09-10-2014, 12:07 PM
I had always thought that it was a uniquely American thing, that the media won't report conflicting facts with regard to this case.
However, I have recently read Mark Lane's Citizen's Dissent and his treatment by the BBC in 1967 was absolutely shocking. The BBC still maintains today that LHO killed JFK. Last year, on the 50th, BBC radio ran a "minute by minute" special going 100% down the WC timeline. I contacted the host, Jeremy Vine, via twitter and asked him whose timeline he intended to run. He replied "The Dallas timeline, what other timeline is there?" I suggested, as one example, the the time of the Tippitt shooting was under a great deal of debate. He didn't reply. I don't think he wanted to acknowledge that there was another view other than the WC.
Search the BBC website for JFK stories and they will not give any room, with serious intent, to alternative theories.
Now, what is interesting about this is, if you study the timeline of JFK coverage here in the UK, the BBC broadcast the Antony Summers documentary which was indicative of conspiracy. That was 1978 or so. I recall from the 1988 25 year specials that there was several programmes that at least asked serious questions, even if they did not come out clearly for a conspiracy. The series TMWKK was originated by UK tv, albeit not the BBC. It was originally broadcast by commercial channel ITV. The BBC did a "Timewatch" special in late 1993 or early 1994 in the wake of Posner's book Case Closed. Instead of a piece of independent journalism, it was an hour long commercial for Posner's book.
So it seems that the UK media did permit itself to be critical - or at least give airtime to different views from the WC - for a time from say the mid 70s [around the time of the HSCA] up to the 30th anniversary. After that, it's been WC all the way.
It would appear that around the time of the HSCA, some people were beginning to think that 1963 was far enough in the past that no harm could come of looking at it again. However, I think that the progress that was made by researchers by the 25th, and the determination to continue the search, surprised and shocked the power brokers. I think that at this point, just after the 25th - and in preparation for Oliver Stone's JFK - the noose around the media was retightened. And it has stayed that way.
I used to think that the BBC lost its journalistic credibility and integrity in the last 10-15 years. Reading Lane's book has made me realise that the credibility was lost before 1967.
It's not just BBC TV that toes the party line either. I don't recall seeing a single UK media outlet give an honest account of where the case was in 2013. It's as though the ARRB never existed. The "newspaper" the Daily Mail still runs the odd story about some aspect of the case (like the fact that Oswald's original coffin was auctioned recently) but always refers to Oswald as the killer. Now for those that don't know the Daily Mail, that newspaper supported Hitler before WW2. Today it runs scare stories. Virtually every foodstuff known to man has been linked by the Mail to causing cancer; all of the world's ills (particularly the UK's) are caused by immigrants; and the only thing worse than immigrants are muslim immigrants. It is a totally vile, right-wing mouthpiece that will print any fiction that serves its agenda.
The image of the media as the world's whistle blower is totally undeserved. As media outlets keep getting absorbed by huge corporation, so there are fewer and fewer media companies, this will only get worse.
However, I have recently read Mark Lane's Citizen's Dissent and his treatment by the BBC in 1967 was absolutely shocking. The BBC still maintains today that LHO killed JFK. Last year, on the 50th, BBC radio ran a "minute by minute" special going 100% down the WC timeline. I contacted the host, Jeremy Vine, via twitter and asked him whose timeline he intended to run. He replied "The Dallas timeline, what other timeline is there?" I suggested, as one example, the the time of the Tippitt shooting was under a great deal of debate. He didn't reply. I don't think he wanted to acknowledge that there was another view other than the WC.
Search the BBC website for JFK stories and they will not give any room, with serious intent, to alternative theories.
Now, what is interesting about this is, if you study the timeline of JFK coverage here in the UK, the BBC broadcast the Antony Summers documentary which was indicative of conspiracy. That was 1978 or so. I recall from the 1988 25 year specials that there was several programmes that at least asked serious questions, even if they did not come out clearly for a conspiracy. The series TMWKK was originated by UK tv, albeit not the BBC. It was originally broadcast by commercial channel ITV. The BBC did a "Timewatch" special in late 1993 or early 1994 in the wake of Posner's book Case Closed. Instead of a piece of independent journalism, it was an hour long commercial for Posner's book.
So it seems that the UK media did permit itself to be critical - or at least give airtime to different views from the WC - for a time from say the mid 70s [around the time of the HSCA] up to the 30th anniversary. After that, it's been WC all the way.
It would appear that around the time of the HSCA, some people were beginning to think that 1963 was far enough in the past that no harm could come of looking at it again. However, I think that the progress that was made by researchers by the 25th, and the determination to continue the search, surprised and shocked the power brokers. I think that at this point, just after the 25th - and in preparation for Oliver Stone's JFK - the noose around the media was retightened. And it has stayed that way.
I used to think that the BBC lost its journalistic credibility and integrity in the last 10-15 years. Reading Lane's book has made me realise that the credibility was lost before 1967.
It's not just BBC TV that toes the party line either. I don't recall seeing a single UK media outlet give an honest account of where the case was in 2013. It's as though the ARRB never existed. The "newspaper" the Daily Mail still runs the odd story about some aspect of the case (like the fact that Oswald's original coffin was auctioned recently) but always refers to Oswald as the killer. Now for those that don't know the Daily Mail, that newspaper supported Hitler before WW2. Today it runs scare stories. Virtually every foodstuff known to man has been linked by the Mail to causing cancer; all of the world's ills (particularly the UK's) are caused by immigrants; and the only thing worse than immigrants are muslim immigrants. It is a totally vile, right-wing mouthpiece that will print any fiction that serves its agenda.
The image of the media as the world's whistle blower is totally undeserved. As media outlets keep getting absorbed by huge corporation, so there are fewer and fewer media companies, this will only get worse.