Journalists and the Assassination of JFK

[John Simkin]

Very interesting John but I have two questions (ok 3)

There is a very good article by Jerry Policoff on the way the media dealt with the JFK assassination (New Times, 8th August, 1975). Policoff points out that the early reports in the press suggested that shots were fired from in front as well as behind JFK. However, after pressure from the authorities, the press stopped printing these stories that often included eyewitness views of the assassination.

1) Are you sure about the date I found a 1972 article by Policoff very similar to the one you described

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PA-NYT.html

If that's not the same article do you know where we could find it?

It is a different article. The date I gave you is right. You can find it in "Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond (1976) edited by Peter Dale Scott, Paul L. Hoch and Russell Stetler.

2) Did Salisbury ever explain his "change of tune"?

No. The series came to an end when Salisbury was sent to Vietnam. Martin Waldron, one of the journalists working in Salisbury's team later told the Rolling Stone: "I'd be off on a good lead and then somebody'd call me off and send me out to California on another story or something." Waldon said it was clear that the New York Times had changed its mind to investigate this story.

Interestingly, Carl Bernstein makes the same point about the Watergate story. Then, all of a sudden, Ben Bradlee changed his mind and put him back on the case. As we now know, the CIA wanted the story to be told.

[Pat Speer]

Moldea still has credibility, as far as I'm concerned. While his exposure to Sirhan and Cesar led him to side with Cesar, he is obviously not a part of Mockingbird or a CIA plant. He continues to state that JFK was killed by a mob conspiracy. While some might say this proves he's covering up for the CIA, I beg to differ. The CIA is made up of Government employees, subject to a President's beck and call. The REAL power is in the Presidency, and what lies behind the throne. Moldea's Dark Victory, examining Reagan's mob ties, was, and remains, one of the boldest looks behind the curtain. Moldea knew all about Korshak and his ties to both Giancana, Marcello, Wasserman, and Reagan. To tie St. Ronnie to the Kennedy killing, even tangentially, was a lot bolder move than swearing the CIA-did-it.

Certain men within the CIA or the military may have been involved in the assassination. Saying that the mob did it, a statement for which there is much evidence, by the way, is in reality no less an indictment of the American power structure than saying the CIA did it. In fact, it's worse. If the CIA or the Pentagon was the impetus, then they may have killed Kennedy for patriotic reasons, however misguided. If the mob did it, and LBJ and Hoover covered it up, and Warren and Nixon and Reagan et al looked the other way, then this country is rotten to the core, without noble intentions or actions. Take your pick.

[Bruce Cormier]

"Certain men within the CIA or the military may have been involved in the assassination. Saying that the mob did it, a statement for which there is much evidence, by the way, is in reality no less an indictment of the American power structure than saying the CIA did it. In fact, it's worse. If the CIA or the Pentagon was the impetus, then they may have killed Kennedy for patriotic reasons, however misguided. If the mob did it, and LBJ and Hoover covered it up, and Warren and Nixon and Reagan et al looked the other way, then this country is rotten to the core, without noble intentions or actions. Take your pick."

Pat, I concur with much of that, but would add this: If, in fact, these politicians and government agencies "merely" covered it up and looked the other way then there is reason to believe that much will be revealed by the milllions of documents that have yet to be disclosed when they made public. If, on the other hand, you postulate "the CIA or the Pentagon" or any other government entity as "the impetus', then it is almost inconceivable that they would ever disseminate materials establishing, "yeah, we did it." As a researcher, you would likely be forced to the position that everything genuine was destriyed and that everything extant is a forgery.

I tend to believe that the conspiracy to kill was much narrower than the cover-up effort; that the latter was driven by genuine concerns regarding national security and the protection of reputational interests, however

misplaced; and thus, that there is reason to hope that further illumination can be expected from government files.

[John Simkin]

Dan E. Moldea’s, The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy (1995), is indeed an amazing book. The first 29 chapters provide a comprehensive, logical account of the assassination. However, in the last chapter he completely changes his mind and accepts the official version of events. He even admits that this might surprise his readers as he first entered the case in 1987 with an article arguing that RFK had been the victim of a conspiracy.

Moldea claims that the reason for this change of mind was Gene Cesar’s polygraph test. According to the test, Cesar was telling the truth and therefore Sirhan was the lone gunman. Moldea explains the ballistic evidence by suggesting that the witnesses were mistaken and that Sirhan must have been pushed into RFK allowing his to fire at point-blank range.

If one reads between the lines of the last chapter you can work out why Moldea appears to change his mind about the case. He admits that for many years he believed passionately that there had been a conspiracy. However, he argues he could not afford to spend as much time as he liked researching and writing the book because of financial constraints. He was unable to persuade a publisher to fund this book. It was not until he “received the backing of a major publisher, W. W. Norton & Company” that he could complete the book. In other words, write the last chapter.

Now we know from the testimony of people like Cord Meyer, Tom Braden and William Sullivan that both the CIA and the FBI could arrange with certain companies to get certain books published. They could also make sure other books were not published by major publishers. E. Howard Hunt has also testified that the CIA was able to arrange the “right” reviews for books about certain subjects. (See also Mark Lane’s Plausible Denial for how this system worked).

Dan Moldea has complained about the comments above. It is of course pure speculation on my part and I have no evidence that anybody put him under pressure to change his mind about the assassination of Robert Kennedy. From the email exchanges I have had with Dan I am now convinced that I made a false assumption and I would like to apologise for questioning his integrity.

[Gerald McKnight]

While it is true that the history profession has exhibited a thin diet where some conspiracies are concerned, yet I would have to say that American historians do more to write about the ugly and disgraceful aspects of our history then is true of any other historians fromm around the world.

For example, I thionk it is to our credit that some 60 plus years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki that American historians still write, agonize, and question the decision to lay these terrible weapons on the Japanese.

[Sid Walker]

How do you take into account non-Jews who don't think there was a conspiracy, is Alexander Cockburn a closet Zionist? What about McAdams are you going to tell us he is a Jewish Zionist too? We let's see he has an Irish last name and teaches at a Catholic university, yeah he's probably Jewish. Larry Surdivan, Gay Savage and Dale Myers must be too.

Well, I can't explain all these various anomalies.

Who, for instance, is John McAdams, what's his personal history and what really motivates him? Damned if I know. It would be interesting to find out.

The mystery of Cockburn's position on JFK has been discussed elsewhere – see for instance http://www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touchstone...y97/worsham.htm

I think you do point to a serious objection to the case I'm generally trying to make. It's hard to believe that so many people are involved in the cover-up.

"I can't explain" is a great song* but a poor answer.

The linked article discusses Chomsky, Stone and Cockburn. There is nothing in it that applies to Cockburn that doesn't apply to Chomsky as well. Despite their rivalry their positions on most issues including the JFK assassination, 9/11 and Israel are remarkably similar. So we are still left with you concluding that the only explanation for a Jew (Chomsky) to reject JFK assassination conspiracy theories is that he must be covering for Israel despite being strongly anti-Israel but accepting another explanation for an Irishman (Cockburn) with very similar politics who reached the same conclusion for supposedly the same reasons.

For your theory to be logically consistent you must either argue that Cockburn is also a deep cover Mossad agent or come up with a rational explanation for his rejection of JFK conspiracy theories that can not be equally applied to Chomsky.

As for McAdams my impression is that he truly believes (not necessarily that he's right) that LHO acted alone. So once again we have another non-Jewish intellectual and in this case one who is very familiar with the details of assassination (much more so than Chomsky) who doesn't believe their was a conspiracy.

Another "hole" in your theory is Edward Said's close friendship and collaboration with Chomsky. Final Judgment came out in 1994 and was widely publicized in anti-Israeli circles, it's hard to believe he didn't hear about the book. He died 9 years later and I've seen no indication be put any stock in that (or any other JFK assassination conspiracy) theory. Said also rejected 9/11 CT's as does Ward Churchill, you argued that Chomsky's rejection of these theories was evidence of him being a Mossad asset – so aaah do you believe that Said and Churchill were Mossad assets too? That makes sense! I.F. Stone, Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, Alexander Cockburn and Ward Churchill – Mossad assets!

Also even if Chomsky and Stone were gatekeepers covering for the assassination and other conspiracies it could just as logically concluded that they were CIA assets. People have leveled that accusation against Chomsky before and he did contract work for the Pentagon for which apparently still receives royalty checks.

I

do not claim to have every I dotted and every T crossed. I never had a phone tap on Stone or Chomsky. If I did claim to know every detail, you might reasonably consider me prone to exaggeration.

However, if that's to be the standard for investigative procedure in criminal cases – that a theory should only be explored if the investigator has 100% of the supporting information – then heaven help us in this brave new world.

I take this as a tact admission on your part that you have way overstated your case. If you want to restate your theory as "The possibility that Stone and Chomsky were Mossad assets covering for Israel should be explored", I'd still disagree but your logic wouldn't be so strained. But that is very different from saying that Chomsky's position only makes sense if the Mossad was involved and he was covering for them.

On at least one other thread, Len, who seems to be tailing me (but perhaps I'm becoming paranoid ), makes much of my admissions that "I can't explain all these various anomalies" and "I do not claim to have every I dotted and every T crossed".

Just for the record, I utterly refute len's assertion that this is a "tact (sic) admission on your part that you have way overstated your case".

What it is, Len, is an admission that I do not claim to see the whole picture, do not know every detail and don't purport to have direct access to divine wisdom.

It does not mean in the least that I retract my central arguments. I do not accept that I "way overstated my case". There are various ways to explain anomalies such as why did Cockburn bought the offiical assassination story. I'm as capable of guessing as anyone else. But I'd rather not indulge in pure guesswork without good reason.

[Jack White]

Excerpted from postings:

QUOTE

How do you take into account non-Jews who don't think there was a conspiracy, is Alexander Cockburn a closet Zionist? What about McAdams are you going to tell us he is a Jewish Zionist too? We let's see he has an Irish last name and teaches at a Catholic university, yeah he's probably Jewish. Larry Surdivan, Gay Savage and Dale Myers must be too.

Well, I can't explain all these various anomalies.

Who, for instance, is John McAdams, what's his personal history and what really motivates him? Damned if I know. It would be interesting to find out.

The mystery of Cockburn's position on JFK has been discussed elsewhere – see for instance http://www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touchstone...y97/worsham.htm

I think you do point to a serious objection to the case I'm generally trying to make. It's hard to believe that so many people are involved in the cover-up.

UNQUOTE

Many of JEWISH HERITAGE are interested in the assassination, ON BOTH SIDES.

Prominent conspiracy theorists:

Mark Lane

David Lifton

Harold Weisberg

Robert Groden

John Judge

Seth Kantor

Mae Brussell

Alan Weberman

David Schiem

...and others I am not sure of

or can't remember

(Cyril Wecht?

Sylvia Meagher?)

On the other side,

Blinky Belin and

Arlen Specter

come to mind.

Not all (such as Groden, who was adopted by a

protestant family) are practicing Jews. I could

possibly be mistaken on some. Mary Ferrell, Penn

Jones and I discussed this once.

Jack

(let's also remember others...Jack Ruby, Abraham Zapruder, etc.)

Edited July 22, 2006 by Jack White

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

DID YOU EVER SUSPECT THAT JOURNALISTS WERE SO FOND OF THE LONE NUT THEORY, BECAUSE THEY

SUSPECTED THAT THE ENTIRE CREDIBILITY OF THEIR PROFESSION DEPENDED ON IT?

SOUND A BIT EXTREME? Then read this about the book

Covering The Body: The Kennedy Assassination, the Media and the Shaping of Collective

Memory by Barbie Zelizer, who is at the most important Journalism School in the U.S.

The Annenberg Center fo Communications at Penn.

This book is nothing short of a goldmine as a way in countering lone nut dogma! I cannot

recommend it highly enough. PLEASE READ THE QUOTES BELLOW!!!!

This journalism Professor argues that Journalists reponse to the independent critics was not rooted in

further analysis, but in tying their own narratives as journalists to the fate of the profession as a whole.

This seems a startalingly frank admission from a journalism professor!

She admits that the journalists never address or contradict the independent critics, who she presents in

an objective manner, in spite of her role a journalism professor.

The discussion is directly related to other threads about how historians and independent researchers were

marginalized. The author traces the reporting and independent research from the sixties up until 1993, when

the book was first published.

One observation: by 1988 and the 25th anniversary, broacasts included almost entirely TV reporters and

thier personal narratives. She quotes NBCs John Chancellor going on about how he was stationed in Berlin

at the time then notes:

The irrelevance to the assassination of Chancellor's experiences as a Berlin correspondent was not

openly addressed. Instead, his porfessional standing at the time of the assassination credentialed

him to speak about Dallas.... Professional standing was thus invoked to justify how seemingly

' Unconnected" reporters could nonetheless authoritatively interpret events of the assassination

weekend. As one reporter said, "when the shots were fired, I was working for LIFE as a

reporter in the education department, She was then flown to Hyannis Port to spend the day

with Rose Kennedy (p. 133,)

Do you think its goint to far to wonder if this trip to Hyannis Port was meant to help legitimate LIFE'S

role as "custodian' of the assassination narrative? Admittedly, it sound like a stretch, but we are dealing

with C.D. Jackson here, no? He was a master at studying how such legitimation strategies are established.

Zelizer concludes her chapter called "Promoting Assassination Tales":

Similarly, although to a lesser extent, (as compared to independent researchers) journalists

attempted to marginalize historians, whom they cast as professionally problematic because

of thier delay in covering the events of the president's death..... In this way journalists

pushed forward in the contest over authorization, marginalizing more or less successfully

those lacking institutional support and media access. THIS WAS PARTICULARLY CRITICAL

GIVEN THE OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS OVER WHETHER THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA HAD

INDEED SUFFICIENTLY INVESTIGATED KENNEDY'S DEATH. (my emphasis)

.....As the (journalists') tales were lodged in collective memory, journalists reworked them in

ways that celebrated the role of the individual reporter, THE NEWS ORGANIZATION AND

INSTITUTION AND THE STRUCTURE AND THE PROFESSION OF JOURNALISM(my emphasis)

Such tales often displaced more general questions about the degree to which they had

effectively covered Kennedy's death and had actively investigated it in the years that

followed (p.138)

Here is a journalism professor at the most respected school in the country essentially stating that craven

collective, professional self-interest accounts for the unfair dismissal of independent researchers, in favor of

a lone nut theory, that she suggests never had any empirical basis.

If Posner is the Horse's Ass I think we have found, in Barbie Zelizer a horse's mouth that finally speaks something true about the Corporate Medias' long romance with the Lone Nutters.

[John Simkin]

This book is nothing short of a goldmine as a way in countering lone nut dogma! I cannot

recommend it highly enough.

I have just purchased the book from Amazon. Members might like to consider buying other books by her:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/203-5540439-5919...;link%5Fcode=qs

If I can find her email address will ask her to join the Forum.

[Pat Speer]

This book is nothing short of a goldmine as a way in countering lone nut dogma! I cannot

recommend it highly enough.

I have just purchased the book from Amazon. Members might like to consider buying other books by her:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/203-5540439-5919...;link%5Fcode=qs

If I can find her email address will ask her to join the Forum.

I read the book a few years back at the San Diego Public Library. Without taking a pro or anti-conspiracy stance, it demonstrates how the main stream media has banked its credibility on the lone-nut theory.

About a month ago, I sent out emails to approximately 100 newspapers and TV programs, asking them to take a look at my online presentation before they deliver their inevitable "43 years and nothing new" story. Despite my listing of 5 or 6 of the extremely relevant findings included within my presentation, and my presentation's receiving over 100 visits in 2 days, I didn't receive one non-automated response, even to tell me they took a look but weren't interested. From this I suspect that some low-level employees took a look, and that their bosses then said "forget about it."

[John Simkin]

I agree that the Left's history on the Kennedy case is pretty abysmal. Ray Marcus noted this a long time ago, after he tried to engage the interest of such left-wing icons -- back in the '60s -- as Chomsky and Howard Zinn. Cockburn is a disaster of muddled thinking on this. And of course the Nation has been a repository for some of the most wrong-headed journalism on the subject for years.

I ascribe this to the Left's insistence that JFK was a Cold War hawk (a strange misperception they share with the Right, who yearn to embrace Kennedy as one of their own). If Kennedy was a hawk, these leftists reason, how could he have been the victim of a right-wing plot? I suspect it also has something to do with the limitations of Marxist theory -- which doesn't allow for complex analyses of the "ruling class" and how violent splits can occur within it.

Considering this, I guess I should not have been surprised that the most snide and dismissive review of my book so far appeared in the liberal Boston Globe and was penned by an editor of the American Prospect, the lefty political journal. He sang Bugliosi's praises, while brushing my book off as the gossipy rantings of a lunatic.

Of course, there have been some notable exceptions in the Left's coverage of Dallas -- Ramparts magazine in the 60s (as well as the more obscure but important Minority of One journal) and hey, Salon today (I take the blame for that). But by and large it has not been a pretty picture.

I agree “that the Left's history on the Kennedy case is pretty abysmal”. However, I do not believe this has anything to do with the “Left's insistence that JFK was a Cold War hawk” or that it has anything to do with “the limitations of Marxist theory.”

It is interesting that the left initially favoured the idea that JFK was killed as part of a right-wing conspiracy. This is reflected in the early books in the case by Thomas Buchanan (Who Killed Kennedy – 1964) and Joachim Joesten (Oswald, Assassin or Fall Guy? - 1964).

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbuchananT.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKjoesten.htm

The same was true of the left in the UK. For example, see the Bertrand Russell led campaign against the Warren Commission:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/r...ns_Russell.html

Mark Lane was also very much a left-wing figure when he published a Rush to Judgment in 1966. In fact, it was the left-wing views of people like Buchanan, Joesten, Russell and Lane, which were used against them at the time. Their critics often pointed out that they were part of a “communist” inspired campaign to undermine United States democracy.

Since becoming interested in the assassination of JFK I have tried to persuade left-wing friends to take an interest in the case. This has been largely unsuccessful. What is more, they have tried to persuade me to leave the case alone. Their claim that this involvement in the case will undermine my credibility as an historian - is very revealing. I believe this goes to the heart of the problem.

I have argued via my investigation of Operation Mockingbird that the CIA has successfully used the media to cover-up the truth about the assassination of JFK.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5142

However, the cover-up is only part of the story. More importantly, this campaign has been about shaping our understanding of language. For example, the meaning of the word “conspiracy”.

Here is how one dictionary defines the word:

1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

2. A group of conspirators.

3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.

4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design.

I have no problem with this definition. In fact, the term “conspiracy” could rightfully be applied to many political events. However, anyone who questions the official story of the JFK assassination are always described as a “conspiracy theorist”. This gives it a whole new meaning.

This is how Wikipedia defines “conspiracy theorists”:

A conspiracy theory attempts to attribute the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories claim that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.

The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to an economics article in the 1920s, but it was only in the 1960s that it entered popular usage. It entered the supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary as late as 1997.

The term "conspiracy theory" is used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with particular methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. For example "Conspiracy nut" and "conspiracy theorist" are used as pejorative terms. Some whose theories or speculations are labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial.

The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. To conspire means "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end." However, conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true.

Whether or not a particular conspiracy allegation may be impartially or neutrally labeled a conspiracy theory is subject to some controversy. Conspiracy theory has become a highly charged political term, and the broad critique of 'conspiracy theorists' by academics, politicians, psychologists, and the media cuts across traditional left-right political lines.

Understandably, journalists, historians and politicians are reluctant to be accused of being a “conspiracy theorist”. Historians are particularly concerned about being described as “conspiracy theorists”. It would be highly damaging to their career to be seen in this way.

It is not so much that historians have gone along with the idea that JFK was killed by a lone gunman. These books are usually written by journalists or lawyers willing to sell their services to the highest bidder. The historians have kept out of this debate by refusing to look into JFK’s death.

There is also another factor in the reason why historians have left this subject alone. For example, I interviewed David Kaiser about this issue on the forum. David is professor in the Strategy and Policy Department of the Naval War College and the author of Politics and War: European Conflict from Philip II to Hitler (1990) and American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson, and the Origins of the Vietnam War (2000). He is currently working on a book on Lee Harvey Oswald:

JS: Is there any real difference between the role of an investigative journalist and a historian?

DK: Yes - a lot. The investigative journalist relies mainly on interviews. The historian relies mainly on documents. There is overlap, but that's the main difference.

JS: The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that the “committee believes, on the basis of the available evidence, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy”. However, very few historians have been willing to explore this area of American history. Lawrence E. Walsh’s Iran-Contra Report suggests that senior politicians were involved in and covered-up serious crimes. Yet very few historians have written about this case in any detail? Why do you think that historians and journalists appear to be so unwilling to investigate political conspiracies?

DK: Political history in general is very unfashionable, and before me, only one professional historian, John Newman, has written about the JFK case. It frightens people because so many crazy folk are involved with it, I think. It also requies a huge time commitment.

JS: What is your basic approach to writing about what I would call “secret history”? How do you decide what sources to believe? How do you manage to get hold of documents that prove that illegal behaviour has taken place?

DK: The basic rule is that before-the-fact (in this case, pre-November 1963) documents are more important than after-the-fact ones. There's a hierarchy of evidence. People who come forward years later with stories are suspect, and if they said something different at the time, one has to discount them heavily. Meanwhile, one has to read as many documents as possible to understand the context of a particular event. Almost everything Oswald did looks, actually, like part of something bigger that was happening at the time.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6853

This exchange explains the problem for historians. It also explains why some historians who have reviewed David Talbot’s book have described it as “gossipy”. Historians are uneasy about the use of interviews as evidence. They are also aware that writing about “secret history” is very time consuming. They are also aware that the government can keep documents from public view by claiming that they pose a threat to national security.

Although not a professional historian, Larry Hancock (Someone Would Have Talked – 2007), has produced an account of the JFK assassination that has been based on released government documents. It is no coincidence that his book was completely ignored when it was published earlier this year.

[Kathleen Collins]

Pat Speer's point is also interesting:

Many of the outspoken critics of the Warren Commission--perhaps a majority--were JEWISH, by the way. Harold Weisberg, Mark Lane, and Edward Epstein come to mind.

I'm not familiar with Harold Weisberg and Edward Epstein - I'll have to check them out (references welcome).

Mark Lane is certainly a hero I haven't missed.

Bertrand Russell worked closely with Ralph Schoenman - also Jewish, I understand. These days, Ralph and his partner Mya Shone maintain the rage on air. Their radio show, Taking Aim covers conspiracies and other evil deeds from a Marxist perspective. An unusual brew. Archives available as free downloads.

Schoenman 's Hidden History of Zionism is also a most interesting read.

You've named several Jewish journalists who believe in a conspiracy. But I know one late journalist who believed the Kennedy Assassination was the work of Lee Harvey Oswald. His name was Irv Kupcinet from Chicago. Irv was a Zionist too. Probably because Penn Jones Jr connected Kupcinet's daughter's murder to the Kennedy Assassination and got that rolling, Irv was rabid about Oliver Stone's JFK. A first script had Karyn Kupcinet in it. But Stone decided to go with Rose Charamie who had witnesses to her foreknowledge.

Kathy

[Charles Drago]

"With the Bug and Talbot on book promotion tours, if they ever cross paths it should be like the OK Corral."

So opined Bill Kelly in another thread.

Well, the first shout-out has taken place on Chris Matthew's "Hardball." Bugliosi was pathetic; how he managed to control the foaming is beyond me.

He shouted over, demeaned, and intentionally misinterpreted David Talbot, and in so doing revealed himself to be the host's role model -- intellectual as well as behaviorial.

Talbot was cool. "You don't know your history, Mr. Bugliosi," he accurately pointed out. The Bug screamed like he'd just taken two in the hat.

In the following segment, Matthews couldn't wait to trot out the tired psychobabble about people's unwillingness to believe that a small man can destroy a great man. Pat Buchanan and a Washington journalist agreed wholeheartedly.

So ... the decision?

Talbot by a point or, at most, a pair.

Charles

[John Simkin]

In the introduction to his book, Politics & Paranoia, Robin Ramsay explains how he became involved in investigating conspiracy theories while reading the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission report in 1976/77 at the University of Hull library. He also acknowledges the importance of writers such as Carl Oglesby and Peter Dale Scott.

On page 12 he also points out that he read Richard Hofstadter’s article “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” where he linked an interest in “conspiracy theories with paranoia and with the loony radical Right”. He goes on to say: “Hofstader’s influential and widely discussed essay reinforced existing academic and intellectual prejudices which allotted to an interest in conspiracy theories or actual conspiracies the intellectual status of – say – spiritualism: of interest only to the stupid, the uneducated or the ill. For ‘serious’ people – academics, journalists, politicians – large areas of political inquiry have been contaminated ever since by an association with conspiracy theories.”

There is no doubt that the John Birch Society theory that President Eisenhower was part of the global communist conspiracy and the various right-wing theories about a Jewish conspiracy has definitely caused problems for those who want to investigate corruption by governments and national intelligence organizations. However, I suspect, the problem goes much deeper than that. One of the greatest battles with the ruling elites is over the meaning of language.

On 25th September 1951, the novelist and political activist, Upton Sinclair, wrote a letter to Norman Thomas, the head of the American Socialist Party: “The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie.” The same thing has happened in the UK under Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair carried on the good work when he was in power. "Socialism" has become a word that no politician wants to use.

I noticed that when Norman Baker was interviewed by the BBC about his book on the death of David Kelly, he was repeatedly referred to as a “conspiracy theorist”. History is of course full of examples of how powerful groups have conspired to make sure that they can continue to rule. However, once the word “conspiracy theorist” is used, it takes a brave person to take seriously what the person is saying.

Can any one think of any way that we can overcome this “language” problem?

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

In the introduction to his book, Politics & Paranoia, Robin Ramsay explains how he became involved in investigating conspiracy theories while reading the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission report in 1976/77 at the University of Hull library. He also acknowledges the importance of writers such as Carl Oglesby and Peter Dale Scott.

On page 12 he also points out that he read Richard Hofstadter’s article “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” where he linked an interest in “conspiracy theories with paranoia and with the loony radical Right”. He goes on to say: “Hofstader’s influential and widely discussed essay reinforced existing academic and intellectual prejudices which allotted to an interest in conspiracy theories or actual conspiracies the intellectual status of – say – spiritualism: of interest only to the stupid, the uneducated or the ill. For ‘serious’ people – academics, journalists, politicians – large areas of political inquiry have been contaminated ever since by an association with conspiracy theories.”

There is no doubt that the John Birch Society theory that President Eisenhower was part of the global communist conspiracy and the various right-wing theories about a Jewish conspiracy has definitely caused problems for those who want to investigate corruption by governments and national intelligence organizations. However, I suspect, the problem goes much deeper than that. One of the greatest battles with the ruling elites is over the meaning of language.

On 25th September 1951, the novelist and political activist, Upton Sinclair, wrote a letter to Norman Thomas, the head of the American Socialist Party: “The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie.” The same thing has happened in the UK under Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair carried on the good work when he was in power. "Socialism" has become a word that no politician wants to use.

I noticed that when Norman Baker was interviewed by the BBC about his book on the death of David Kelly, he was repeatedly referred to as a “conspiracy theorist”. History is of course full of examples of how powerful groups have conspired to make sure that they can continue to rule. However, once the word “conspiracy theorist” is used, it takes a brave person to take seriously what the person is saying.

Can any one think of any way that we can overcome this “language” problem?

Very, very very, very important question.

It could well be the crux.

I think what is essential is to go on the OFFENSIVE against the corporate media as the definer of terms. There is no sense in

trying to defend yourself in four second soundbites. Rather we should post examples --on daily newspaper sites with high volume and links back to this site-- of direct quotes from journalists working with intelligence agencies to frame the JFK debate as the intelligence agencies want it framed.

I now disagree with much of what Jaon Mellon wrote, but one thing I found very valuable about her book on the Garrison investigation was the way it named names of pro journalists and quoted from them to show their direct complicity as government propagandists.

The essays of James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease are also outsanding in this way.

When you post these direct examples of say, Hugh Aynesworth's complicity with the CIA while working for Newsweek, it serves as "bunkerbuster" in the mind of the average newspaper reader who will otherwise dismiss all facts with " if that were true the reporters would be all over it".

Direct Corporate Journalist Quotes Showing Direct Media Complicity in Molding Public Opinion the Way the Government Likes It. Posted in places that are ACCESS RAMPS RATHER THAN lOW OCCUPANCY MIDDLE AGED LANES FOR THE COGNOSCENTI!!!