Fox News on a Dallas travesty

Has anybody noticed that the conservative Fox News network is more open minded about the JFK assassination story than its liberal competitors?

The embedded player above isn’t working. So click on this sympathetic report on James Tague, a Dallas man who suffered a superficial injury from a gunshot that missed President Kennedy’s limousine on November 22, 1963. Fifty years later, Tague has not been invited to the official ceremony commemorating the anniversary of Kennedy’s death in Dallas.

The liberal media isn’t much interested in Tague’s remarkable story but Fox News is.

What explains the travesty of Tague’s exclusion?

The official explanation is that tickets to the Nov. 22 event in Dealey Plaza were distributed via lottery and Tague simply had bad luck. But with 5,000 seats available, why wouldn’t the sponsors of the event make sure Tague got a ticket?

Maybe its because Tague’s injury calls into question the famous single bullet theory — the forensic keystone of the official theory, still embraced by liberal news organizations — that says JFK was killed by one man alone for no discernible reason. (For an explanation of why Tague’s story is significant, read this JFK Facts dispatch.)

The organizers of the Dallas event are not liberals but they don’t want any JFK dissent either, as the Marin Cogan of the National Journal reported this week.

Most likely, Tague isn’t welcome in Dealey Plaza because he is outspoken in his rejection of the lone gunman scenario. He has written a book, “The Kennedy Killing,” arguing that Lyndon Johnson was behind JFK’s death.

I don’t agree with that theory, nor do many historians, but the man’s opinions should have nothing to do with this. His exercise of his First Amendment rights doesn’t disqualify him from common courtesy. He was an eyewitness to history — and now he is shut out.

I’m a liberal and most of the time I don’t like Fox News and all it stands for. But when it comes to James Tague, the network deserves credit for covering a story that many ostensibly liberal news editors prefer to disdain..



29 thoughts on “Fox News on a Dallas travesty”

  1. Mr Morley, thank you for this excellent site. Your comment:

    “Has anybody noticed that the conservative Fox News network is more open minded about the JFK assassination story than its liberal competitors?”

    Perhaps I can add this 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 program on the TV channel ARTE with references to the “transparency” on the events. See the video on the link below for those who can follow the commentary in French.

  2. It’s obvious that LBJ helped cover up what happened.

    I’m less convinced the “LBJ did it” claim is real. Maybe, maybe not.

    It’s not a surprise that Fox “News” would profile an author who says LBJ was behind the hit. Sure, Tague had a unique perspective on the coup (fortunately his injuries were relatively minor), but that doesn’t give him expertise on how the coup was arranged.

    I would be more impressed if Fox interviewed James Douglass, Jim DiEugenio, John Judge or even RFK jr. (who said “rogue CIA” when asked last winter who the perpetrator was).

    Citizens for the Truth about the Kennedy Assassination(s) reviews LBJ did it claims, finds them flawed


    It is less important, ultimately in my view, to understand how he was killed than why he was killed. This is not addressed when one says ‘LBJ did it for power,’ or ‘Allen Dulles did it for revenge.’ Again I quote Douglass:

    Those who designed the plot to kill Kennedy were familiar with the inner sanctum of our national security state…The assassins’ purpose seems to have encompassed not only killing a president determined to make peace with the enemy but also using his murder as the impetus for a possible nuclear first strike against that same enemy.[lvii]

    JFK’s fateful decision was to go against the same system that profited his family and assisted his rise to power, and to lead with his conscience. That decision literally killed him. Our whole form of government, and indeed our entire consumer society, depends entirely on suppressing our consciences and destroying our empathy. Our economic and political system is devoid of it – for good reason. If we allowed ourselves to feel empathy for all the people in the world who suffer on our behalf, the system could not be maintained.

    This is why there is a constant and pervasive stream of anti-Kennedy books, shows, and films, and why that fervor slides into seemingly irrelevant places likes Nelson’s current book. The major media is desperate to tear down the Kennedy legacy – to make him a criminal, a cad, or a dope fiend. “He was like all the others,” the Victor Laskys of the world will tell us. And Philip Nelson then echoes it.

  3. [Morley:] “He has written a book, “The Kennedy Killing,” arguing that Lyndon Johnson was behind JFK’s death. I don’t agree with that theory, nor do many historians”

    Do you believe in any of the other assassinations (including his own sister Josefa) of which LBJ has been accused?

    How about non-murder malfeasances? The man was no saint.

  4. I await Mr. Tagues book not for the LBJ info as much as I’ve read it has a chapter on escaping the TSBD by elevator. I’ve wondered for years how the “Men on the Sixth Floor” got down but not seen much research on this. From the LBJ books I’ve read I’m convinced he did have foreknowledge and probably a upper level role as a facilitator, coordinator, conduit. E.G. calling or having his people call to get others connected (he had lot’s of friends in Dallas), calling in favors, getting funding from the Dallas oil people. While he probably had the most to gain of anyone, his continued freedom and career, I don’t see him having the power at the time to have the final say on “Go” or to conduct the cover up afterwards on his own. Just my humble opinion.

    1. This foreknowledge and probably an upper level role as a facilitator, coordinator, conduit. Could this be part of the National security event that must be kept secret from the American public?

  5. Fox News is trying to chip away at the wall of deceit surrounding the JFK murder but needs to do more research before interviewing important witnesses & asking them questions on national TV IMHO.

    This reporter failed to ask James Tague what the result of the FBI analysis of the bullet strike was. This in turn prevented Tague from answering that the FBI analysis found no traces of copper. Oswald’s alleged rifle fired copper coated lead bullets, meaning the bullet strike to the curb came from a non-alleged Oswald rifle & bullet (Gerald Posner came up with his ‘magic ricochet tree’ theory in his book, ‘Case Closed’ to get around this issue).

    The questions not asked do more harm to the case than the ones that are in a lot of cases because they pull the public’s attention away from the more important issues & make it harder for future generations to get the full picture without having to search around in a quagmire; in this case with Tague the more important issue was the lack of copper in the strike. The reporter could have found that info in Mr. Tague’s 1st book or looked it up in the Warren Report, published in 1964.

    The worst of the worst interviews omitting vital questions I have found to be in the collection of Sixth Floor Museum oral histories posted on YouTube. In some cases, a second chance isn’t available; Marilyn Sitzman (steadied Abraham Zapruder as he filmed the Zapruder film) died shortly after her interview with the sixth floor. She wasn’t asked about the parade car turn onto Elm Street missing from Zapruder’s film or if she had seen the film & if she thought it was altered from what she witnessed. Pity.

  6. I haven’t even finished reading Roger Stone new book that attests LBJ was instrumental in the JFK assassination. Now his (James Tauge) kindle version is out, that follows this same line along with many other authors and some researchers. Years ago, when I saw the History channel program on the Smoking Gun that said pretty much the same and when I read in 2003 Barr McClellan book Blood Money Power How LBJ killed JFK, I discounted this. I am beginning to have second thoughts!

    1. I have read Stone’s book now, and frankly, I don’t think it adds very much to the LBJ did it thesis, which in my view, is rather weak. Certain government officials may have suspected LBJ, but there isn’t anything solid to back it up.

      1. I first heard the theory of LBJ being behind the assassination in the 1990’s when I bought “The Texas Connection” by Zirbel. I thought it was preposterous then. After that I read all of Caro’s books on LBJ, and was not so sure. Then I read about Malcolm Wallace, someone Caro was reluctant to write about, and heard about Madeline Brown, his mistress. I read about J. Edgar Hoover, and his close relationship to LBJ. Finally I learned about the Bobby Baker scandal, which pretty well sets up a case for Lyndon to want to save his hide by November of 1963, and the case of LBJ being behind the assassination looked pretty logical. Certainly he craved power, grabbed for it however he could, and let nothing stand in his way. Certainly he manhandled the reluctant Warren Commission members who didn’t want to serve, forcing them into serving. I think Lyndon Johnson was a candidate for membership in a coup to take down Kennedy and seize power. I’m not saying he did it alone, but I seriously doubt he stood by and just “let it happen.”

  7. Jeff Morley,

    I haven’t read Tague’s book, but just out of curiosity, why do you reject the theory that Lyndon Johnson was behind the assassination of JFK?

    Thank you,

  8. Nathaniel Heidenheimer

    Yes, I have noticed.

    With two caviars re our multi-billionaire controlled media:

    1) No CIA done it in the FOXy narrative

    2) This fits in with a long term pattern of trying to “Alex-Jones” ify the MEDIATED APPEARANCE of those who know the historical conspiracy, therefor giving it a rightward hue…. so that it can quickly be digested by the gatekeepers at New Yorker, Nation, as “Conspiracy Theory”

    See the relevant book McCarthyism and the Intellectuals published in 1966 by MIT press. Also see the University of Texas 2013 publication “Conspiracy Theory in America” on how the enzymes of Conspiracy Theory digestive-response were planted deep in the large intestine of Academia very early in the Cold War by Popper and Straus, aided by fear and concerns about academic livelihood in the mushroom cloud of the chilling effect from “”McCarthyism””,

    This way, all the employed “liberal” (not really) has to say is… “oh how typical of FOX news” > end of discussion. Those who think this mediation of the JFK narrative is too gasp “conspiratorial” should read more about the history of Communications research. I recommend three books in particular, 1) Nervous Liberals by Brett Gary, 2) The Science of Coercion by Christopher Simpson and 3) re controlling the left-liberal- further left firewall, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters by Frances Saunders. Also what about reading The Nation Magazines lead investigative reporter, Fred Cook, on what happened when he tried to get The Nation to publish his article questioning the Warren Commission during the early years 1964-66.

    The mediation of the Kennedy Assassination into popular consciousness is a three-card monte which preys upon the distention between let-right appearances v .rightist structural causes of the assassination. That dichotomy is important to what a heck of a lot of employed people call “National Security”

    1. Nathaniel, excellent recommendations, which I shall try to read. But I can warn you in advance that most people will never believe that the disinformation system has been perfected and operated to the level you suggest.

  9. The problem with Tague’s testimony is that he didn’t even know he was hit until after the assassination when somebody told him he had blood on his cheek.
    Ergo, how could he possibly know what round was responsible for his wound?

    1. On the contrary, Tague says clearly that he had felt himself being struck at the time. Below are relevant extracts from his statement to the WC.

      Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. VII – Page 553

      James Tague.

      We walked back down there, and another man joined us who identified himself as the deputy sheriff, who was in civilian clothes, and I guess this was 3 or 4 minutes after. I don’t know how to guage time on something like that.
      And I says, “Well, you know now, I recall something sting me on the face while I was standing down there.”
      And he looked up and he said, “Yes; you have blood there on your cheek.”

      And again-

      Mr. Liebeler.

      How long after did you feel yourself get hit by anything?

      Mr. Tague.

      I felt it at the time, but I didn’t associate, didn’t make any connection, and ignored it. And after this happened, or maybe the second or third shot, I couldn’t tell you definitely–I made no connection. I looked around wondering what was going on, and I recall this. We got to talking, and I recall that something had stinged me, and then the deputy sheriff looked up and said, “You have blood there on your cheek.” That is when we walked back down there.

      1. Since when is “…or maybe the second or third shot, I couldn’t tell you definitely- I made no connection” clearly stating that he felt himself struck at the time?
        Obviously he didn’t if he said ” Well, now you know now, I recall …”

    2. You’re misrepresenting his testimony. He felt the sting at the time it happened, but then forgot about it in the aftermath of the President being killed. He was pretty sure it happened at the time of the first or second shot, not the third shot. I know defenders of the official story like to say he was hit by a fragment from the head shot, but his testimony doesn’t support that.

      1. Actually the defenders of the official story tend to believe that the missed first shot probably traveled down range and hit the curb.

        1. Traveled down range? Have a look at where the limo was as seen from the alleged sniper’s nest at the time of the alleged first shot, and compare that to where Tague was actually standing. The whole premise is absurd. As Senator Russell memorably put it: he didn’t just miss the automobile, he missed the street.

          1. On top of that, the evidence for the missed shot around Z160 seems to indicate that it hit the pavement on the JFK side of the limo, making this shot an unlikely source for Tague’s wound.

          2. There is no evidence whatsoever for the fate of the first shot in the Zapruder film. There isn’t even any firm evidence for the exact time of the first shot, only possible reactions to that shot.

          3. No, but there is witness testimony of “sparks” on the pavement on the JFK side of the limo corresponding to around Z160.

    3. “how could he possibly know what round was responsible for his wound?”

      Maybe because he was there, you were not, yet you act as if
      you know what people are thinking and feeling.

  10. I am not usually politically aligned with FOX News either, however in 2003 for the 40th anniversary by far the most balanced show on the JFK assassination was Greta Van Susteren’s hour special on FOX. The conclusion was that rather than being ‘case closed’, the JFK case was ‘case open’. For some reason the other major networks were still promoting the Warren report single bullet scenario even in 2003.

    1. Along these years I have concluded that there are 3 categories of people, respect to their political ideology and position on the assassination:

      (a) Liberals: Believe there was a conspiracy. See John Kerry, for example. I fall in this group.

      (b) Mainstream Republicans: “Oswald was a communist, and that is why he did it”.

      (c) Far Right Wingers, wackos, InforWars types. Those have never known a conspiracy to which they do not subscribe.

      That simple classification cannot possibly be perfect. For instance, Edward Jay Epstein is a Liberal LN (but he *was* CT for years).

      It is interesting to see Prof. McAdams and Anthony Marsh in the censored JFK USenet Forum.

      1. Some liberals, whom I characterize as Mainstream Liberals, who bought into Lyndon Johnson’s presidency, don’t buy into the conspiracy angle either. They particularly don’t like the idea that Lyndon Johnson would have been behind such an awful conspiracy. I think they are misguided, and perhaps a bit naive, but NPR, CBS, and other media organs seem to have a lot of these folks.

      2. Ramon F Herrera


        “Has anybody noticed that the conservative Fox News network is more open minded about the JFK assassination story than its liberal competitors?”


        That could be due to the well known dichotomy of the GOP. There are 2 groups:

        • The ones that, above all, hate the Democrats.

        • The ones who, above all, hate the US Government.

        The latter are the ones who -not unlike Will Rogers- have never met a conspiracy to which they didn’t subscribe. Birthers, truthers, etc.

        See visual aid:

        Their only outlet is the network that has been come to be known derisively as Faux by its detractors.

        Fox has an innate responsibility to represent them. To lend them a voice.

Leave a Comment

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top