While I dislike intensely what [Heymann has] written, I can imagine the situation from his point of view. In his mind, he's a crafty guy who figured out a way to make a great living, while breaking, to my knowledge, no enforceable laws to do so. That he broke all laws of decency and historical faithfulness, if you put yourself in his shoes, is beside the point, writes Lisa Pease.
At the start ... everyone had high hopes for the blogosphere. We believed that without the pervading pressure of corporate sponsorship, without the inevitable ties to government officials at higher levels, this was a great opportunity to return American journalism to the days that the late Angus McKenzie recalled in his book Secrets. ... So far, it hasn't happened, laments Jim DiEugenio.
By not referencing the Smith piece, Hamsher can keep her readers misinformed and thereby attack Kennedy on false pretenses, replies Jim DiEugenio.
A family that was good enough for the likes of Cesar Chavez and Martin Luther King isn't good enough for Jane Hamsher and Markos Moulitsas. And, in lockstep, their unthinking followers write fake letters to the New York Times, writes Jim DiEugenio.
Jim DiEugenio excoriates these figures from the progressive blogosphere for their treatment of Caroline Kennedy's interest in the open Democratic Senate seat of Hillary Clinton.
Jim DiEugenio remarks on the July 2, 2007 issue of Time featuring seven essays on JFK, that he "can't recall a previous time when Time actually printed a genuine pro-conspiracy essay on the Kennedy case in its pages."
Despite its up and downs, overall this is a worthwhile and unique book. Its most important aspect, of course, is the proof of Robert Kennedy's secret quest for the truth about Dallas. That is an important contribution with which to rebut the opposition's argument of: "Well, why didn't Bobby do anything?" We can finally dispose of that question in a truthful and forceful way, writes Jim DiEugenio.