A study in contrasts concerning the journalism of Robert Parry, whose singular groundbreaking investigative work did more than any other to shed light on the interconnected scandals of the Reagan era, vs the Washington Post, unduly celebrated by the eponymous Hanks/Spielberg film for its supposed role in publishing the Pentagon Papers.
Listen to the audio and read the transcript at Our Hidden History.
As a corrective to yet another tendentious Hanks-Spielberg historical rewrite, Jim DiEugenio provides a review of past work which puts The Washington Post in a more accurate perspective.
See now "The Post and the Pentagon Papers" at Consortium News.
The best evidence for the triumph of neoconservatism, including over PBS, is to compare the 1983 series, Vietnam: A Television History, with the Burns/Novick version. The former is more honest, more hard-hitting, and more complete on the facts of the war. In a very real way, that comparison tells us how the Nixon/Kissinger view of Vietnam and the world eventually eclipsed JFK's, concludes Jim DiEugenio.
As depicted in Athens or at the Globe Theater, with tragedy there is always an element of both rage and violence. Johnson assiduously worked to spring his own trap on himself. And that is what is missing from this film, writes Jim DiEugenio.
With their defense of the Dulles brothers as “decent people” in Part One, the disappearance of Kennedy’s withdrawal plan and the championing of Vann and Sheehan in Part Two, so far the net value of this documentary is something less than zero, writes Jim DiEugenio.
How can one tell the story of American involvement in Vietnam without mentioning the Dulles brothers or General Edward Lansdale? With a full 18 hours at one’s disposal, I would have thought such a thing would be impossible. Yet with Burns and Novick, the impossible becomes the possible, writes Jim DiEugenio.
If you’re looking for a short overview of important aspects of journalism and the government, there is good information here. It just doesn’t really live up to the title and subtitle, writes Joseph Green.
In the second installment of this book review/essay, Jeff Carter focuses on questions of authenticity, alteration, and the NPIC analyses which occurred over the week-end of the assassination but which the CIA later tried to deflect and all but make disappear from the record.
The first in a two-part installment in which Jeff Carter reviews a book that "reveals some new – albeit not earth-shattering – information", but is also "imbued with a certain partisanship, not limited to family interests, which dulls the author’s critical thinking in some key areas."