J. Timothy Gratz

[David G. Healy]

...It is desperately important that a dialogue is created between liberals and conservatives. In reality we are not too far apart. The real problem is with the far-right who control the mass-media and have created such an irrational dominant ideology. The internet is gradually changing the balance of power and eventually we will be able to join forces to create a better, more sustainable, society.

Nevertheless, it is always interesting when conservatives raise the cry against the "liberal media." What does all that mean? That the "conservatives" who control the media are "liberal" compared to the conservatives they "undermine;" that the conservatives raising the cry are trying to blame "liberals" who really aren't liberals, but rather other conservatives (a "right-wing conspiracy to blame the Communists," to put it in another context); that "liberals" truly do control the media, but aren't liberal enough for "true" liberals and are therefore "conservatives;" that this is a case where you truly can "have it both ways" ... or what?

If the "conservatives" truly "run" the mass media, then why do the conservatives rail against the "liberal" media? Conversely, why do liberals (for whom the media is supposedly writing) decry the conservative bias - and ownership - of media outlets?

Does it make sense to anybody?

If you're a card carrying Republ-o-crat, of course it makes sense, all of it!

Edited March 6, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Ron Ecker]

If the "conservatives" truly "run" the mass media, then why do the conservatives rail against the "liberal" media? Conversely, why do liberals (for whom the media is supposedly writing) decry the conservative bias - and ownership - of media outlets?

Does it make sense to anybody?

My theory is that the media, because it is owned by a few big corporations, is controlled by conservatives, i.e. rich powers that be who believe in the status quo. The people who report the news on TV have tended to be liberal (though the most notable ones have retired or been fired), but because of whom they work for they are told, in so many ways, what they can and cannot report. A juicy sex scandal, for example, is okay to wallow in for the ratings, but who may be murdering whom in the corridors of power is the kind of story not to be touched.

As to why reporters, though controlled as they are, may tend to be liberal, I don't know. Are liberals simply drawn to careers in broadcast journalism more than conservatives? If so, that may soon change if it hasn't already, as it becomes more and more obvious that there is no real journalism left in TV broadcasting. It's strictly managed show business. Those who go into it are thus not necessarily liberal or conservative, they just want to be rich and famous.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

My theory is that the media, because it is owned by a few big corporations, is controlled by conservatives, i.e. rich powers that be who believe in the status quo. The people who report the news on TV have tended to be liberal (though the most notable ones have retired or been fired), but because of whom they work for they are told, in so many ways, what they can and cannot report.

Aaron Brown was fired from CNN a few months ago. Here are his recent comments:

http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.ns...siness_03_03_06

I gather that Brown's dismissal was due to the simple math of low ratings. Nobody wanted to watch him except my wife, who really liked him, and myself.

As to why reporters, though controlled as they are, may tend to be liberal, I don't know. Are liberals simply drawn to careers in broadcast journalism more than conservatives?

If you support abortion rights and Gay rights then you are "liberal" in America today. The New York Times

is liberal by this definition, and also liberal in a non-political sense when it comes to the Arts and Sciences, but the Times was in bed with Kenneth Starr from the moment Starr set out to destroy Bill Clinton; the Times was critically instrumental in making Bush 1 president when they destroyed Dukakis, as well as instrumental in destroying Gary Harte a few months earlier. When Times' writers delve into questions involving JFK and the CIA, their angle is a la Tim Gratz.

The Nation is supposed to be a bastion of liberalism, but it provides a special forum forum for Max Holland. Again, a la Tim Gratz when it comes to the CIA and JFK.

there is no real journalism left in TV broadcasting. It's strictly managed show business. Those who go into it are thus not necessarily liberal or conservative, they just want to be rich and famous.

I remember a comic moment during the last presidential campaign when the Swift Boat guys were sinking John Kerrey. On the Fox channel Britt Hume was discussing the controversy with the well-known liberal journalist Morton Kondrakie. Kondrakie was spouting eloquently about the Swift Boat veterans and how they might affrect the election outcome, when Hume asked "but is any of this true?" Kondrakie looked at Hume in utter bafflement. He had no idea that "truth" had anything to do with it, and he quickly turned the conversation elsewhere.

I think Ron is right. Journalism today is the easiest route to success in showbiz.

[Ron Ecker]

I gather that Brown's dismissal was due to the simple math of low ratings. Nobody wanted to watch him except my wife, who really liked him, and myself.

I liked to watch Brown (to the extent that I watch any "news" programs) simply because he didn't sound like a screech owl like his competition at Fox News in that time slot. But I have no doubt that his ratings versus Grating Greta's, with her exhaustive murder du jour coverage, did him in. But I think Brown was doomed anyway after his angry on-air protest against Hastert and Company's attempt to end the 9/11 Commission by not granting an extension to its existence. Brown had an impact, and an extension was granted, but you just don't do that on corporate TV.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I have no doubt that his ratings versus Grating Greta's, with her exhaustive murder du jour coverage, did him in.

At the risk of sounding like an apologist for Fox's tabloid-style reporting, I would point out that Fox is the only major network that has so far challenged the Warren Report. It was Grating Greta herself who presented the 40th anniversary show in which (as I recall) she rejected the magic bullet theory.

[Ron Ecker]

Yes, I watched Grating Greta's 40th anniversary show. I still haven't figured out that show's departure from the corporate media norm. I think maybe Fox News simply got a wild hair up its butt and wanted to be different. There was really no harm done.

Edited March 5, 2006 by Ron Ecker

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Yes, I watched Grating Greta's 40th anniversary show. I still haven't figured out that show's departure from the corporate media norm. I think maybe Fox News simply got a wild hair up its butt and wanted to be different. There was really no harm done.

Now that Aaron Brown is gone from CNN,

I thought it might be an idea to post a transcript of Brown's 40th anniversary program on the assassination before CNN purges it from it's website

CNN NEWSNIGHT AARON BROWN

NEWSNIGHT SPECIAL: Assisnation of John F. Kennedy

Aired November 22, 2003 - 09:30 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

AARON BROWN, HOST: For millions of Americans, there have been thre3e cataclysmic shared experiences over the last half-century, the attacks on September 11, 2001 in New York and in Washington, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, and the death of a young president, November 22, 1963, 40 years ago.

John Kennedy was the country's youngest president when he took office. And although he was rather unpopular for a part of his presidency, he was also seen as a beacon for coming generations.

That he died so suddenly and violently and so publicly seemed to change America forever.

In the half-hour ahead, we're going to talk to two of the surviving investigators, one of them a former president of the United States. And you'll hear from the leading doubter of the official explanations. And we'll try to answer why, after all these years, why do so many Americans refuse to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone?

We'll set the stage first. It was a bright, sunny November day in Dallas. The president and his wife, Jackie, Texas Governor John Connally and his wife, Nellie, were riding in an open car as their motorcade made it through the heart of the city.

Their route took them past an office building that would instantly become part of history, the Texas Schoolbook Depository, where a young ex-Marine named Lee Harvey Oswald had just gotten a job a few weeks before.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN (voice-over): It is an utterly unremarkable building, and yet a half a million people come to visit it every year and have for decades. They pose for snapshots not far from the grassy knoll. They teach their children of its history. They take guided tours, buy books and tapes.

But many -- most, in fact -- do not accept what history has told them.

GIGI EWING, FORT WORTH, TEXAS: There was just so much at the time that left so much doubt that I guess it's just hard to really feel that the real truth is known about it. GARY MACK, CURATOR, SIXTH FLOOR MUSEUM: The public opinion polls have shown very clearly since the weekend of the assassination that fewer than 50 percent believe it was just one guy.

BROWN: One guy, a 24-year-old former Marine who purchased a mail-order rifle for $12 and change, and a scope for another $8. How could it be just one guy?

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: People don't want to believe that he could have been brought down by just a street urchin, that it had to be, you know, done by some vaster conspiracy network.

BROWN: Since the assassination, more than 60 people claim to have shot the president. Since the assassination, hundreds of books have been written, all claiming Lee Harvey Oswald was aided and abetted by somebody or some greater thing -- the CIA, the Mob, anti- Castro Cubans, even LBJ.

GERALD POSNER, AUTHOR, "CASE CLOSED": Over the years, we as a country tend to lose faith in our government. We learn about the lies of Vietnam, and we have Watergate and Iran-contra. We no longer trust blue-ribbon panels like the Warren Commission to tell us the truth.

BROWN (on camera): But, of course, the truth is precisely what the Warren Commission was meant to uncover. Led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the commission produced these 26 volumes, narratives and evidence, encapsulated in a single finding. The commission found no evidence of a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy.

FORMER PRESIDENT GERALD R. FORD: The phone rang, and one of our children answered it. They said, The president's on the line, wants to talk to you. I got on the line. It was President Johnson. He said, Gerry, I'm trying to put together a nonpartisan commission to investigate the assassination. I want you to be a member.

BROWN (voice-over): At age 90, former president Gerald Ford is the only surviving member of the Warren Commission.

FORD: We held these hearings. They were not open, but they were thorough. And with the kind of top-notch staff we had, I was satisfied that we got all the facts as they developed.

BROWN (on camera): Why, sir, do you -- were they not open? What was the thinking?

FORD: I think it was probably the decision of the chief justice. He was more reluctant than I to undertake the responsibility, and I think he wanted the least possible publicity.

BROWN (voice-over): It was a fateful decision. Most historians, and even surviving staff members, say today that the Warren Commission hearings should have been in the open.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER ®, PENNSYLVANIA: I think it would have been wiser to have had open hearings, so that there would have been public examination of the work as it went along. BROWN: Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter was a 33-year-old attorney on the commission staff and remembers a critical dispute at the 11th hour.

SPECTER: We faced a crucial moment when the chief justice did not want to print the record, and the younger members of the staff went to the members of Congress and said, We must print this record. It must be open. We printed it all. We printed 26 volumes, 17,000 pages.

BROWN: But, of course, that record wasn't the end of anything. And this man, now 76, saw to it that the Warren Commission conclusions would be not only debated, but bitterly debated, for two generations.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Ahead on this special NEWSNIGHT half hour, was there a conspiracy to kill the president?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: It didn't take long, just a few weeks, in fact, before the first serious questions were being raised about whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

And leading the charge was a young New York City lawyer, a man who helped direct John Kennedy's election efforts in Manhattan when he ran for president, a young criminal defense attorney named Mark Lane.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARK LANE, AUTHOR, "RUSH TO JUDGMENT": How could you eliminate the possibility of a conspiracy when the president of the United States has been killed? How do you know that somebody didn't pay this guy?

BROWN (voice-over): For 40 years now, Mark Lane has been asking that same question. Now 76 and living comfortably in southern New Jersey, his book "Rush to Judgment" is still seen as the Rosetta stone for all those who believe Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone.

LANE: My book came out. The first Gallup poll and Harris poll taken after that showed that two-thirds of the American people were convinced that there was a conspiracy. So nobody really believed the Warren Commission report, as soon as it was possible to hear another side.

FORD: Let me tell you the two basic points that the commission decided. Number one, Lee Harvey Oswald committed the assassination. Number two, the commission found no evidence of a conspiracy, foreign or domestic.

BROWN: Gerald ford says that that one key phrase, "no evidence of a conspiracy," was meant to leave the door slightly ajar in the event that history would later prove there was someone else involved.

(on camera): Was there disagreement on the main points?

FORD: There was no vigorous opposition to the decision that Lee Harvey Oswald committed the assassination. That was unanimous. But in the 20 or 30 years that have passed since, I have seen no new credible evidence that a conspiracy existed.

BROWN: But the critics and the conspiracy advocates won't go away, and most of their doubts center around the so-called single- bullet theory, that one bullet -- this bullet right here -- the bullet the Warren Commission found badly wounded both President Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally at practically the same instant.

LANE: This is what the bullet did. The bullet hit the president in the back of the neck, leaving behind a wound five inches below in his back. It exited from his throat, leaving behind what every doctor at the Parkland Memorial Hospital said was a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) wound of entrance.

It then hung out there in midair for approximately 1.8 seconds. Apparently then it observed Governor Connally seated directly in front, started up again, went into his back, shattered his ribs, made a right turn, shattered his right wrist, and then entered into his left thigh.

SPECTER: The evidence and the truth has had a hard time catching up with the distortions.

BROWN (voice-over): Senator Specter, then a junior attorney on the commission staff, is the author, the father, of the single-bullet theory.

(on camera): The single-bullet theory is pretty much the foundation of the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, shot from that building, could have fired the shots, et cetera. Can you explain how you arrived at that conclusion?

SPECTER: The bullet entered between two large strap muscles at the back of the president's neck, hit nothing solid, went through the pleural cavity, nicked his tie coming out. The evidence shows that the bullet entered slightly to the left of Governor Connally's right armpit, grazed a rib, went through his wrist, lodged in his thigh, which is an extraordinary path for a bullet, admittedly.

But truth is sometimes stranger than fiction, and it all ties together factually.

BROWN (voice-over): The Warren Commission accepted the single- bullet theory, but it was never told by the CIA about one crucial fact.

WALTER CRONKITE, CBS NEWS: They never told the Warren Commission that there was a plot, that they had a plot, against the life of Castro in Cuba.

BROWN: Right. CRONKITE: And that was a motivation factor that could have led to other investigation, I think, as to whether it was possible that Castro himself or Cuban sympathizers had committed this terrible act.

BROWN (voice-over): So those who wanted to believe in a conspiracy had reasons galore to do just that.

POSNER: They think that they are on the road to uncovering a vast secret government conspiracy, involving dozens of people, from the medical work, to the autopsy doctors, to extra shooters at Dealey Plaza, to ties to Jack Ruby. It goes through the Secret Service, it affects the FBI, it has the CIA involved, often Lyndon Johnson is named. You're talking a massive effort.

BROWN: And it did get its day in court, here in this city, a city where, as one writer once said, "New Orleans is a great stage, and everyone wants to be part of the theater."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Next, the only prosecutor to bring the Kennedy assassination case to a courtroom.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Three years after John F. Kennedy was murdered in Dallas, a young district attorney in New Orleans stunned the nation when he claimed that he knew, for a fact, who had helped conspire to kill the president.

It was a drama that would keep the country riveted for the next year. And in the process, stoked the fires of a conspiracy theory so high that they've never really died down.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN (voice-over): To the people who know her best, New Orleans is a city that reveres food, intrigue, and theater, and not necessarily in that order.

ROSEMARY JAMES, FORMER REPORTER, "NEW ORLEANS STATES-ITEM": The natives consider everyday life a theater. And those moving on the stage of this theater had darn well be, you know, entertaining, or they're not going to last long.

BROWN: Three years after the Kennedy assassination, there was no bigger player this man, than Jim Garrison, the city's district attorney, who shocked his city and the nation by claiming he knew who conspired to kill the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, 1967)

JIM GARRISON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, NEW ORLEANS: I have no doubts whatsoever about the case. I said this some time ago, and I meant it.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BROWN: Acting on his own authority, Garrison arrested a 54-year- old New Orleans businessman named Clay Shaw and charged him with conspiring to kill John F. Kennedy.

JAMES: One reason Garrison was, in my opinion, able to continue this farce for as long as he was able to do so is because he was very entertaining. He was very charismatic, he was a tall, big guy, pretty good-looking, you know, and he made his statements without hesitation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, 1967)

CLAY SHAW, BUSINESSMAN: I'm completely innocent of any such charges. I have not conspired with anyone at any time or any place to murder our late and esteemed president John F. Kennedy or any other individual.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Lee Harvey Oswald did have some New Orleans connections. He was born and spent his youth there in a hardscrabble downtown neighborhood. And later, not long before the assassination, he was arrested here, handing out pro-Castro leaflets at a street corner.

But try as he might, Jim Garrison couldn't prove anything else. His entire case, historians say, was built on a series of lies.

JAMES: We called it the theory du jour period. Every day there was a new theory. And, you know, Garrison would always have a press conference, and he would always go into great, you know, embroidered details about why this was the correct theory. And -- but a week later, he'd have another one.

BROWN: A jury took but 45 minutes to acquit Clay Shaw. But 22 years later, filmmaker Oliver Stone brazenly cast Garrison as Chief Justice Earl Warren in the movie "JFK," a film that portrayed Garrison's claims as cinematic gospel.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "JFK")

GARRISON: ... has presented absolutely nothing publicly which would contradict our finding.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

POSNER: Oliver Stone's "JFK" is a fine film, but a terrible piece of history. But unfortunately, a whole generation not even alive at the time that Kennedy was killed know their Kennedy history from that film. So you're guaranteed a new generation have its facts completely upside down.

BROWN (on camera): The key to the mystery, for both sides -- those who believe Oswald acted alone, and those who cannot believe that -- the key is the Zapruder film, the only color film record of the assassination, certainly the most analyzed piece of film in the nation's history.

Frame by frame, 18 frames to the second, here it is at regular speed. It lasts just 26 seconds.

BRINKLEY: It's that singular moment, like Pearl Harbor and 9/1, where you remembered where you were at the moment. And it makes this a participatory event. People somehow feel that they caught it, that they saw it on the news, that I witnessed it.

BROWN: In 1978, 15 years after the assassination, many members of Congress were told, and many believed, that there was a fourth gunshot that day in Dallas. An audiotape recorded from a motorcycle policeman's radio convinced them that a conspiracy against the president was possible.

Many eyewitnesses told Congress they heard several shots as well.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What you just heard were the sounds picked up at this microphone of shots fired from here, the first two, one shot then fired from here, followed half a second later by one shot from there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN (voice-over): But any police officer will tell you that eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. And in the 40 years since the assassination, science and technology have helped convince many experts that Oswald, in fact, did act alone.

POSNER: We can determine the time on the film that the two men were hit, in large part because of following a flap of John Connally's lapel at the moment that he's hit in the car. We know when the two were struck by a bullet. You can place them in a three-dimensional sense of where they were at that moment, the exact position of the two of them.

And you can then ask a computer the question, based upon the wounds that they suffered, is it possible for one bullet to have done the damage to those two men?

And as a matter of fact, it's a straight-line shot.

Now, you say, great theory, great theory, but how do we know it's true? And that's because scientists have now recreated this experiment all day long.

BROWN: Many historians believe it marked an end to an age of American innocence, and no matter what people believe about who did it, the beginning of the age of cynicism.

BRINKLEY: We lost a part of ourselves, and we've lost a part of our innocence, and we were followed by two presidents who did nothing but lie to us constantly. Lyndon Johnson over Vietnam and Nixon on Vietnam-slash-politics Watergate.

And a lot of people look back and say, God, it all changed went that bullet hit the president in Dallas. We lost something as a country.

And that's jarring. And it's like 9/11. When that happens, you don't know what it means fully, but you know that the world will never be the same again.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Still ahead on this NEWSNIGHT special, a conversation with Walter Cronkite about that horrible day in Dallas.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

For Americans of a certain age, it was a day to dread and, of course, a day to remember. And guiding millions of Americans through that horrible day was one man, CBS News anchorman Walter Cronkite.

We sat down with Mr. Cronkite recently to talk and to remember.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALTER CRONKITE: I compare us with something we've only learned in recent years about the trauma that is suffered by hospital and other emergency workers, hospital staffs and firemen, policemen, who go through the terrible human tragedy of people dying right in their hands, practically, being carried burned from a building, whatever the story is, shot on the streets.

At that time, the job is everything. You've got to concentrate on doing what you're supposed to do and are trained to do. And I think the same thing is true of us newspeople, because I had no personal sense of tragedy in this thing until the moment when I had to say he was dead.

BROWN: Right, and that moment, people will remember perhaps as well as any moment in their lifetime.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, November 22, 1963)

CRONKITE: From Dallas, Texas, the flash, apparently official, President Kennedy died at 1:00 p.m. Central Standard time, 2:00 Eastern Standard time, some 38 minutes ago.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: You take off your glasses, and you wipe a tear.

CRONKITE: Yes.

BROWN: How do you -- when you think about that moment now, 40 years later, would do you it differently?

CRONKITE: Probably not. Because that moment was purely extemporaneous in every sense of the word. It -- I certainly -- it wasn't -- I hadn't planned to have a tear in my eye at that moment at all. I wouldn't have thought of that. I would never have yielded to that if it had been a thought. BROWN: Do you regret it?

CRONKITE: No, I don't regret it at all. I -- not at all. I would have regretted it if I had broken down and couldn't have continued. That I would have regretted.

But this brief show of emotion was something that I think is perfectly natural, and I don't blame an on-air person for showing emotion. It seems to me that you really don't want people reporting to you who don't have any sense of the emotional impact of a given moment in history.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: That's our look at the Kennedy assassination 40 years later.

Thanks for joining us. I'm Aaron Brown.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

[Dawn Meredith]

It's just amazing how little of the truth penetrates on tv. Even someone like Lane. Getting a shot like this you'd think he'd have made some real zingers. Ford and Specter just say nothig and no one blinks. Brown seems to know something is up- but---

The one truly GREAT show during this period was hosted by former Gov. Jesse Ventura. It was Sat. 1o/-/25/03. Day after my birthday and I was having a party- but it's really a party for Nathan Darby and a chance for him to meet another friend- Richard Bartholomew- who had done a lot of work on Darby's behalf. Some other dinner guests are here also, that day. Then I get a call saying "turn on channel 42". There's Jesse hosting Barr McClellan. Jesee tells his adience that he was "warned" not to come to Tx talking of conspiracy. But Jesse tells them "you don't scare me". Talk about IN YOUR FACE, there was a huge government conspiracy!! What a show. They featured Nathan, who was sitting my my couch beaming, at the end. What a wonderful birthday gift and tv new's finest 30 minutes in my opinion. Jess Ventura was cancelled shortly thereafter, but what a tv news show, on the 40 the anniversary. Oh for more pols with the balls of Jesse Ventura!!!

Dawn

[Pat Speer]

...It is desperately important that a dialogue is created between liberals and conservatives. In reality we are not too far apart. The real problem is with the far-right who control the mass-media and have created such an irrational dominant ideology. The internet is gradually changing the balance of power and eventually we will be able to join forces to create a better, more sustainable, society.

Nevertheless, it is always interesting when conservatives raise the cry against the "liberal media." What does all that mean? That the "conservatives" who control the media are "liberal" compared to the conservatives they "undermine;" that the conservatives raising the cry are trying to blame "liberals" who really aren't liberals, but rather other conservatives (a "right-wing conspiracy to blame the Communists," to put it in another context); that "liberals" truly do control the media, but aren't liberal enough for "true" liberals and are therefore "conservatives;" that this is a case where you truly can "have it both ways" ... or what?

If the "conservatives" truly "run" the mass media, then why do the conservatives rail against the "liberal" media? Conversely, why do liberals (for whom the media is supposedly writing) decry the conservative bias - and ownership - of media outlets?

Does it make sense to anybody?

Damned if I can remember where I read it, but misrepresenting one's critics is an actual documented technique used by disinformation specialists. It's been found that people generally believe that other people tell the truth as they see it. As a result, when people hear two opposing viewpoints, they tend to think the truth is somewhere in the middle. By consistently painting the media as liberal, conservatives have been able to convince the gullible that the truth must lie in between what the media says and what conservatives say. Conservatives have used this technique so well and for so long, however, that the media, which at one time was fairly liberal, gradually moved to the right to appeal to a wider audience. This allowed conservatives to move further to the right. The result is that many now believe the truth is somewhere between conservatism and fascism. It's up to the many who don't believe this to retake control of the country. So far we've been unsuccessful. Bush' lousy numbers give us cause for hope, however.

[Tim Carroll]

Damned if I can remember where I read it, but misrepresenting one's critics is an actual documented technique used by disinformation specialists.

Like unacknowledged and uncorrected misquoting as a tactic for manufacturing a straw man dispute?

He was right in that you did misquote him.

Since the mention that language is actionably libelous is such an attrocity here, I wonder why Hemming was allowed to engage in that practice routinely. Given that calling others "liars" is forbidden (according to the forum "rules"), why was Piper allowed to take that behavior to such an extreme?

As a political matter, in the U.S., so-called tort reform is high on the menu of desires of those who seek to limit forums for redress of rights for regular folks. The right to sue when someone demonstrates a disregard for the truth with a motive of damaging that person is an essential ingredient of freedom of speech and holding people to a civilized standard of social discourse.

Tim

[Pat Speer]

Tim, I hope I'm misreading you, but it sounds like you are implying John set Tim up on purpose, and that this justifies Tim's threatening to sue. Is that right?

If so, can you cite any successful lawsuits stemming from someone's being misquoted on an international forum? While it sounds incredibly petty to me, maybe there's a history of such cases.

[Tim Carroll]

Tim, I hope I'm misreading you, but it sounds like you are implying John set Tim up on purpose, and that this justifies Tim's threatening to sue. Is that right? If so, can you cite any successful lawsuits stemming from someone's being misquoted on an international forum? While it sounds incredibly petty to me, maybe there's a history of such cases.

If what is being read into my comment is that I think John was provoking trouble with T.G., then that is not a misread. As for justifying threats to sue, I was sorry T.G. did that as a matter of style. It's bad form and pragmatically silly to make such threats. To paraphrase Nixon, T.G. handed his enemies a sword, and they used it.

But regarding the discourse here about invocation of legal standards as a minimum reflection of social standards, I don't cotton to the demonization of the legal right to sue. Many have expressed dismay that Shanet apologized for asserting that T.G. was involved in the manipulation of Arthur Bremer. In that context, I believe T.G. was correct for asserting the argument that such an unfounded assertion, intended with malice, constitutes libel. I respect Shanet for recognizing that as well. It would be silly to argue that Shanet apologized out of fear of litigation. I believe that his own sense of honor was his guide.

I am opposed to tort reform, as I clearly said (is Pat saying he supports it?), and don't believe that the mention of legal standards is such an abomination. I leave that argument to George Bush's crowd. I consider an arbitrary imposition of skewed discourse to be un-American. I certainly believe that misquoting, especially in a cut and paste format, is a suspect basis to ban oppositional thinking. Honor warranted a correction, not an overreactive censorship. And if this is being taken out of context by courageous people flocking to post on a thread about T.G. to which he can't respond, let it be noted that I am not alone in having recognized the history, and note Pat's own observation that there was a misquote, which was not, to my knowledge, corrected. For those who've forgotten, one member remarked on Simkin's "baiting." I thought Royce expressed himself well:

What is this, some kind of tribunal in which Tim Gratz is being grilled by John Simkin? I think this thread is TOTALLY out of line. It's simply harassment by a socialist intolerant of someone who disagrees with his views.

Now I'm off for my midnight flight to Cozumel. Here's wishing everyone well.

Tim

Edited March 6, 2006 by Tim Carroll

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

As an administrator I have access to information concerning people’s visits to this Forum. It might interest you to know that since being denied the right to post, Tim continues to spend most of his working life on the Forum. The pattern of his activity is also interesting. He does not spend all his time on the Kennedy Assassination section. I had to laugh the other day when I caught him reading about the death of Peter Osgood (it was not a conspiracy, the former footballer died of a heart-attack at a funeral).

Robert might be right. Tim definitely spends a great deal of time monitoring the website and seems particularly interested in reading member’s profiles (as you can see Tim, it is not only the CIA who spy on us). I have always argued that Tim is so bad at what he does to be a CIA agent. (I do not go for the idea that the CIA is an incompetent organization). However, I suppose it is possible that Tim works for free, sending in weekly reports on what we are up to. I know if I was a CIA officer I would be very interested in what is posted on this Forum.

Tim definitely was very keen to defend CIA covert operations. This was the reason why this row first started on the overthrow of the government in Guatemala in 1954. However, his response has always been emotional rather than intellectual. Maybe, like Gerry Hemming, he has always had a fantasy about being an undercover agent. His great hero is of course Oliver North. However, his role model is George Bush. Although a warmonger, he made sure he did not fight in Vietnam.

So, the hot air still blows in from Key West. Must be the El Nino effect.

I'm sure Tim finds it highly satisfactory that he is still being so discussed here, albeit moreso for his legal threats than any actual contribution to the assassination mysteries which we're dedicated to solving.

As for those threats, there is no such thing as a case of so little merit that a plaintiff cannot find a lawyer to argue it. And the law being so arcane and flexible a thing, one can never predetermine the outcome, which is something Tim should consider being parting with hard cash to pursue a soft case. Tim seems certain of that outcome, but he's never been shy of unsubstantiated certitude and bluster, has he? The real question is whether or not he will actually make good on the threats and commence an action.

As for John's observations above, I would be unsurprised to find that Tim has been of some service to somebody in his presence here. Clearly, if his own comments here about his worklife are true, he has found not one, but two patrons who pay him a wage, yet allowed him to spend good portions of his day/night posting about the assassination. One doesn't know quite to make of that, other than envy that he can pursue this interest while being paid. Where can the rest of us obtain similar employment?

Moreover, we should again note that in his own admissions here, Tim has in the past crossed paths with Karl Rove, Donald Segretti, Tony Ulasewicz, Ken Reitz [an obscure footnote name of a man involved in Operation Townhouse, by which illegal Republican funding took place], and others of equally flexible morality. In the case of Segretti and Ulasewicz, Tim was deemed of potential value in performing dirty tricks for political purposes, and seemed willing, initially at least, to accept money to do so. In his time here, Tim has also mentioned his current-day connections with Gerry Hemming, Gordon Winslow and other purveyors of questionable assassination-related information. Tim's literary contributions to the Key West Pennysaver, or whatever it's called, are archived at Winslow's site, and all share the central theme that Tim has pushed so relentlessly here: Castro did it.

Since there is a rear-guard push by certain parties to reintroduce this hoary old CIA-friendly cliche [Gus Russo's "Live By The Sword" and his recent German TV special "Rendezvous With Death," et al], one cannot dismiss the possibility that Tim serves a purpose as part of a larger campaign, just as he was intended to do so when recruited by Segretti. In additiion, while Tim was prepared to entertain the notion that any number of parties may have participated in the assassination [Castro, the Kremlin, Madame Nhu, organized crime, et al], he was regularly splenetic in defending against any suggestion that CIA played a role in the crime. Sponsored or not, Tim certainly shares a common cause with others in that regard.

Perhaps I imagined it, but it seemed to me that Tim became somewhat more agitated than usual when the topic of Guatemala was introduced, and attempted to wave it away as unimportant or just ancient, dusty and irrelevant history. Of course, this was one of the first instances where we can actually obtain CIA documentation of its intent to use assassination as a political tool, its desire to overthrow a democratically elected government, and its use of a ruse whereby an assassination is constructed to place false blame at the doorstep of the nasty Commies. In other words, precisely what may have transpired again, later in history. Perhaps that is why Tim felt it necessary to caution other Forum members "Nothing to see here, move along, folks, move along."

It will prove interesting to see how this plays out. Will Tim make good on his numerous threats of legal action? Or will it be just another instance of great heat, but little light, such as his repeated promises to provide NTY coverage of a Castro plot to bomb that city, which promises - ten months-plus later - still remain undelivered?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

I have known for some time how to obtain the details of why Tim Gratz was disbarred, but couldn't be bothered to do so myself. It was my feeling that whatever Tim posted here should be debated on its own merits, rather than by any irrelevant attack on his character. However, another Forum member has decided to obtain that information, perhaps due to concerns about the most recent of Tim's threats to sue John Simkin. Those details have now been shared with me.

In short, the picture painted by these circumstances is not a pretty one. And, lo and behold, among the heady assortment of grievances that led to Tim's being disbarred is a certain flexibility in telling the truth. Hence, having already paid a rather steep price for failing to be honest, Tim would find himself on rather shaky ground in trying to assert that similar allegations made against him here have in some way defamed his reputation.

As a result, I offer the following comments specifically for Tim's consumption, in reply to points he has raised here:

(TG): If the court rules in my favor, damages are recoverable beyond loss of wages. Again, the fact that Charles-Dunne is unaware of it is simply indicative of his lack of legal training. Moreover, the possibility of punitive damages also exist. And frankly, a mere finding that you libeled me by calling me a xxxx would be worth something to me, monetary damages or no.

With a demonstrated past track record for precisely the same thing of which you stood accused here, just how do you intend to demonstrate to any court's satisfaction that an otherwise sterling reputation for honesty has been besmirched? To the contrary, the introduction of this past track record would only incline a court to conclude that your more recent dubious assertions here were merely part of a rather lengthy pattern of such behaviour.

I cannot comprehend why somebody would invite further personal humiliation. Was your last "day in court" not enough? Perhaps if I were to obtain a copy of your disbarment transcript for posting here, it would induce you to cool your jets and rethink your current strategy. What do you think? Care to add insult to injury, Number 1015895?

(TG): Sorry, John, you cannot plead “truth” as a defense since there is no way you can prove I told a deliberate lie. Charles-Dunne can look through my posts until hell freezes over if he wants and he will not find any lies.

If you'd care to put that assertion to the test, ex-counsellor, simply commence an action against John Simkin and we'll see who prevails. Out of more than forty-seven hundred of your posts, it shouldn't be too hard to find a few itty bitty fibs. Any two would make it more than a singular instance, and hence demonstrate John's point. When you file and serve your papers, I'll start boning up on your past posts, let the chips fall where they may.

Feeling lucky?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Out of more than forty-seven hundred of your posts, it shouldn't be too hard to find a few itty bitty fibs. Any two would make it more than a singular instance, and hence demonstrate John's point.

Feeling lucky?[/color]

Tim's problem is not that sometimes he cannot TELL the truth; his problem is that he sometimes cannot FACE the truth.

If he were to suceed in getting his case against John Simkin to a jury (which is a long-shot), some lucky lawyer would have great fun demonstrating Tim's fear of truth -- out of Tim's own mouth -- to some appreciative jury.

I hope the trial is televised.

Edited March 7, 2006 by J. Raymond Carroll