Perception of Reality

[Charles Collins]

We’ll have to agree to disagree on the role the Media plays in this.

Granted, I agree that the corporate media is largely to blame for exploiting political partisanship and the painting of the opposition political party as “evil”. Fox News and MSNBC are opposite sides of the same coin. In recent years, exploiting political polarization seems to have become a key part of their business models.

Where I disagree is the idea that the mainstream media and even Hollywood promote anti-government sentiment. That seems quite far from the current reality we live in where Oliver Stone, an award winning film maker, can’t find a US distribution company for his most recent JFK assassination film.

The 1991 JFK movie was trashed for the most part by the news media. In fact the news media has been the biggest and most consistent cheerleader for the Warren Report.

Occasionally the news media covers a bombshell story that makes the government look bad but most of the time, they ignore lots of other stuff involving our government that only gets covered in alternative media or foreign media.

And Hollywood has had a close relationship with the Defense Dept going back to WWII. Despite the occasional film like “Platoon”, which Oliver Stone took ten years to make due to disinterest from Hollywood, they most often paint the US military and intelligence services in a positive light.

So while I agree that the media is a factor in political partisanship, I disagree that they are largely to blame for the persistence of conspiracy theories.

People who distrust the government often also distrust the mainstream media. So I don’t see how the media is to blame.

Do you believe that the media’s political partisanship factor (portraying the other side as evil, etc.) has an effect on people’s trust (or rather lack of trust) of the government? If so, then don’t you believe that that distrust helps promote the conspiracy theories? In may be an indirect result of the political bias that exists in the media. But I think there is a correlation.

[Jon Banks]

Do you believe that the media’s political partisanship factor (portraying the other side as evil, etc.) has an effect on people’s trust (or rather lack of trust) of the government? If so, then don’t you believe that that distrust helps promote the conspiracy theories? In may be an indirect result of the political bias that exists in the media. But I think there is a correlation.

JFK conspiracy theories have existed for 50+ years while the political polarization of the Media that we are experiencing today is a relatively recent phenomenon. Arguably, Talk Radio and Fox News started the trend but by the 2010s, promoting news that targets partisan audiences became a widespread trend in the news industry.

And that’s exactly why there’s no partisan divide on views of the JFK assassination. It’s one of the few political controversies that breakdown evenly between Democrats and Republicans. Media influence hasn’t really been a factor.

I totally blame the media for more recent partisan conspiracy theories but don’t see the media as having been a big factor in the persistence of JFK assassination theories.

I remember 2013 very well. During the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, most news outlets downplayed or ignored JFK CT’s almost entirely, except for the theories that blamed Fidel Castro.

The news media for the most part since 1963, has dismissed or attempted to debunk, JFK assassination theories. So I don’t see how they can be blamed for the persistence of a majority of Americans believing there was a conspiracy.

[Charles Collins]

JFK conspiracy theories have existed for 50+ years while the political polarization of the Media that we are experiencing today is a relatively recent phenomenon. Arguably, Talk Radio and Fox News started the trend but by the 2010s, promoting news that targets partisan audiences became a widespread trend in the news industry.

And that’s exactly why there’s no partisan divide on views of the JFK assassination. It’s one of the few political controversies that breakdown evenly between Democrats and Republicans. Media influence hasn’t really been a factor.

I totally blame the media for more recent partisan conspiracy theories but don’t see the media as having been a big factor in the persistence of JFK assassination theories.

I remember 2013 very well. During the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, most news outlets downplayed or ignored JFK CT’s almost entirely, except for the theories that blamed Fidel Castro.

The news media for the most part since 1963, has dismissed or attempted to debunk, JFK assassination theories. So I don’t see how they can be blamed for the persistence of a majority of Americans believing there was a conspiracy.

Back in the sixties the news media coverage of the Vietnam War was a catalyst for the protests and for turning a large part of a generation of young people against the authorities. The concurrent coverage of the civil rights movement had a similar effect. Was there an agenda by the media? I certainly believe that there was one. Was it justified? I think that it probably was. There was an obvious similar and concurrent agenda by some of the television shows that were popular with the young folks. The Smothers Brothers Show and Laugh-In are two of them. Kids learn from the attitudes and actions of their parents. So when these antiestablishment young people had kids, many of their kids adopted their attitudes. A snowball effect of this phenomenon has led to the situation we are in today. What we really could use is another leader with the persuasive ability of JFK to convince people that they shouldn’t ask what their country can do for them. But should ask what they can do for their country!

[Jon Banks]

Back in the sixties the news media coverage of the Vietnam War was a catalyst for the protests and for turning a large part of a generation of young people against the authorities. The concurrent coverage of the civil rights movement had a similar effect.

I have to disagree again.

The media wasn't responsible for the political assassinations and the government lies about Vietnam that inspired the Leftwing Baby Boomers in the 60s and 70s.

Finding out that the government lied to us about the Vietnam war did more to damage Americans' trust in their government than negative news coverage of the war although the two things go hand in hand.

Was there an agenda by the media? I certainly believe that there was one. Was it justified? I think that it probably was. There was an obvious similar and concurrent agenda by some of the television shows that were popular with the young folks. The Smothers Brothers Show and Laugh-In are two of them. Kids learn from the attitudes and actions of their parents. So when these antiestablishment young people had kids, many of their kids adopted their attitudes. A snowball effect of this phenomenon has led to the situation we are in today. What we really could use is another leader with the persuasive ability of JFK to convince people that they shouldn’t ask what their country can do for them. But should ask what they can do for their country!

From a cultural standpoint, I think you're right. Most people in the media are Liberal and idealistic and their ideals were expressed in the print, TV, and movies of the 60s and 70s. But I fail to see that as a negative thing for society. It's good to be aspirational and aim for a more perfect union. 

I agree that there's a connection between 'distrust in the government' and 'conspiratorial thinking' but I don't agree that the mainstream media and/or Hollywood promote those two things.

[Charles Collins]

I have to disagree again.

The media wasn't responsible for the political assassinations and the government lies about Vietnam that inspired the Leftwing Baby Boomers in the 60s and 70s.

Finding out that the government lied to us about the Vietnam war did more to damage Americans' trust in their government than negative news coverage of the war although the two things go hand in hand.


From a cultural standpoint, I think you're right. Most people in the media are Liberal and idealistic and their ideals were expressed in the print, TV, and movies of the 60s and 70s. But I fail to see that as a negative thing for society. It's good to be aspirational and aim for a more perfect union. 

I agree that there's a connection between 'distrust in the government' and 'conspiratorial thinking' but I don't agree that the mainstream media and/or Hollywood promote those two things.

Finding out that the government lied to us about the Vietnam war did more to damage Americans' trust in their government than negative news coverage of the war although the two things go hand in hand.

If you are referring to the pentagon papers, they weren’t brought to the attention of the people until 1971. The protests and attitudes had already gotten out of hand by then. That expose did however make things much worse.

[Andrew Mason]

Then why don't you look at the view opposite Hickey's?

Jerry: Let's make no mistake: you are suggesting that Hickey, a career Secret Service Agent, made up his story because he was saying he saw something that you say he could not.

Not only is your "theory" that Hickey made up something he did not see, but the Zfilm actually captures what he said he saw in the time frame that he said it occurred.  How did he know that when he gave his statement?  He had not seen the zfilm at that time.

If you want anyone to accept that your "theory" (that Hickey just made up seeing JFK's hair fly up on the second shot without causing any damage BEFORE seeing the head rupture on the third shot), the least you could do is show us how you determine the sight line from Hickey to JFK. It is apparent to me that Hickey was standing in a much higher car so he could see the top of JFK's head, so he would have had no difficulty seeing the hair fly up on the right side.  Why would he not have been able to see the top of JFK's head?

[Andrew Mason]

Oswald wasn't just a nut, he was Stark Raving Bonkers who was a wife beater, defector and already tried to assassinate General Edwin Anderson Walker.



JohnM

I agree.  It is not just that Oswald became a communist sympathiser and styled himself as an anti-fascist. Oswald acted on his twisted notions. 

How many Communist sympathizers actually moved to Russia?  How many of those stayed there long enough to learn how to speak and write Russian and get married? How many supposed anti-fascists (ironic, because Oswald's behaviour was fascist-like) actually identified a specific target, bought a gun and tried to assassinate that target?

[John Mytton]

I agree.  It is not just that Oswald became a communist sympathiser and styled himself as an anti-fascist. Oswald acted on his twisted notions. 

How many Communist sympathizers actually moved to Russia?  How many of those stayed there long enough to learn how to speak and write Russian and get married? How many supposed anti-fascists (ironic, because Oswald's behaviour was fascist-like) actually identified a specific target, bought a gun and tried to assassinate that target?

How many Communist sympathizers actually moved to Russia? How many of those stayed there long enough to learn how to speak and write Russian and get married?

That's right Andrew, not many Anybody But Oswald aficionados will confront the 6 ton elephant in the room and those that do will try and claim that Oswald was a US Government agent and was on a secret mission that happened to include self mutilation, working in a factory doing menial labour and having children with a Russian wife. Oswald was not the full quid and according to Marina, Oswald said assassinating a Government figure to bring about political change was part and parcel of being a responsible citizen.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he tell you why he had shot at General Walker?
Mrs. OSWALD. I told him that he had no right to kill people in peacetime, he had no right to take their life because not everybody has the same ideas as he has. People cannot be all alike. He said that this was a very bad man, that he was a fascist, that he was the leader of a fascist organization, and when I said that even though all of that night be true, just the same he had no right to take his life, he said if someone had killed Hitler in time it would have saved many lives. I told him that this is no method to prove your ideas, by means of a rifle.

JohnM