Nothing on this Oswald-de Mohrenschildt-Bush connection has ever been mentioned by The Times (save a one-sentence pooh-pooh in the paper by the late establishment historian Stephen Ambrose in 1992.) However, The Times did cover de Mohrenschildt's suicide, shortly after his final correspondence with Bush and shortly before he was expected to testify before the new House Select Committee on Assassinations.
Speaking of which, The Times rarely reminds readers that the House committee itself concluded that Kennedy's death was probably the result of an elaborate conspiracy (i.e., it was not a "loner" operation), but with no Soviet or Cuban government involvement.
How to explain this see-no-evil act? There are many reasons that news organizations will not tell the whole story, or fudge what could be revealed. Whatever is behind this shameful failure, reporters and editors know that the JFK assassination is just "too hot to handle," that it is a kind of electrified third rail that can destroy a journalism career. But even well-founded fear -- of being ridiculed, marginalized, demoted, or otherwise penalized -- is no justification for this unrelenting pattern of behavior at an institution that promotes itself as a "paper of record."
Anyone who calls him- or herself a journalist must be willing to take risks for the truth. After all, if the public can't count on journalists to get it right on the big stories, why should they trust us on the rest? And if journalism can't be trusted, democracy is on a slippery slope.(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
3
2
