Fox News asks JFK questions the other networks avoid


While James Rosen is mistaken that no “serious scholar” questions that Oswald shot JFK, he is right to ask questions about the CIA’s continuing secrecy around JFK assassination files that other reports shy from.

Background:

CIA admits undercover officer lived in New Orleans (Nov. 11, 2013)

 5 Decades Later Some JFK FIles Still Sealed (Associated Press, Aus. 18. 2013)

Justice Dept. denies CIA officer was honored for coverup (JFK Facts,Dec. 17, 2012)

Court uphold public benefit of disclsoure about CIA officer in JFK story (JFK Facts, June 19, 2013)

CIA Still Cagey About Oswald Mystery (New York Times, October 17, 2009)

Morley v. CIA: Why I sued the CIA for JFK assassination records (JFK Facts, Feb. 23, 2013)

 

 

5 comments

  1. PBR says:

    Despite the assertion that serious scholars don’t dispute Oswald’s guilt, it’s good to see that along with other mainstream outlets, Fox has now taken the leap and highlighted the quest for transparency in the case. Keep digging Jeff. You’re mining a potentially invaluable seam with regard to the CIA files and the popular interest is increasing rapidly and verifiably.

  2. Phisal says:

    I am posting the below again. My previous comments were posted late as related to a Nov 13 news on JFK Facts. They can be found below again as I now see them more relevant to Mr Morley’s yesterday entry. Congratulations for this excellent site!

    “Fox News asks JFK questions the other networks avoid”

    Perhaps I can add a few comments on mainstream reports from a European perspective: I attended the recent International Symposium on the 50th Anniversary of JFK Assassination in Pittsburgh (I regularly spend half of the year in the US and half in France).
    It happened that I watched the coverage of CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX for the JFK 50th anniversary from my US home until November 17 then continued watching the TV media once back in France. It struck me that the French mainstream media – in contrast with the US – clearly mentioned the plausible conspiracy theories. One example was the most interesting recent program on the TV channel ARTE with references to “transparency” on the events. See the video link below (with some English commentary).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9S6qeKmuLI

    Great investigation work and debate!

  3. Rick Anderson says:

    You’re right Jeff to applaud Fox news in this instance. I too applaud them whenever I watch, as they seem to get the date and time correct. But I must caution you – before giving a complete endorsement I would always check and double check the “facts” put forth in any Fox news report.

    And as you point out even in this piece, reporter Rosen seems biased and incorrect in his assumption that “no “serious scholar” questions that Oswald shot JFK.” He even endorses Peter Savodnik’s “No conspiracy” stance (allowing him to debunk as “great theater” notions that Oswald could had been controlled or manipulated) and “chalks up CIA misconduct as standard bureaucratic behavior. And as we all know bureaucratic behavior and bureaucratic misbehavior is a favorite topic at Fox news

    Look:

    All the MSM needs to improve their JFK coverage (some coverage as we all know has been really bad) and that’s where websites like JFKfacts.org can be helpful.

    But I would say:

    “Viewer Beware when it comes to Fox news as their track record shows they are sure to disappoint.”

  4. Clarence Carlson says:

    While I am happy to see any national news outlet push for further government transparency, letting Rosen get by with that comment is still shoddy journalism. Ten minutes on the internet would have provided enough information to refute his claim.

  5. TLR says:

    Fox is probably only open to the possibility of a conspiracy involving Castro or the KGB anyway.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more

%d bloggers like this: