“What the hell is wrong with you?”

What happens when a Society has “no agenda“?

Rupert Murdoch laughs

John Fahey National Geographic

  • Jan Adkins

    This is classic tabloid journalism, what we’ve come to expect – or dread – from the dispirited, undermotivated, pop-styled reportage from the National Geographic Society and its “mainstream” video component.

    Am I insulting the Society? No. I’m trying to alert the dormant professional journalists within the yellow borders that corporate pirates have seized the ship and it’s time to get back on course.

    Comparing the “public speeches and formal letters” of any two figures is the least reliable method of winkling out the truth. Public statements by any politician – George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Nixon, Warren Harding, Pope Julius X or Vlad the Impaler – are pre-spun statements of possible interpretations or simply outright lies that hope to be accepted.

    Did the Society plan to bless the quaint notion that Lee Harvey Oswald was “the lone gunman” or that John F. Kennedy was an heroic and selfless martyr? Less than half the population believe Oswald was the killer. Sober reassessment of Kennedy suggests that he was deeply compromised by health, vicious intergovernmental feuds, connections to crime figures and personal demons. Glossing over what’s been learned in fifty years in a puff piece comparing Kennedy’s formal words, and pronouncements made by Oswald’s multilayered personae not only misses the truth but obscures the complex situation behind “public speeches.”

    We’re coming up on the fiftieth anniversary of an event that, arguably, marks a major shift toward big business control of the government. What happened? Why? Why is so much still unexplained? The basic topography of our nation was altered, the landscape of our lives. This could have been an opportunity for real exploration. This could have been hard journalism from a respected source.

    Instead, it’s another bit of fluff from the Murdoch bubble machine, easy answers for the booboisie.

    What’s the motivation? What’s the editorial slant? What’s the usefulness of demonizing an anointed demon without real facts? Tired stuff, lazy journalism, propaganda, filler.

    • Jan – I’m not prepared to debate the veracity of the Warren Report. But this much is clear from the Channel’s Facebook post which I highlighted above: the side-by-side treatment of Oswald’s & Kennedy’s “differing views” is an embarrassment.

  • Bob

    Did everyone but me get a preview copy of the show.

NO NEW POSTS will be published here after February 6, 2014. THIS IS WHY.