Today I met with Russ Baker and talked with him about Family of Secrets. Interstingly he mentioned that Dan Rather had agreed to endorse and blurb the paperback edition that is coming out in October. Interesting person to get an endoresment from. Is Rather becoming more open to exploring certain issues?
:pcguru:
Doubt it.
Rather is more open to supporting his law suit against CBS et al.
Russ: Play this correctly.
Kenneth: The frequency is unknown.
Given that the rest of the media will remain hostile anyway, I dont really see the downside. Are you suggesting that the media will try to dismiss it as part of a Rather v. Bush narrative? Even if, I'm not sure this will automatically be negative. Charles could you expand on what you think are the pitfalls here?
I'll try.
Rather has been demonized not just by the MSM, but also by significant elements within the JFK research community.
In the wake of the "W"-related incident -- which was a set-up from the very beginning -- that led to his ultimate downfall at CBS, Rather has been portrayed by his alleged colleagues as an emotionally unbalanced and untruthful egomaniac.
Rather much earlier had been chastised by many of my colleagues in the ranks of JFK researchers for his description of the Z-film (which is at variance with the version we are allowed to see today) and his claim that he was stationed just north of the Triple Underpass waiting for a film drop (he is not visible in any Dealey Plaze photos taken at the time of the hit).
In fact, the indictment written by Monty Evans -- The Rather Narrative -- was, for a time, essential reading.
My point: An endorsement by Dan Rather almost certainly will be the kiss of death for Family of Secrets insofar as it will permit the MSM to make the "If Rather likes it, it must be crazy!" charge over and over again.
If, however, Tom Brokaw made a similar endorsement (and of course he won't; Tom Not-So-Terrific is bought and paid for by the same people who sent the Greatest Generation to die for a global racket) ...
Hope this makes sense.
Charles Drago Wrote:In the wake of the "W"-related incident -- which was a set-up from the very beginning -- that led to his ultimate downfall at CBS, Rather has been portrayed by his alleged colleagues as an emotionally unbalanced and untruthful egomaniac.
(snip)......
My point: An endorsement by Dan Rather almost certainly will be the kiss of death for Family of Secrets insofar as it will permit the MSM to make the "If Rather likes it, it must be crazy!" charge over and over again.
I don't know enough about the internal politics of the JFK community to comment on some of Charles' specific JFK comments.
However, at the broader level, endorsement by Rather would mean the kiss of death from MSM.
Rather - deliberately or not - walked straight into a trap with the piece over Dubya's cowardly wartime service record.
Here's what would happen if Rather endorsed the book:
i) MSM would portray Rather as fighting a personal feud against the Bush family. Rather would be characterized as a bitter man seeking revenge and clutching at straws;
ii) one or two aspects of "Family of Secrets" - either incidents which are largely irrelevant to the broader thesis or which have relatively weak or contentious sources - would be attacked and ridiculed. Events where the evidence is strong and compelling would be totally ignored;
iii) the MSM story would be "the rise and fall of Dan Rather" into "conspiracy theory" aka insanity.
Still, it's interesting that Rather may be prepared to endorse the work.
"Interesting" indeed, Jan.
Not to seem ... well ... paranoid, but perhaps Rather's motivations and allegiences are deeper than previously suspected.
And your predictions are on-point all the way.
I would not trust Rather to endorse the fact that today is Sat. His history of intellectual dishonesty in the assassination of JFK is legendary. Any CT author needs to avoid him like the plague.
In a particularly distasteful CBS docudrama in 1975 Rather's explanation for the backward motion of JFK after the headshot was possibly that "Jackie pulled him" backward. Beyond lunnacy.
He is over and needs to stay there. Baker does not need an endorsement from him.
Dawn
I have read the responses but I'm not sure I agree. I dont dispute Rather's role as custodian of the official narrative. Nor do I dispute the idea that Rather is now Lear in Wildnerness to the rest of the Corporate Media. But by completely discrediting him now, what does that do to his earlier role in the official narrative? In other words there may be a cost associated with excessive Rather-bashing. Snag a thread, the sleeve may unravel.
I am far from suggesting that Mr. Baker put all his eggs in that basket. He has lots of other impressive blurbs as well.
It just seems that to me that the public perception of Rather might be more complicated than others think. I think there is a general perception that although Rather got burned, he was somehow set up by a government that was allowed to get away with too much. Because of Rathers role early on in Dallas, I think that the publicity of the Rather v. Bush contraversy might be used to positive effect, while its negative potential-- real as the above posters have outlined-- might be more limited than some think. Its a blurb, and it comes as an interesting time. I am far from suggesting that Russ Baker start using Rather as a major source of new evidence. Besides, I learned recently from researcher Joseph Green that Rather made some comment to the effect of "we really blew it on Dallas" in the year 1993. Does anyone, by the way, have this quote in context? Appreciate the comments, just mulling it over. I am sorry if I am insufficiently Manichean for some, but sometimes to get you book out it's more important to be macheavelian. Of course there are risks with that too, just got to make sure they're smart ones.
Nathaniel Heidenheimer Wrote:I have read the responses but I'm not sure I agree. I dont dispute Rather's role as custodian of the official narrative. Nor do I dispute the idea that Rather is now Lear in Wildnerness to the rest of the Corporate Media. But by completely discrediting him now, what does that do to his earlier role in the official narrative? In other words there may be a cost associated with excessive Rather-bashing. Snag a thread, the sleeve may unravel.
I am far from suggesting that Mr. Baker put all his eggs in that basket. He has lots of other impressive blurbs as well.
It just seems that to me that the public perception of Rather might be more complicated than others think. I think there is a general perception that although Rather got burned, he was somehow set up by a government that was allowed to get away with too much. Because of Rathers role early on in Dallas, I think that the publicity of the Rather v. Bush contraversy might be used to positive effect, while its negative potential-- real as the above posters have outlined-- might be more limited than some think. Its a blurb, and it comes as an interesting time. I am far from suggesting that Russ Baker start using Rather as a major source of new evidence. Besides, I learned recently from researcher Joseph Green that Rather made some comment to the effect of "we really blew it on Dallas" in the year 1993. Does anyone, by the way, have this quote in context? Appreciate the comments, just mulling it over. I am sorry if I am insufficiently Manichean for some, but sometimes to get you book out it's more important to be macheavelian. Of course there are risks with that too, just got to make sure they're smart ones.
Now, if Rather would come 'clean' about Dallas and his role/statements/etc.
and back the book...that would be nice.... Given that one can't 'win' with the MSM, I just ignore them and thinking people [the few] will, as well.