Pecking Orders in Order of Battle disputes: The Westmorland-CBS dispute vs. JFK-LBJ dispute in

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

mass-mediated historical memory.

Why is the later CBS - Westmorland dispute, which I have not read much about, so I am asking for some help here - the first thing that comes to mind when someone thinks about "order of battle disputes" but the IMO, much more important one described by John Newman in 1992's JFK and Vietnam rarely mentioned.

Did the writing on the Westmorland - CBS dispute make reference to the earlier JFK -LBj dispute and if so to what extent? Did it describe the problem/plan in terms of continuity with the later CBS-Westmorland dispute or just a cursory comparison. Or was there almost no mention of the JFK-LBJ dispute ?

Is it possible that the amount of New Yorkerish (always there is a reason why ) coverage that the Westmorland -CBS dispute got may have been the result of some hidden agenda?

[Albert Doyle]

The agenda is airing these controversies in the lip-service realm of American media where much controversy can be stirred-up in order to sell overpriced advertizing to a form of political entertainment that will create much steam with no result.

Meanwhile the JFK-LBJ battle was much closer to the bone and represented the real raw power politics that were the direct actions and interests of the power elite. These battles are better left hidden because they expose the true nature of things in America too directly. It's easier to scapegoat a general than the sponsors and their motives.