it is wrong to tell a story that harms a reputation, even if it is true, unless we need to know for health or safety. The story about JFK and the 19 year old intern would serve no purpose, even if true. This is just entertainment, even if false. But it is pretty clear, the story is not true, regardless of what we may know about JFK.
Let me address two things, why does the story appear untrue? And why would someone spread this untrue story?
First, what do we know? A 69 yar old women has has authored a story about when she was 19. So the news is what a 69 year old woman says she did fifty years ago. This is not a story about JFK. (The tale she tells may mention JFK, the the story is she wrote a book).
If I said I went to the moon yesterday, it would be an error to report that John Spiers went to the moon yesterday, and any reasonable reporter would not report that. The story is John Spiers SAID he went to the moon.
Reporters check facts on a story. If a first person is telling a story, you want it corroborated. The media is getting around this by reporting that a 69 year old woman wrote a story about herself and JFK. Now that she wrote a book is corroborated with the publication of the book. So we know that much. The rest we have no idea. it has to be corroborated.
So right off the bat, something is wrong. But let’s look at what she says in the book. The uninteresting parts (she was an intern) are verifiable. The scintillating and pathetic parts are not verifiable. There are no witnesses. Where witnesses are mentioned, they are long dead. For this reason alone no one should believe it.
Although I am no writer, I’ve written a couple of books, and I know how hard it is. This book is very well written, somebody wrote it for her. That is no big deal in itself, but the way it is written is by someone who is professional at making or breaking images. The book is designed to be excerpted out into every media level. And it has, with “JFK intern” having nearly 30 million citations on google
The story is detail laden, an ancient verisimilitude technique. But whoever crafted this made a beginner’s mistake. The 19 year old mentions details of her first encounter with Kennedy, he wore 4711 cologne. How would she know? This 19 year old is an expert of colognes, by scent? This she remembers 50 years later? There are too many of these to be credible.
In spite of no corroboration, the story manages to put her in the middle of it all, from Jackie’s bed to cuban missile crisis to the night before he died. All unlikley.
After being conquered, JFK passes the girl around, according to her story, which is extremely tacky, and unlikely. Maybe pimps do that, but top men are usually jealous of their harems.
Who knows what her motivation would be for telling such a tale. Money, fame? Or at least notoriety?
I think it is about a return of the Clintons. Mitt can beat Obama, but not Hillary. Hillary will win they way Bill won, with the enough conservative vote staying home in disgust at Romney, and what is left split by Ron Paul, just as Ross Perot did for Bill Clinton. But can we trust bill back around the Oval Office, with all those 19 year old interns?
The Catholic vote is important, and Obama has been set up to enrage that base. By bringing JFK down to Bill’s level, well, Catholics can feel better about Bill.
At the same time, those Catholics who are running are noisily pro-war, pro-death to Moslems. To be a great president you must lead in a war. By allowing pro-war catholics to run as serious contenders, Catholics are being conditioned to accept criminal invasions of countries no threat to us.
Headlines and stories from here on out are about a return of the Clintons.
The story is a plant as part of politics today. It ain’t true.
0 comments:
Post a Comment