MSNBC goes there

[Matt Allison]

5 minutes ago, Lori Spencer said:

Poor Joe Scarborough...he just can't accept that the government would ever lie about anything, or that high-level murder conspiracies actually do exist. 

???

Joe Scarborough 100% believes that such a thing did happen; his show consistently provides excellent coverage of the case.

It's why he's so angry during the segment.

[Lori Spencer]

28 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

???

Joe Scarborough 100% believes that such a thing did happen; his show consistently provides excellent coverage of the case.

It's why he's so angry during the segment.

 I guess if you overlook the two minutes of this segment where Joe twists himself into pretzel knots explaining how he's "not a conspiracy theorist, BUT..." 😉

[Matt Allison]

30 minutes ago, Lori Spencer said:

 I guess if you overlook the two minutes of this segment where Joe twists himself into pretzel knots explaining how he's "not a conspiracy theorist, BUT..."

He doesn't want to be lumped in with the current crop of RWNJs that espouse conspiracy theories about any situation they disapprove of. 

Hard to fault him for that.

[Greg Doudna]

23 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Joe Scarborough 100% believes that such a thing did happen; his show consistently provides excellent coverage of the case.

It's why he's so angry during the segment.

Yes. Excellent msnbc segment. 

I agree with you on Tucker Carlson. He is a bad one. He quotes an anonymous source who thinks the CIA was involved, without any claim that the anonymous source has specific evidence upon which to base that. Then Carlson turns that into a statement of fact that the CIA did it. (The point here is not whether the CIA was involved but Carlson's epistemology, the Alex Jones Sandy Hook kind of reasoning.) Then Carlson ends by saying something like "the same people who are covering up this are (the Biden administration) running the war in Ukraine ..."

It is news that Carlson is weaponizing JFK CIA-conspiracy theory on the right. Not doing so as a responsible journalist but in Alex Jones-level reasoning. There are a couple of possible ways to interpret this, some of which you and Kirk have mentioned. One could be "getting in front of the base"--that stunning poll announced in the MFF press conference in which across the board--Dem and Republican, ages, CT and LN alike--across the board 70% of Americans want full disclosure. And 50% of Americans believe the assassination of President Kennedy was the result of a criminal conspiracy and not by Oswald acting alone. 

Therefore my antenna says, if it comes from Carlson it is by definition suspect. It matters very much who his anonymous source is. Is that source--if and when the name becomes known (it probably will be at some point)--is the source legit, or itself a spook operation? Why did Carlson's source go to Carlson? Why did the source allow himself or herself to be quoted, but not named? Why did this source not reveal any specifics undergirding the sensational allegation that the CIA did it? 

As you and Kirk have mentioned, Carlson is the #1 figure of right-wing media which is just filled with the worst kinds of industrial-strength, oligarch-funded conspiracy theories in the negative sense which have nothing to do with the JFK assassination. This is a culture in which something like 50-plus percent of Trump supporters still doubt former president Barack Obama was born in America. It is a culture of all sorts of nonsense, spun and weaponized. 

MSNBC and Scarborough is light-years better as a more intelligent argument for the release of the documents and skepticism toward the received story of the JFK assassination than Tucker Carlson. Don't let Carlson "own" this and weaponize it for right-wing purposes. Don't buy what Carlson is selling until Carlson produces the source, the source states evidence or reasons, and the source explains why Carlson was the outlet of choice. 

I remember long ago in the 2004 Democratic primary campaign. Al Sharpton of New York was one of the candidates for the nomination, and his campaign was in deep financial trouble. Some of the most hard-right amoral Republican operatives joined forces with Sharpton, with Sharpton's consent, helping fund and run Sharpton's campaign. Articles have been written about this, it is no secret. They did this, so it was said, in order to divide Democrats generally and more specifically to weaken Hillary Clinton in internecine warfare in New York in her upcoming Senate run. Sharpton accepted it because the funding and help they gave his campaign was real despite their not believing a word of Sharpton's campaign positions. And despite their assistance and funding there was no sign I ever saw that they ever tried to control what Sharpton said--Sharpton was still Sharpton, no change there.

I don't know why that came to mind.

Anonymous source ... Tucker Carlson ... until and unless proven otherwise I would assume the worst here. In agreement with you and Kirk. 

[Bob Ness]

15 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

He doesn't want to be lumped in with the current crop of RWNJs that espouse conspiracy theories about any situation they disapprove of. 

Hard to fault him for that.

More truth than poetry there, Matt. Have they learned to count in Arizona yet? Just curious.

[Matt Allison]

12 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Carlson ends by saying something like "the same people who are covering up this are (the Biden administration) running the war in Ukraine ..."

Did he actually say that?

Well, he can f*** all the way off with that bullsh*t.

Personally, I believe Carlson is being deceptive about this, and whoever his "source" is, that person doesn't actually know a damn thing about the case.

Here's the reality: the average person can't just open a folder of JFKA files at the National Archives and understand what the hell any of it means. This is an incredibly complex historical subject that requires a ton of previous time invested in reading and research. Years of it.

[Karl Kinaski]

@Matt Allison

Just one of some straight lines from the JFKA to the Ukraine war. JFKA Cover up bullshit artist Gerald Ford ... rewarded with the White House ... Fords  White House Chief of staff: Dick Cheney ... his daughter: Liz Cheney, strong promoter and supporter of the Ukraine war. (JFK  - among other reasons - was killed because he was about to cancel the Vietnam war. Trump was removed by a the emergence of a manmade virus and suspicious Presidental elections becaus he never would have started a war in the Ukraine ... believe it or not: There is a certain high cabal in the US with a "wars must never end" agenda ...

[Matt Allison]

13 minutes ago, Karl Kinaski said:

Trump was removed by a the emergence of a manmade virus and suspicious Presidental elections becaus he never would have started a war in the Ukraine

Vladimir Putin started the war in Ukraine. By invading the sovereign country of Ukraine.

Everything you wrote in your post sounds like the boilerplate script the Russian xxxxx farms spend all day posting on social media in their ops to destabilize the U.S.

 

[Karl Kinaski]

@Matt Allison , quote:

Quote

Everything you wrote in your post sounds like the boilerplate script the Russian xxxxx farms spend all day posting on social media in their ops to destabilize the U.S.

 

... you say that JFK was about to cancle the Vietnam war the time he was killed comes from a Russion tr...oll farm ...LOL... and good by.

 

Edited December 17, 2022 by Karl Kinaski

[Sandy Larsen]

There's no doubt that Tucker Carlson's presentation was more favorable to our cause than was Joe Scarborough's. The difference is that Carlson was singing to his choir and won't change any minds.

In contrast, Scarborough's audience I'll bet are largely college educated and less likely to believe the JFKA was a conspiracy. And there he was, telling everybody that while he usually mocks conspiracy theories, he, his parents, and most the people he knows see that the lone nut theory doesn't make sense. And further, informing his audience that a CIA member had been in contact with Oswald just before the assassination and that the government was hiding that fact!

Unlike Tucker Carlson's piece, I can see Joe Scarborough's piece making people think twice about scoffing at JFKA conspiracies.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

The difference is that Carlson was singing to his choir and won't change any minds.

 

Having put a little more thought into that, I do after all see some good in Tucker Carlson's presentation. It may serve as sort of a booster shot for those who already believe the JFKA was a conspiracy. It might even get younger audience members curious enough to buy a JFKA book.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

15 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Is this the only one MSNBC did?  Because most of the people on the panel did not speak.

 

There were two segments as far as I know. The one posted above is the much longer one.

Nobody on the MSNBC panel spoke on either segment. Which is probably a good thing because they likely wouldn't have known much. Plus Joe Scarborough was saying all the right things.

 

[Paul Brancato]

Carlson is divisive and really screwed up. I don’t doubt that, and respect the point of view that we should keep that in mind when we watch him say something that we all feel needs to be said. His agenda and those of his backers is not to be trusted. 
what bothers me about this thread is the coverage on MSNBC, which of course is NBC, and putting it forward as a better example of real journalism. In my opinion it is not that at all. We question Carson’s source, which he quotes but does not name, and then we swallow Michael Beschloss and Neal Caputo without asking who their sources are, who they never even admit to having. But listen closely to Beschloss - he is passing the CIA/FBI message, which is that Oswald did it, and he never could have done so had we done our job. Could we just focus on that for a minute? Is the MSM suddenly doing the job they should have been doing all along, you know, looking for the truth? Caputo sounds more truthful, but I recall him slipping between real news and National Security limited hangout when he spoke. 
The story being peddled now isn’t that much different than the WC. Essentially, Oswald went to Mexico City and met with consular officials from Cuba and Russia before returning to shoot JFK, and of course that had to be covered up to prevent confrontation with the USSR. But there are no pics of Oswald in MC period. The best analysis of this was from David Josephs. I know there is some disagreement about MC and Oswald, and even good researchers often use the word ‘agnostic’ when asked directly what they think. So there is at least good reason to question the official narrative. If these MSNBC pundits included any of this in their presentation I’d be impressed. But they don’t. They are presenting a CIA/FBI limited hangout without naming it, with no transparency as to who might be behind the scenes orchestrating this. The newly released documents, and the ones that will probably follow on in 6 months, will most likely support this hangout. They say “we screwed up. No conspiracy, just LHO. We lied because it was embarrassing, and because nuclear war had to be prevented”. 
 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Paul,

Morning Joe is not an investigative journalism show. It reported on a document release. I think we're lucky to have gotten the very positive and even enthusiastic editorial we got from Joe Scarborough.

 

[Roger Odisio]

11 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Yes. Excellent msnbc segment. 

I agree with you on Tucker Carlson. He is a bad one. He quotes an anonymous source who thinks the CIA was involved, without any claim that the anonymous source has specific evidence upon which to base that. Then Carlson turns that into a statement of fact that the CIA did it. (The point here is not whether the CIA was involved but Carlson's epistemology, the Alex Jones Sandy Hook kind of reasoning.) Then Carlson ends by saying something like "the same people who are covering up this are (the Biden administration) running the war in Ukraine ..."

It is news that Carlson is weaponizing JFK CIA-conspiracy theory on the right. Not doing so as a responsible journalist but in Alex Jones-level reasoning. There are a couple of possible ways to interpret this, some of which you and Kirk have mentioned. One could be "getting in front of the base"--that stunning poll announced in the MFF press conference in which across the board--Dem and Republican, ages, CT and LN alike--across the board 70% of Americans want full disclosure. And 50% of Americans believe the assassination of President Kennedy was the result of a criminal conspiracy and not by Oswald acting alone. 

Therefore my antenna says, if it comes from Carlson it is by definition suspect. It matters very much who his anonymous source is. Is that source--if and when the name becomes known (it probably will be at some point)--is the source legit, or itself a spook operation? Why did Carlson's source go to Carlson? Why did the source allow himself or herself to be quoted, but not named? Why did this source not reveal any specifics undergirding the sensational allegation that the CIA did it? 

As you and Kirk have mentioned, Carlson is the #1 figure of right-wing media which is just filled with the worst kinds of industrial-strength, oligarch-funded conspiracy theories in the negative sense which have nothing to do with the JFK assassination. This is a culture in which something like 50-plus percent of Trump supporters still doubt former president Barack Obama was born in America. It is a culture of all sorts of nonsense, spun and weaponized. 

MSNBC and Scarborough is light-years better as a more intelligent argument for the release of the documents and skepticism toward the received story of the JFK assassination than Tucker Carlson. Don't let Carlson "own" this and weaponize it for right-wing purposes. Don't buy what Carlson is selling until Carlson produces the source, the source states evidence or reasons, and the source explains why Carlson was the outlet of choice. 

I remember long ago in the 2004 Democratic primary campaign. Al Sharpton of New York was one of the candidates for the nomination, and his campaign was in deep financial trouble. Some of the most hard-right amoral Republican operatives joined forces with Sharpton, with Sharpton's consent, helping fund and run Sharpton's campaign. Articles have been written about this, it is no secret. They did this, so it was said, in order to divide Democrats generally and more specifically to weaken Hillary Clinton in internecine warfare in New York in her upcoming Senate run. Sharpton accepted it because the funding and help they gave his campaign was real despite their not believing a word of Sharpton's campaign positions. And despite their assistance and funding there was no sign I ever saw that they ever tried to control what Sharpton said--Sharpton was still Sharpton, no change there.

I don't know why that came to mind.

Anonymous source ... Tucker Carlson ... until and unless proven otherwise I would assume the worst here. In agreement with you and Kirk. 

Whoa, slow down, Greg.  "Then Carlson ends by saying something like 'the same people who are covering up this are (the Biden administration) running the war in Ukraine ..'."  I'm not sure where you got this, but let's assume it's accurate.

It's a statement of *fact*.  The same people--the CIA war machine--killed JFK and *are* running the war in Ukraine.  Murdering JFK was their means of solidifying their control  and, you may have noticed, no President has challenged them since the murder. Neither has Congress.

The CIA literally does what it wants and no one in Washington knows what it is doing.  Let alone what it did 59 years ago.

Speculate all you want about Carlson's motive for his reports.  I'm not a Carlson fan, tho his work on the current censorship crisis, also not covered by the MSM, has been quite good.  Just don't claim his statement shows he is weaponizing it to get Biden.   

Now back to bashing the messenger while ignoring the message.