2) I agree that the change started before JFK became president, and include a lof of that research in the book; but I really think the key came during his three years, and because the media either a) buried so much of his activities or b) knew about them and did not investigate others (such as the Castro assassination business) played a key role in the news media NOT covering the assassination properly, not asking the right questions, not gathering evidence. I submit that even though the answers to these questions would STILL show Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, the media did NOT know that at the time, and should have had every reason to investigate his sexual liasons (a jealous husband? even an enraged Jackie?), his connections with Cuba (pro- or anti-Castro groups), his known mob connections, and so on. The failure to do this job led to the rise of a conspiracy cottage industry that, in fact, turned up a significant amount of information that the journalists themselves should have discovered and/or revealed. From that point on, part of the media's leftward/activist turn was an attempt to "reclaim their virginity."
In your opinion, would they have been what we consider "mainstream media" today?
Regarding JFK, WHY did the MSM give him a pass? Daddy Joe had some "interesting" friends in hight places. Were the media types a little cowed by his possible retribution if they didn't treat son properly? Other possibilities?
From that point on, part of the media's leftward/activist turn was an attempt to "reclaim their virginity."
Could be, but they were "kissed" by Dims, so why would they take it out on Pubbies later??? Doesn't wash IMHO, but trying to decipher the MSM's proclivities is something I've spent a lot of time on, without satisfactory results. I'm hoping your efforts will shed some light on what to me is the most vexing questions; that is, how and why.
FGS