Russ Baker and Milicent Cranor ask a good question in WhoWhatWhy but the implication of their headline that all books supporting the official theory of JFK’s death are “disinformation” does no service to the truth.
More important, however, is the evidence, everywhere, of a coverup — from hanky-panky in the autopsy room to a shockingly premature termination of any efforts to seriously investigate. Was the coverup itself not proof of more going on? Of course it was.
This I totally agree with. If the official theory of JFK’s murder was true, the extent of the subsequent malfeasance, the failure to investigate;, and the continuing secrecy a half century are inexplicable.
But if a reporter like Phil Shenon, with a track record of quality journalism about national security matters, writes a book that reaches a different conclusion than I do, that’s not disinformation. That’s a difference of opinion. Ditto for Vince Bugliosi and Max Holland.
I see no basis for the insinuation–embodied in the word “disinformation”–that these authors are deliberately making arguments they know to be untrue. Baker and Cranor present none in their article.
There’s a different way to look at this:
The many books and movies supporting the official theory are a sign that many people want reassurance that JFK was not killed by his enemies. They want reassurance because that is such a disturbing and destabilizing possibility.
Cultural mythmakers like Tom Hanks and Stepehn King are not drawn to this interpretation of November 22, 1963, because they are intent of deceiving the American people. They are drawn to it because they are in the business of selling fantasy and reassuring fantasies sell better than destabilizing fantasies.
In other words, the persistence of books and movies supporting the official theory is a measure of Americans’ continuing desire for reassurance in the face of the still-accumulating disturbing evidence.