Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

I have been meaning to write a piece on why media people went along with the story the government was spewing. And I don't mean media people who had ties to the government or the CIA, of which there were plenty. Obviously, they were going to support the official story. But, what about media people with no such ties? Why didn't they ask probing questions? Such as: 

"What evidence is there that Oswald even knew that the motorcade would be passing the building?" 

"How could Oswald have brought a rifle into the building without anyone noticing?"

"What motive did Oswald have to kill Kennedy? Even if he didn't like Kennedy's Castro policy, didn't he have to know that Lyndon Johnson's would be worse? 

"How come there were no reports of the supposed murder weapon being inspected for signs that it was recently fired?"

"Why was Oswald suspected right away just for having left work when there were others who did the same thing?" 

"Since there were people watching the motorcade from windows throughout the motorcade route including the TSBD, why would Oswald assume that he would have the 6th floor all to himself?

"Why would the report of someone sneaking into a movie theater result in an all-out police assault of the premises? Why assume it was the man who killed Tippit? 

And most shocking of all, "Why was the transfer of Oswald from one jail to another handled so incompetently? Why was it turned into a media event? Since they admitted having grave concern about his safety, why didn't they just do it, unannounced, in the dead of night, and then announce the next day that they had done it?

That's just a sampling of the questions that a reasonable and objective reporter would have asked, and it was certainly enough to cast grave doubt on the story that was being told. So, why did every reporter (or nearly every one) just accept what they were being told, lock, stock, and barrel?

I can think of several reasons. The first is that it was a crisis, a national emergency, and it is natural to put faith in government at such times, to go to the government for answers. But second, and more important, is that the story they were telling, that it was the work of a deranged lone gunman, was the one that people wanted to hear. It was a relief!  It was, by far, the least upsetting and the most comforting scenario. What if the Soviets had done it? That could mean nuclear war. What a nightmare!  So, what a relief it wasn't that. 

But, if the government was lying about it being the work of a lone gunman, it meant that the government, itself, must have done it. Why else would they lie? And that would mean that the US government is corrupt and criminal, and not just corrupt and criminal, but bloodied and murderous, which is also a nightmare.

Who wants to face such a thing? Who wants to go down such a road mentally? To contemplate that the US government was as bloodied and murderous as Attila the Hun?

If you're loyal to the US government, if you believe in the righteousness of the United States, if you love this country, if you believe that the US is the "shining city on a hill" you don't dare go down that road- the road of thinking that the US government could actually do such a thing.  

But again: if they are lying about it, it means that they did it. Therefore, they can't be lying about it; it's impossible because they couldn't do it. That was their mindset. This is America, and America doesn't do such things. Deranged wackos do such things, not the leaders of this great and proud nation that is the model for the world and the hope for humanity. 

So, why did ordinary reporters accept the official story without question? You might say "patriotism" as a one-word answer, but I would rather attribute it to 12 to 16 or more years of brainwashing in government schools which trained them to think that way and hold "the American system" in such high regard.

And very quickly, accepting the official story became a litmus test for loyalty: to the government, to the country, and to the ideals for which the country stands. Anyone who thinks there was a conspiracy; anyone who thinks the government is lying; is accusing the government of, well, ... the unspeakable. And how can any loyal, patriotic American do that? 

Our beloved President had just been assassinated, and it was a time to pull together. It was time to show your true colors as a loyal, patriotic American. And American reporters, especially, have always been expected to be outspoken in expressing their patriotism and love of country. It has always gone with the territory. And I'm sure the word spread, very quickly, from the top down, that there would be zero tolerance for dissenters. If you valued your job, your position, you were going to get with the program. So, there was self-interest involved in pushing the official story- even if the ones doing it weren't consciously aware of it. 

And this applies not just to the media workers across the board but to government workers across the board. It's not as though everyone in government down to the lowest secretary was in on the JFK assassination. But, everyone in government was expected to pull together and support the new administration and reject any and all doubt about what happened and what was being disseminated as truth.

Statism is a religion, and like all religions, it involves doctrines. The official story of the JFK assassination instantly became a doctrine that all loyal Americans would accept and honor. Again: it became the new litmus test for patriotism. And shutting down the rational, observant, independent mind is what every loyal subject of the state does on command- and especially at a time of crisis.