Newsgroup: it.sport.ciclismo
Titolo: Re: Christina Aguilera naked

in these articles. The
overall tendency has become so prevalent that, as many have
noted, tabloid sales in the U.S. have declined of late because
the mainstream media have now bowed to these tendencies so much
that much of their news has seeped over, thereby blurring the
lines between the two. In my view, some of the milestones in this
trend have been examined in this article: in the nonfiction book
field it would be the Collier-Horowitz book; in magazine
journalism, the Kitty Kelley article on Exner; in television, the
1985 Rivera controversy about Summers' book.
This blurring of tabloid and journalistic standards inevitably
leads to a blurring of history. With people like Kelley, Rivera,
and Exner commenting, the Kennedys get inserted into a giant
Torbitt Document of modern history. With people like Davis
translating for them, RFK does not pursue Giancana, they are
actually pals in MONGOOSE. The Kennedys agree with the Joint
Chiefs: we should invade Cuba. And then escalate in Vietnam.
Disinformation feeds on disinformation, and whatever the record
shows is shunted aside as the tabloid version becomes "accepted
history," to use Davis' phrase (p. 290). The point of this
blurring of sources is that the Kennedys, in these hands, become
no different than the Dulles brothers, or Nixon, or Eisenhower.
In fact, Davis says this explicitly in his book( pp. 298-99). As
I noted in the last issue, with Demaris and Exner, the Kennedys
are no different than Giancana. And once this is pounded home,
then anything is possible. Maybe Oswald did work for Giancana.
And if RFK was working with Sam, then maybe Bobby unwittingly had
his brother killed. Tragic, but hey, if you play with fire you
get burned. Tsk. Tsk.
But beyond this, there is an even larger gestalt. If the Kennedys
were just Sorenson-wrapped mobsters or CIA officers, then what
difference does it make in history if they were assa

their
       fingers at each other. As we examine the sorry history of all
       three industries, we shall see that there is plenty of blame (and
       shame) to be shared. And not just in 1997.
As we saw in Part One of this article, as the Church Committee
was preparing to make its report, the Exner and then Mary Meyer
stories made headlines in the Washington Post. These
elements-intrigue from the CIA assassination plots, plus the sex
angles, combined with the previous hazing of Richard Nixon over
Watergate-spawned a wave of new anti-Kennedy "expose"
biographies. Anti-Kennedy tracts were not new. But these new
works differed from the earlier ones in that they owed their
genesis and their styles to the events of the mid-seventies that
had brought major parts of the establishment (specifically, the
CIA and the GOP) so much grief. In fact we will deal with some of
the earlier ones later. For now, let us examine this new pedigree
and show how it fits into the movement outlined above.
Looking for Mr. Kennedy
(And Not Finding Him)
The first anti-Kennedy book in this brood, although not quite a
perfect fit into the genre, is The Search for JFK, by Joan and
Clay Blair Jr. The book appeared in 1976, right after Watergate
and the Church Committee hearings. In the book's foreword, the
authors are frank about what instig

 noted, tabloid sales in the U.S. have declined of late because
Snip
Yes, yes, yes, whatever. Where's the picture FFS?