Dale Myers and Gus Russo are obsessed about conspiracy.
In recent media coverage of JFK assassination news, these two veteran JFK experts hear “Drums of Conspiracy” and seek to warn the public of impending danger: Those crazy conspiracy theorists are coming. Watch out, they say. And watch out especially for that Jefferson Morley. His purpose in reporting on the CIA’s role in the JFK story is, they insinuate, actually a ruse to promote a JFK conspiracy theory that is just about as crazy as the notion that JFK was shot by a Secret Service man.
Myers and Russo use the word “conspiracy” no less than 28 times in their piece. They especially take exception to what I told Associated Press reporter David Porter: that my legal battles for JFK files were “about transparency, not conspiracy.” Not so, they insist.
“It’s about conspiracy,” they declare, “and everybody knows it.
The South Tampa Tribune rebukes the Associated Press for its recent story on the JFK anniversary. An editorialist for the newspaper Web site noted that the reporter gave credence the “buffoon theorized that Kennedy’s limo driver shot him, as part of an effort to cover up proof of an alien invasion.”
“Shame on the AP for trafficking in such drivel and thus trivializing those who don’t support a lone-assassin theory,” said the Tampa news site. “It was awful timing for bad editing.”
According to the Associated Press, a lucrative conspiracy theory industry is keeping alive a non-existent controversy about the assassination of President Kennedy.
“Best-selling books and blockbuster movies have raked in massive profits since 1963. And now, with the 50th anniversary of that horrible day in Dallas looming, a new generation is set to cash in,” writes reporter Allen Breed in a story republished online by the New York Times, Washington Post, and elsewhere.
This is the reassuring point of view that holds there’s nothing to worry about in the JFK story. Confronted with continuing public doubt, Breed does not assess the latest facts or interview the best informed experts about their implications. He presents his opinion — the minority view — as fact and casts aspersions on those who disagree without much discussion of the facts of the case.
This is the kind of un-journalism that too often issues from major news organizations frustrated by the intractable and contradictory evidence in the JFK assassination story.