show me this second picture?

Maybe you should take a deep breathe and read what I first wrote again. You equate me with Ln'er Lance because you probably get upset and don't carefully read. I actually like a lot  of Jim's  coverage of the government and media coverup from the period of the assassination to the late 70's. I think after that general period his accusations become very hazy, contrived and non specific and he stabs in the dark, making accusations about a media conspiracy passed down through succeeding generations without  providing any real evidence. Whereas if you earnestly read what I said, you'd see I have another explanation as to why the MSM  has been hesitant the last 30 years to be involved in the JFKA.

Ron, You appear to be getting testy and  commencing to hurl insults. Why you don't you also take a deep breathe. I think there are a lot of authors that wonder why they aren't being reviewed in the N.Y. Times. And honestly I've wondered why some good books that aren't as controversial haven't been reviewed as well.No  I haven't read the Kennedy book and I assume you haven't either and I don't knee jerk assume it's not reviewed because of some media conspiracy. I'll give you my thoughts maybe  why, for whatever it's worth.

Unfortunately I think because the Kennedy family has been publicly sitting on the fence for 50 years about this, Although their outing is a shot in the arm to the JFKAC community, it's  really not that hot a story to the public at large, as unbelievable as you may find that, though it could be more if he were to run for President. Also now there's  a backlash against conspiracy theories among the intelligensia because of some Trump conspiracy crazies, like "Q Anon","Government deep state" and others. It was better when there were fewer theories. That's my non conspiracy attempt to explain it to you. It doesn't put you or the CT community at the center of the universe, but of course, they're/you're  not.

But I think that's a better question for a MSM conspiracy person to ask than the allegation you made in your thread entitled "The Coverup Continues" where you spoke of a news article and said:  I think this illustrates the continued  coverup of information important to the people of the United States by the MSM since the JFK Assassination.  Important to someone obviously or it wouldn't have been published at all but quickly squelched by owners."  And then said later:  "I think the 1% owners of the MSM tell their corporate heads who tell the editors, producers, directors and writers what is news and what is not."

  And what was the article about that was squelched?, That 2400 Law Professors signed a petition saying that Brett Kavanaugh shouldn't be allowed to sit on the Supreme Court!. This was picked up by all the major news sources, not just the NY Times, who incidentally had already editorially come out against the Kavanaugh nomination as well. The cat was out of the bag! There was no conflict at the New York Times about the article! It wasn't squelched! You actually thought there was a news blackout about it until Steve T. told you about a daily  update. You asserted the major  networks wouldn't touch it and you were wrong there as well. Just completely wrong  on all counts. I tried to gently bring this to your attention and it was like talking to Trump.

It showed me you know little about modern news or news gathering.  i think your choice of title and your choice of a news story only discredited your long term thesis. And I think if Jim Di was honest with you, he'd tell you the same. But still I  gave you credit for bringing up the issue of what determines if a story "has legs", and I cited an article the same day of what I thought was a much better possible example, which I'm sure you wouldn't remember.

                                                      *****************

Ron, I know you're not that receptive to me now, but I thought you might like this interview with Nancy MacLean talking about the power of the Koch family on Bill Maher. She's a very cool lady.

https://youtu.be/rMHPH96Z3ic

 

And then part of her stump lecture circuit.

 

https://youtu.be/P7vbFa1AOfY

 

 

 

 

 

 

Squelched by the fact it was reported but not featured, not reported on in depth, though virtually nothing is these days is.  What it was is let's let this die so a right republican libertarian supreme court solid majority could be established for the foreseeable future to ultimately control what is law.  Call it Kavanaugh law, all hail Citizens United.  Yeah, I think the decision to do so was ordained..

Yeah, I've got American Values and have read it, along with all the books I linked.  

If you question collusion of the continued efforts of the msm to obscure the record of JFK, and RFK  I have to wonder if you've read Jim's article in full or if you'd care to discuss IT.

Yes, Nancy McLean is excellent.  If you've not, read her book too.

https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Chains-History-Radical-Stealth/dp/1101980974/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1542774026&sr=1-1&keywords=democracy+in+chains

It Really relates to Jim's article.  Note the 671 almost all positive reviews for her first effort, as opposed to internationally recognized son of RFK's has a paltry 56.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Kirk:

There are no conspiracies in the media today about the JFK case, although there were back in the sixties and seventies.

Today, it has simply become institutionalized.  It is more or less a system.  We know this from Alec Baldwin's revelation in Houston at the mock trial.

He said that at the fiftieth, he made a proposal to the president of NBC about  a special on JFK.  Knowing who he was dealing with, the reply was words to the effect that we have reconciled ourselves to the official story.  I don't see how it gets more clear than that.  And that is why Rachel Maddow does what she does.  Bill O'Reilly did the same when he got his orders from the late Roger Ailes at Fox.  

All one has to do is observe what Gus Russo did from 1993-2013.

1993: PBS special on Oswald.

2003: ABC special on the JFK case with Jennings.

2013: NBC special with Brokaw on JFK.

Sorry, I do not consider that a coincidence.  

Another good example of this was the whole uproar over the declassifed JFK files that took place last September and October. Who were the recurring guests: Shenon  and Sabato. And they actually would throw in Posner.  No Jim Lesar, no Rex Bradford.

I managed to get on--in Moscow.

 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Wrong.  You made up a story about how your clothing moves that's pure fiction.

Lance the True Believer posing as "objective analyst" -- the routine is beyond tired.

OH, DEAR GOD, I'VE BEEN OUTED!!!  I feared one day it would come to this, and now it has.  Cliff the Weaponizer has figured out my game.  Stupidly [slaps forehead] I went one step too far and made up a story about how my clothing moves that was pure fiction.  Did I really think I could slide THAT by the crafty Weaponizer???  Yes, yes, I am a ravenous True Believer Lone Nutter deceivingly cloaked in the garb of a harmless Provisional Lone Nutter.  (How would that work?  What precisely would one accomplish by such a deception?  Don't think too hard about it, you might injure yourself.)  Well, I guess this is an improvement on a year ago, when I was a CIA disinformation agent or a PR shill for the Dulles family or the United Fruit Company or something like that.  I've always regarded all internet forums as basically the equivalent of a Monty Python Skit, but the Pythons couldn't come up with this sort of stuff.  My hat is off to you, Weaponizer.

[Ron Bulman]

39 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Kirk:

There are no conspiracies in the media today about the JFK case, although there were back in the sixties and seventies.

Today, it has simply become institutionalized.  It is more or less a system.  We know this from Alec Baldwin's revelation in Houston at the mock trial.

He said that at the fiftieth, he made a proposal to the president of NBC about  a special on JFK.  Knowing who he was dealing with, the reply was words to the effect that we have reconciled ourselves to the official story.  I don't see how it gets more clear than that.  And that is why Rachel Maddow does what she does.  Bill O'Reilly did the same when he got his orders from the late Roger Ailes at Fox.  

All one has to do is observe what Gus Russo did from 1993-2013.

1993: PBS special on Oswald.

2003: ABC special on the JFK case with Jennings.

2013: NBC special with Brokaw on JFK.

Sorry, I do not consider that a coincidence.  

Another good example of this was the whole uproar over the declassifed JFK files that took place last September and October. Who were the recurring guests: Shenon  and Sabato. And they actually would throw in Posner.  No Jim Lesar, no Rex Bradford.

I managed to get on--in Moscow.

 

Moscow?  Do they have a problem with hijacking in Moscow?  I was just wondering if Lance might know something about that subject.  Or civil rights.

[Ron Bulman]

Subject test.  Who was Charles Houston?  In which part of the article does he appear, 1,2,3 or 4?  Was he related to famous Texan Sam Houston?  Is Houston Texas named for him?  Which Supreme Court Justice said we were just carrying his baggage?  What president integrated the Secret Service?  Bonus:  what does NAACP stand for?

Edited November 21, 2018 by Ron Bulman

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

OH, DEAR GOD, I'VE BEEN OUTED!!!  I feared one day it would come to this, and now it has.  Cliff the Weaponizer has figured out my game.  Stupidly [slaps forehead] I went one step too far and made up a story about how my clothing moves that was pure fiction.

Frauds always expose themselves, after all...

[James DiEugenio]

I have to say Ron, that radio appearance in Moscow was really interesting.

The hostess was quite interested and knowledgeable about the subject matter.  Both the assassination and JFK himself.

About Charles Houston, I had heard his name before, but prior to writing that series, I really did not know just how important that guy was to the civll rights movement.  I mean to literally devote your career to overturning Plessy v Ferguson?  Talk about heroic.  And then to die tragically just four years before that goal is achieved.  I was so glad to find that quote by Thurgood Marshall about Houston, "We were just carrying his bags, that's all." 

It shows just how bad the MSM is that almost no one knows about this guy.  But, of late, there has been something of a boomlet and now there are five books out about him. Hopefully there will be a film about him, its made to order for a TV docudrama.

Edited November 21, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Joe Bauer]

Here is the only article on AOL's daily news site about JFK posted the day before the 55th anniversary of Dallas, 11,22,1963.

HOME / ENTERTAINMENT /

Hidden Love Affairs and Dark Secrets JFK Tried to Keep From Americans During His Presidency

• Chelena Goldman
• MORE ARTICLES

Every anniversary we see more negative pieces on JFK than positive or even neutral ones. During any given year there are more negative articles on JFK than positive or neutral ones.

And most keep centering their essays on JFK's promiscuous actions while married to Jackie. 

How many articles about JFK's extra-marital sexual affairs can we keep seeing year after year before the subject is beaten to death and we get sick of reading them?

What's the point of giving national exposure year after year to these JFK hit pieces?

This latest article list 10  "dark secrets" about JFK.  Besides the sexual ones they even came up with his use of medications by "3" separate doctors so he could get his fixes quickly and easily. 

You see JFK reported as a "steroid" user! The article lumps JFK in with "Mark McGwire" and "Lance Armstrong!" in an exaggerated, amoral, cheating boogie man way.

What MSM editorial board or lead editors keep allowing these totally negative JFK hit piece articles to be published in national media venues so often, almost regularly?

And while at the same time, we hardly ever see articles like these on  other truly corrupt past presidents like LBJ?

LBJ's corrupt, amoral and even immoral activities and actions through out his entire adult life make JFK seem like a Boy Scout in comparison.

[W. Niederhut]

Good post, Joe.

The more I have learned about 11/22/63 in recent years, the more I have realized how skillfully LBJ, and others, have managed the false mainstream media narratives about JFK's presidency, and the sequelae of 11/22/63.  Vietnam policy is the most obvious example, but DiEugenio's historical critiques have clarified how the same thing has happened in the case of the Civil Rights movement.

Meanwhile, our corporate MSM continues to crank out defamatory narratives about the Kennedy family-- including the recent film about Chappaquiddick.

(BTW, I also noticed that Monica Lewinsky has been back in the MSM headlines during the 2018 elections.)

[Joe Bauer]

Yes W.

Is the release of the Kennedy scandal film just days before the JFK assassination anniversary just another coincidence?

My observation of past president historical analysis and commentary essay articles that are given national exposure in the MSM ( for decades ) is that ones on JFK far outnumber all others by a noticeable factor.

And that they definitely dwell on negative aspects of JFK's personal and political life to an illogically high and unbalanced degree.

I can't think of another past president who has received such a high number of negative image hit pieces as JFK  or anything close.

Focusing on so many JFK issues in a negative light such as his Vietnam policy sincerity, his Bay Of Pigs actions, his wife disrespecting marriage infidelities and out-of-control sexual promiscuity, his efforts to cool the arms race and finding some common ground with the Soviets and Khrushchev ( commie leanings? ) his mistrust of and even defiance toward his own joint Chiefs of Staff, his same with the CIA and Dulles and Hoover too, his stance on race ( hated for this ) or how he wasn't really that sincere or substantially invested toward blacks, and on and on.

The American public ( through general population popular media venues versus specialized smaller audience ones ) has been exposed to this negative focus JFK commentary much more than any other president.   IMO that is a fact and you don't have to be an obsessed conspiracy person to see this reality.

If the American public had been honestly exposed to the corrupt doings of LBJ and the true depths of these versus what they have been so regularly fed regarding JFK's flaws and debatable mistakes all these past decades, they would be horrified about LBJ...as they should be.

Jim D is right on this issue.

 

 

Edited November 22, 2018 by Joe Bauer

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks for the link to that AOL article Joe. And the thing is, most of those ridiculous statements in it are rubbish.  Simply unfounded and unsubstantiated. 

Like I have said before, there is a cottage industry in these types of trashy books.  And once a friend of mine gets her web site up, you will see how she will 1.) Expose that industry, and 2.) Show just how phony most of these accusations are.  She has really done her homework on this.  And she goes well beyond what I wrote about in my original essay back in 1997.

And if you read my review of that very bad Discovery Channel six part documentary earlier in the year, they used some of these, let us call them, unscholarly journalists.  So its synergistic as they say, the broadcast media and the print media.  And with what we know about the strictures against the new evidence in the JFK case, that is the institutional set up we have.  Its not conspiratorial anymore, as I demonstrated back in the sixties with my long article on Roger Feinman's work at CBS, it was.

What makes this so nauseating is that:

1.) There really is a lot of new evidence unearthed by the ARRB that the public does not know about.

2.) There are new books about JFK's presidency that have a lot of new and interesting info in them.

3.) The stuff we now know today about LBJ, Nixon and Eisenhower all are true and accurate and are much worse than anything Kennedy ever contemplated much less did.  For instance, the stuff about Ike in John Newman's second volume has really made me reevaluate his presidency.

But that is how the game is played in both academia and the MSM.  The table has already been set. The dinner is planned and that is that.  

Thank God for the web.

Edited November 23, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[W. Niederhut]

     Something about the guerilla war against our pervasive MSM disinformation reminds me of Sgt. Joe Friday's opening remarks in the old Dragnet series-- "It's an endless, glamorless, thankless job that's gotta be done."

    But, what happens if and when the web comes under the control of corporate and/or government censors?  The truth about history disappeared in societies where that kind of censorship occurred-- e.g., in Stalinist Russia.

     And, as Orwell said, "Those who control the past control the present, and those who control the present control the future."

[James DiEugenio]

In relation to that, note what I said at the end of Part 2.

On the fiftieth anniversary of the RFK assassination, Amy Goodman had Dyson as her sole guest about Bobby Kennedy.

And never once, as far as I could see, did she question any aspect of his book or his whole specious analysis.

Talk about the blind leading the blind. This is one reason I left Pacifica.

[James DiEugenio]

Yes WN, I do sometimes feel like Jack Webb and that speech, "Its an endless, glamorless, thankless job that's gotta be done."

But every once in awhile you get some moment of gratification.

Like now when you google the Kennedys and Civil Rights, this article is on page one of Yahoo and Google.