|
campaign surrounding the JFK assassination. It is possible, although, I think rather unlikely, that the NYT did not want to reveal what a bunch of shills they were during the aftermath of the assassination, so they have simply ignored the volumes of evidence that have been produced to discredit the Oswald as lone gunman theory. The Times produced hundreds of articles in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. They proudly chronicled them in 2003 in a book titled "Four Days in November". Of course, they were trying to show what a sterling group of journalists were employed by the NYT and how thoroughly they had covered JFK's death and the subsequent assassination of Oswald, but exactly the opposite is revealed if one has even a modicum of knowledge of what actually took place in Dallas during those four days in 1963.
What "Four Days in November" shows about the Times and its "journalists" is that they swallowed the lone gunman allegations hook, line, and sinker, even though their own reporting showed gaping holes in the "official" story and what eye witnesses, including police officers, former military officers, and everyday Americans, saw and heard AT THE SCENE. The Times did no ground-breaking investigation, nor did it follow up on discrepancies in the official story. They simply parroted exactly what the Dallas Police and the FBI said.
That they had the gall to print "Four Days in November" as an example of how well the Times used its "enormous resources in New York, in offices throughout the country and the world, and especially in Washington, the epicenter of most of the journalistic action" is emblematic of the arrogance of the NYT organization.
Embarrassing as it should have been to the Times to have such a huge blot on its record, it is very likely that their lack of actual journalistic investigation and integrity had everything to do with the Times' desire to please its highly-placed sources in the CIA and apparatuses of government. They depended on the good graces of the CIA, the FBI, the State Department, etc. to get inside information that would allow them to "scoop" other news organizations and would allow them to tout the validity and authority of their sources. BUT, that access came at a price--a high price. The CIA used its clout to enroll the editors and owners of major news outlets as "un-official" operatives IN DEFENSE OF AMERICA. We forget that during those times, the Communists were portrayed as our mortal enemies and our government and clandestine services were focused on doing everything possible to stop the communist menace. Part of the CIA/government campaign was to persuade the corporate media elites that they were obligated to keep state secrets and to present the facade of being watchdogs of democracy, when, in fact, they were enablers of the takeover of our government by the military-industrial-corporate complex. Does anyone see any resemblance to the current state of our media's love affair with the War on Terror?
The ongoing subservience of the Times to the MICC was highlighted again in 2001, 2002, 2003 by its failure to fully investigate the 9-11 attacks and its cheerleading for the Bush administration during the runup to the Iraq War.
Whenever I see a front-page story of the Times I immediately ask myself what would be the REAL reason for the Times' portrayal of the story in whatever light it's portrayed.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(63 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
