New York Times reviews books on JFK, but omits books on the assassination

[James Norwood]

Dear Friends,

On October 22, 2013, New York Times writer Jill Abramson has published a detailed overview of the literature on President Kennedy. Ms. Abramson has the title of "executive editor" of the Times. Her lengthy article omits mention of any of the significant studies on the assassination. Shouldn't works like James Douglass's JFK and the Unspeakable be included with other historical studies like those of Caro and Dallek? Apparently, for the mainstream media, even to mention Douglass's book would be crossing the line.

Ms. Abramson writes that "the historical consensus seems to have settled on Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin." But whose "consensus" is she talking about? The consensus of the authors of 40,000 books on JFK? The consensus of the government investigations? The consensus of a coterie of academic historians who refuse to cross the line? It is certainly not the consensus of the American people.

In the writing of history, there are too many instances where "consensus" eventually yields to "truth." Shouldn't truth be of concern to the executive editor of the New York Times?


James


Abramson's article "The Elusive President" may be accessed at this site: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/books/...l?emc=eta1

[Marlene Zenker]

Dear Friends,

On October 22, 2013, New York Times writer Jill Abramson has published a detailed overview of the literature on President Kennedy. Ms. Abramson has the title of "executive editor" of the Times. Her lengthy article omits mention of any of the significant studies on the assassination. Shouldn't works like James Douglass's JFK and the Unspeakable be included with other historical studies like those of Caro and Dallek? Apparently, for the mainstream media, even to mention Douglass's book would be crossing the line.

Ms. Abramson writes that "the historical consensus seems to have settled on Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin." But whose "consensus" is she talking about? The consensus of the authors of 40,000 books on JFK? The consensus of the government investigations? The consensus of a coterie of academic historians who refuse to cross the line? It is certainly not the consensus of the American people.

In the writing of history, there are too many instances where "consensus" eventually yields to "truth." Shouldn't truth be of concern to the executive editor of the New York Times?


James


Abramson's article "The Elusive President" may be accessed at this site: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/books/...l?emc=eta1

I once heard Diane Rehm remark that she was stunned that people actually thought there was a conspiracy - she sounded genuinely shocked. Rehm is in her 70's so she was an adult in 1963 and yet she is shocked - unreal.