Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Oliver Stone documentary on JFK assassination to premiere at Cannes


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

This is actually very disturbing news, and underlines a creeping descent into a Soviet style information regime in the USA, a process which is farther along than most people realize and which has been actively encouraged and supported most vociferously by America’s liberal intelligentsia.

National Geographic not a surprise - they have featured numerous shoddy JFK documentaries over the years, so the only thing surprising is their reference to fact-checking, if that is even accurate (as their bad docs obviously did not require the same). That Netflix would turn it down should raise eyebrows as Netflix is not a news-gathering current events outfit, and had no problem running the “Untold History” series also by Stone.

Certainly for members of this Forum, the basic source material and interview subjects of this new project are known and are neither controversial or prone to articulate information which cannot be verified or sourced. So who are the “fact-checkers”? Pondering that question for a few minutes in the context of this new documentary should clarify the general perniciousness of the current mania advocating the distribution of only “approved” information.

Jeff Carter--

Right. This is a spooky situation. 

America's liberal intelligentsia has become a shoddy, puerile parody of the old Russian stooges. 

The Democratic Party and media apparatchicks represent Wall Street, Big Tech, the multinationals, and Hollywood, with poisonous, censorious ID politics window-dressing for cover.  

And the multinationals love doing business in China. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jim, I'm concerned you have taken my remark directly opposite of what I said - my assumption is that Stone's production is fact based and appropriately sourced and cited.  I have no idea of it peer reviewed in any fashion but regardless, I expected it would be factual based on your being his primary resource.  That's an assumption too but I never really doubted it would be correct. 

That means he would also have you at his back in any fact checking and that would not bode well for "establishment" historians who might try to counter what we have learned and what is in his work.

What I was trying to get at was some details about his fact checking remark - what Netflix demanded, what sources they offered to fact check it, what they objected to, etc?   None of that is about you, its about them.  And beyond that what rebuttals were in play from Stone and for that matter from you.

Bottom line - I assumed it was factual because you were involved.  What I want to know is the details of their push back,  for a bunch of reasons, but also because it would reveal what are still contemporary media sore spots even as of 2020.

-- Sorry if I was not clear but I did say I was assuming he had the facts which meant he had the high ground.

 

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by James DiEugenio
Edited by Larry Hancock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

My view is the Facebooks, Googles, Twitters, YouTubes etc. have to make a decision:

1. Are the Facebooks, et al like the phone company, and thus not liable for what is said over the wires. I can plan and execute a violent bank robbery over the phone wires, or have the fringiest political view imaginable, and no one says the phone company should cut off my service. I can hold a conference call and hurl homophobic, racial and sexist slurs, and no one says my phone service should be cut off.

I boycott Facebook.  Tried it a couple of times, didn’t take.  Are you sure people get kicked off merely for making offensive comments?

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

2. Or are the Facebooks et al like media companies, responsible for content, and they will and must curtail content as they see fit, but will also accept liability?

Could Facebook or Twitter survive a highly litigious business environment?

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Right now, the Facebooks et al are happily straddling the fence, censoring as they see fit and not liable for content. Very comfy. 

I don’t have a problem with that at all.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

My own take is the Facebooks et at have become de facto Town Squares, and thus should not censor anything, other than overt hate speech intended to incite violence. 

How about a former President who incessantly lies about his electoral defeat and inspires thousands of his followers to violence?

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If the Central American Association of Hermaphrodites Against IntraPersonal Rape have a website and following, so be it.  

That ain’t in the same league as the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which appeared to be the front for criminal activity.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

What is spooky is the number of establishment "news" organizations, especially in the US cable business, gung ho for repressing alternative news sites. (Well, the alt-news sites are bleeding off ad dollars too.) 

Add on: Is Brian Sickman a replay of Pat Tillman? 

More specific...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Jim, I'm concerned you have taken my remark directly opposite of what I said - my assumption is that Stone's production is fact based and appropriately sourced and cited.  I have no idea of it peer reviewed in any fashion but regardless, I expected it would be factual based on your being his primary resource.  That's an assumption too but I never really doubted it would be correct. 

That means he would also have you at his back in any fact checking and that would not bode well for "establishment" historians who might try to counter what we have learned and what is in his work.

What I was trying to get at was some details about his fact checking remark - what Netflix demanded, what sources they offered to fact check it, what they objected to, etc?   None of that is about you, its about them.  And beyond that what rebuttals were in play from Stone and for that matter from you.

Bottom line - I assumed it was factual because you were involved.  What I want to know is the details of their push back,  for a bunch of reasons, but also because it would reveal what are still contemporary media sore spots even as of 2020.

-- Sorry if I was not clear but I did say I was assuming he had the facts which meant he had the high ground.

 

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by James DiEugenio

After the first read of your comment, I almost shot back a sharp reply, it was a little unclear and after a second read I found it less agitating. I think my mind made the connection to fact-checking sites, which are a farce. I am pro-facts being researched and checked thoroughly, with impartiality. We see a hell of a lot of mainstream news articles hat aren't fact checked, they are biased and when the source is checked its really leads to one persons opinion or a collection of people with the same goal. If anything has been learned in regard to history, it's that it is indeed written by the victors, not the vanquished. We accept so much of it as fact, because of our education and TV viewing. 

Regarding Netflix & Nat Geo "fact checking" we perhaps want to consider the following things from a brand perspective. 

- In the last year or so there has been a concerted effort by mainstream media to place articles calling "conspiracy theories" dangerous and warning the public against indulging in them. We have also seen politicians make a similar effort, this has usually been in relation to Covid but, it impacts a broader spectrum of things being challenged by concerned members of the public. 
- We have seen big tech arbitrarily decide to censor comments, articles, blogs or even news outlets who put anything online that challenges their belief systems, ideologies, knowledge or understanding. They were not appointed to do so (officially), they just appear to be adopting a "we know best" attitude, which is stifling free speech. 
- You've seen the furore caused by the Oliver Stone film in 1994 and the way the mainstream media reacted, negatively. 

Does being distributor of the new documentary harm the brand or enhance it in the public domain? We may say it enhances it, as we will have increased respect for the platform, courage and integrity but, are we representative of the population? Every person who loves a murder mystery or a thriller novel will gravitate to this but, what percentage of the public is that? I have no doubt that Netflix and co. will use analytics to determine the above. Providing that is all good to proceed, is there a risk of repercussions from government? If the tech platforms are censoring, and at the behest of some prominent politicians, do Netflix risk regulation bearing down on them over screening a conspiracy documentary such as this? Is it conceivable that they could be pulled offline in this environment of overbearing measures? Could they face a legal challenge? We have seen the US government is very good and using the law to learn on entities that are a stone in their shoes. 

The topic is very inconvenient for a few government agencies, in fact a better word is 'destructive'. Their survival depends on public trust in them, as they are tax payer funded. This very subject challenges the very core of their honesty and integrity. Would it be beyond someone in government to politely speak with Netflix or Nat Geo in a 'National Security' themed conversation?

ie. "This Stone fella is a conspiracy theorist and what he is saying is very dangerous, he is attacking government, the very security apparatus that we rely on and we've already had multiple investigations carried out by the best people we have and the answer is that LHO was responsible. Another investigation will not only tarnish the reputation of the country but, it will cost the tax payer another fortune, when we already have all of this debt from Covid to deal with. With other conspiracies floating around, and the Capitol under attack, the American people certainly don't need more dangerous conspiracies to ponder, undermining our democracy and dividing this great nation." 

Is that compelling? As it's the similar method to what was used to allegedly coerce Earl Warren. If you were Netflix shareholders, what would your decision be? You have a gravy train of earning potential and would you do anything to jeopardise it or rock the boat? If you'd read all of the great books about this conspiracy and understood it was 100% a conspiracy but, you were a major Netflix shareholder, would you stream the documentary, even though there is some possibility it could be ruinous or at least detrimental? 

So, the 'fact-checking' could be an excuse just to side with caution. How would they fact check? Do Netflix have a team of ballistics experts, pathologists, forensic detectives and investigators available to do this? Basically all the people it's taken to have as much information as we have now. Or do they even have a team of people to read all of the leading works on this topic and sift through the Warren Commission and latter investigations for comparison? No. 
So, what they might do is check Wiki, and reference supposedly honest government investigations and turn around and say, we couldn't Fact check Oliver Stones work, our information showed the contrary. 

I wholeheartedly support Oliver Stone's work, I believe he is a truth teller, with a conscience and a very talented writer, producer and director. I think his integrity is very important to him, for that reason he'll make it as accurate as possible, and I hope the documentary is as bigger success as possible. 







 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I trust my response to Jim made my position clear and I have emailed it directly to him.   What I am interested in are   the details behind Stone's remark about fact checking...I could guess or speculate or whatever about what he encountered in his efforts to place it but nobody would learn anything from that.  I want to know about the exchange he faced in trying to place it, the process, the objections and demands from Netflex and National Geographic, their supposed fact checkers, etc. 

And along those same lines, Jim mentioned several items which I hope will become available for viewing along with the documentary and certainly published if it does not get placed. It seems to me that the work behind the documentary would be as important for our research efforts as the documentary itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The “50 Reasons” episode on the furious counter-reaction to Stone’s “JFK” is the only one to have been removed from YouTube. As we put it together, I came to realize the main contemporary defenders of the official story - i.e. Max Holland, Bugliosi, and the network documentaries (most notably ABC’s “Beyond Conspiracy”) - never referred to information developed after the ARRB was formed and seemed to be perpetually stuck, when it came to this case, in the year 1992.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Jim,  I understand the restrictions but I hope Stone does share details some day - plus I would love to see him do a Director's Cut with the materials, including your annotated script!

Cannes sound like a great idea but even if I manage to get my second Covid vaccination I'll probably not make it...grin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks for the clarification Larry.

I am not at liberty to discuss the whole process, plus I was not there, but as I said, my annotated script did not enter the equation.

Maybe I will go to Cannes for any further questions.

 

 

Jim,

      Will your annotated script be available to the public at some point, or has it been subjected to some sort of non-disclosure agreement?

      Also, if that is the case, why would Oliver Stone not want your script disclosed?  Can you comment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I boycott Facebook.  Tried it a couple of times, didn’t take.  Are you sure people get kicked off merely for making offensive comments?

Could Facebook or Twitter survive a highly litigious business environment?

I don’t have a problem with that at all.

How about a former President who incessantly lies about his electoral defeat and inspires thousands of his followers to violence?

That ain’t in the same league as the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which appeared to be the front for criminal activity.

More specific...?

No, I do not think a former President should be censored by corporate-owned media, or anybody for that matter. 

I prefer to err on the side of freedom of speech. 

Sure, it may "feel good" when it is Trump being censored...but where does this end? Who decides? 

A future US President who tries to curtail the US military-foreign policy complex and thus is run out of office and then erased? 

And sheesh, the 300 whackos who occupied the Capitol for a few hours....this was or is a threat? To who? To what?

Sadly, the rioters who occupied the Capital looked like the marginalized, the unhappy, the unemployable, the disoriented, the unorganized----yes, uncharitably, "the rabble." Hey, I have been unemployed, I know how it feels. I spent a life shopping at 99-cent stores. No boo-hoo, but stresses can build up. Save for a lucky break here or there---who knows, maybe I would join the rabble. 

But 300 rabble do not pose a threat to the US, despite what you see on CNN. 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/brian-stelter-cennsorship-harm-reduction

And I ask again---is Brian Sicknick the new Pat Tillman? 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

No, I do not think a former President should be censored by corporate-owned media, or anybody for that matter. 

I prefer to err on the side of freedom of speech. 
 

Don’t the owners of media companies surrender *their* speech rights if the government dictates the content on *their* platforms?

If I develop a popular social media company it’s automatically nationalized and subject to strict government regulation?

Quote

 

Sure, it may "feel good" when it is Trump being censored...but where does this end? Who decides? 
 

The owners of the private companies decide.  The right to free speech does not grant anyone the right to access a venue they do not own.

Quote

A future US President who tries to curtail the US military-foreign policy complex and thus is run out of office and then erased? 
 

Erased?  Facebook and Twitter are the new Murder Inc.?

Quote

And sheesh, the 300 whackos who occupied the Capitol for a few hours....this was or is a threat? To who? To what?

The people they went to hang.

Quote

Sadly, the rioters who occupied the Capital looked like the marginalized, the unhappy, the unemployable, the disoriented, the unorganized----yes, uncharitably, "the rabble." Hey, I have been unemployed, I know how it feels. I spent a life shopping at 99-cent stores. No boo-hoo, but stresses can build up. Save for a lucky break here or there---who knows, maybe I would join the rabble. 

But 300 rabble do not pose a threat to the US, despite what you see on CNN.

There were a lot more than 300, and they made their murderous intent apparent.

Quote

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/brian-stelter-cennsorship-harm-reduction

And I ask again---is Brian Sicknick the new Pat Tillman? 

Again, please be a tad less cryptic...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a bit more complicated than railing against "Corporate conspiracies" or the "Intelligentsia". These are private companies They have every right to boot you off. Right now, they're being scrutinized  by the government. In the U.S. elements of both parties are mirroring a public perception of these entities  as money grubbing whores who'll let any kind of irresponsible posting from any  wacko groups , racist groups or people advocating violence, and they're numerous instances throughout the world where lives have been lost, groups persecuted and murdered! So they are choosing, under pressure to regulate themselves. 

At the heart of the matter is the philosophical question, are these online sites now so ubiquitous. Are they really like the World Town Square, and  hence should be regulated, much as a public utility?

The idea of Facebook becoming so ubiquitous is almost beyond my belief, as I think the format completely sucks, as well as almost everything about it. It's a shame because I think I'd welcome such a tool, if it was done right.  But the fact is, many my age use Facebook, It's become a habit.. I'm being asked all the time to become friends with people with people that I actually shudder at the idea. And actually I like people. This is what my limited exposure to Facebook has done to me!

Unfortunately as I've warned for years now the JFKA is now being lumped in with the great proliferation of truly wacko conspiracies. The Trump Presidency has helped popularize this even more. So now Stone's film might be viewed by Netflix with greater scrutiny. It's a shame, and it could just as easily be reflected in everyday discourse with middle of the road people more apt to "roll their eyes' at any topic approaching "conspiracy talk".

That's the legacy of the era we're living through. Everybody with a new slant or an original outlook about these matters suffers. Unfortunately the proliferation of a general conspiracy prone throng  gravitating toward the JFKA conspiracy probably is not going to add as  much new content as it will generally soil the public perception and will end up lumping the original JFK hallmark conspiracy into an endless barrage of conspiracy theory that will eventually make the everyday person just tune it out as they do campaign ads.

Now I hear the right lamenting about the financial losses incurred of "my pillow Guy" Mike Lindell  being "conspiratorily  banished by Corporate America!" That is laughable, he made himself a controversial figure with his Trump wacko conspiracy theories, and now people don't want to be associated with him. This sort of thing has been going on since the beginning of time. Why do you think corporations or celebrities often avoid bringing up politics?  

I would have thought Stone would have had a niche with Showtime, as they were the first to do  Stone's 12 part was it "Unauthorized Biography of America" as they did with Stone's 8 hour interview with Putin. I regrettably suspect they could fear, because of the general climate that  this content is too controversial now.

 

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

William:

When this all started oh so long ago, what I envisioned was a sale to a major cable channel.

Once that was announced, and agreed to, I was going to ask Oliver to set up a web site.  That web site would include all of the interviews in much longer versions.

As per my annotated script, I wanted that to be included both on the site and in a paperback version.

So its not that we do not want these things disclosed, but we are not in control of situation at this point since the film is still on the market.

Too bad about Cannes Larry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Don’t the owners of media companies surrender *their* speech rights if the government dictates the content on *their* platforms?

If I develop a popular social media company it’s automatically nationalized and subject to strict government regulation?

The owners of the private companies decide.  The right to free speech does not grant anyone the right to access a venue they do not own.

Erased?  Facebook and Twitter are the new Murder Inc.?

The people they went to hang.

There were a lot more than 300, and they made their murderous intent apparent.

Again, please be a tad less cryptic...

OK-- short story: Pat Tillman was a NFL player, quit to go to Afghanistan after 9/11. Big story. Then he gets killed in Afghanistan "fighting terrorists." Hero treatment by  lead media. 

Later, truth out, it is revealed he was killed by friendly fire. Indeed, one autopsy said from a M-16 fired from about ten yards, two closely spaced shots to forehead. Some evidence destroyed. 

The truth is no less sad an ending, but not the PR ending. 

So now Brian Sicknick. No evidence he was struck by a fire extinguisher. Indeed, evidence of a fire extinguisher being thrown but not at Sicknick (I have seen to tape on Youtube). Sicknick was in a police office after the riot, texted his brother he had been pepper-gassed twice but was fine, and went to hospital where he had a stroke and died. 

The lead-media hero treatment again. Again, the truth is no less sad. But not the PR version. 

For me, this is not about Trump. It is about how the media plays the public. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

OK-- short story: Pat Tillman was a NFL player, quit to go to Afghanistan after 9/11. Big story. Then he gets killed in Afghanistan "fighting terrorists." Hero treatment by  lead media. 

Later, truth out, it is revealed he was killed by friendly fire. Indeed, one autopsy said from a M-16 fired from about ten yards, two closely spaced shots to forehead. Some evidence destroyed. 

The truth is no less sad an ending, but not the PR ending. 

So now Brian Sicknick. No evidence he was struck by a fire extinguisher. Indeed, evidence of a fire extinguisher being thrown but not at Sicknick (I have seen to tape on Youtube). Sicknick was in a police office after the riot, texted his brother he had been pepper-gassed twice but was fine, and went to hospital where he had a stroke and died. 

The lead-media hero treatment again. Again, the truth is no less sad. But not the PR version. 

For me, this is not about Trump. It is about how the media plays the public. 

 

Benjamin,

      As a physician, I suspected for the past month that Sicknick died of a subdural hematoma (SDH) secondary to a head injury on January 6th.  I'm familiar with cases where people died of SDHes within a day or two of head injuries.  (They usually complain of headaches, confusion, nausea, and vomiting prior to death.) In contrast, epidural bleeds are more rapidly fatal.

      It's somewhat puzzling that Sicknick's autopsy results have still not been released to the public.  Some media reports have mentioned that Sicknick had a "stroke."  Was it hemorrhagic or thrombotic?  We don't know. Others claim that there was no evidence of blunt force trauma.

      As for the issue of Trump's guilt, there is ample evidence that Trump has been inciting right wing violence (and murder) in the U.S. for the past four and a half years-- against minority groups, (Muslim, Hispanic, African American) journalists, and public officials.  IMO, he's a "stochastic" terrorist-- a white supremacist demagogue.  The more prominent cases include the El Paso Walmart Massacre, the Baltimore newspaper murders, the Governor Whitmer kidnapping plot, and the Cesar Sayoc MAGA Bomber case-- all directly inspired by Donald Trump.

     His guilt in the January 6th attack on Congress is a slam dunk.

Right-wing media are spreading conspiracy theories about officer Brian Sicknick's death

Right-wing media are spreading conspiracy theories about officer Brian Sicknick's death | Media Matters for America

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...