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)]
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.
Jim DiEugenio carefully takes apart and corrects another misguided and misinformed attempt by Paul Street to characterize JFK as economically anti-progressive, complicit with southern racists, and a militarist abroad.
Once again, the factual basis of Chomsky's statements is allowed to go unchecked by his interviewers, as Jim DiEugenio demonstrates in yet another critique of his praxis of historical elision and distortion.
CounterPunch is at times a valuable journal. But apparently they cannot outgrow the legacy of Alec Cockburn. What he represented on Kennedy and Vietnam was a gross distortion of historical fact, which is a shame when it’s done by the Left as well as the Right, laments Jim DiEugenio.
Jim DiEugenio responds to a recent hit piece which uses Joe Kennedy III's State of the Union reply as a platform from which to launch yet another doctrinaire and uninformed attack on JFK and RFK, claiming that the latter's grandson is just another "false progressive idol" like his great uncle.
Maddow’s staff fished out some archival footage from NBC, did some research on Pettit, got permission to show parts of JFK and called up Shenon. This results in nothing but aimless and uninformed banter, and is pretty much symptomatic of the MSM’s attitude toward these releases, writes Jim DiEugenio.
For many, many years now Holland has been ignoring the declassified records of the ARRB. Even when he was supposed to be reporting on those files. The fact that he still does so, even on the eve of their final disbursement, tells us all we need to know about him, concludes Jim DiEugenio.
In response to a scene in John Barbour's recent film, Jim DiEugenio once again drives home the contradictions, lack of attention to scholarly standards of historical analysis, and dishonesty in the position adopted by Noam Chomsky on both JFK's presidency and the facts and circumstances of his assassination.