What happens when the Left abandons its concern for such things as accuracy, morality and fact-based writing? What does one call such reporting then? Does it then not become—for whatever reason—another form of propaganda? Jim DiEugenio once again blasts Counterpunch for its pig-headed blind spot concerning the Kennedys.
[photos courtesy of National Press Club (Silverstein) and Amazon.com (St.Clair)]
We’ve lost. They’ve won. Everywhere except in the court of public opinion. It’s sort of like watching a heavyweight prize-fight and having the guy who was knocked out declared the winner. The Power Elite says, “The public be damned! Who cares what they think?” Well, we do. And so does Bob Groden, writes Frank Cassano in this review of the 2014 documentary film about his battles with the City of Dallas and the Sixth Floor Museum.
Jim reviews what he deems to be the best of three recent TV documentaries on Martin Luther King, Jr.
Entering the current journalistic house of Orwellian mirrors, Jeff Carter exposes the fake news behind VICE News's claim to be exposing fake news, in this case concerning the King family's interest in the 1999 civil trial in Memphis.
On JFK secrecy, Brett Kavanaugh sides with the CIA
By Jefferson Morley, at:JFK Facts
A thoroughly mediocre rendering of a tumultuous year. Mediocre in every way, including aesthetically, concludes Jim DiEugenio.
Jim DiEugenio reveals what CNN had to cover up about JFK and RFK in order to make this six-part series.
As reviewer Edward Curtin opines: when a truthful, beautifully written and moving book published by a major house is shunned by mainstream book reviewers, one can fairly well guess the book has touched a sore spot which the corporate media would prefer not to expose to the public. So it is with this courageous memoir by RFK's son and namesake.
Jim DiEugenio takes a scathing look at the various MSM efforts (in particular that of Time-Life) during the past few months to “keep the lid screwed down tight” on the Pandora’s box of U.S. political assassination in the 60s.
Michael Le Flem reviews a book about reporting on the JFK case by a reporter. The book starts out quite strong and rigorous, but about halfway through it goes off the rails. But the first part is worth reading.