Yes American Experience. They did a very good and interesting program also. I'm just tired of all the Kennedy conspiracy shows......how many of thoese do we need? Seems like there must be at least 15 of them......kinda like the search for Big Foot.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
National Geographic: Killing Kennedy (Sun. Nov. 10)
- Thread starter gregg75
- Start date
Yes American Experience. They did a very good and interesting program also. I'm just tired of all the Kennedy conspiracy shows......how many of thoese do we need? Seems like there must be at least 15 of them......kinda like the search for Big Foot.
But the media still seems to have a fascination with them.
even the red states?
The PBS Version of the JFK Movie was based on a book Ex-PBS Newshour anchor Jim Lehrer did.
See Jim Lehrer's interview of his book "Top Down" This is what the PBS Version of the JFK Movie.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/july-dec13/topdown_10-15.html
I'll watch the National Geographic version of the JFK Movie.
S
searadiofreak
Guest
As a radio programmer, I love to study demographics, and the Kennedy 50th has me intrigued.
Let's start with an assumption. That is most who have a strong interest in this were born before or soon after the event occured. It is part of "their" lifetime, and that means a lot on a most basic level.
That having been said, this would include those born from about 1930 to 1964. So this would translate into a demo of 49-83. I use 1930 as the opening date as this is where a realistic death average would occur. The median here would be about 65, not exactly an in-demand demo today.
However, perhaps this event transcends all this because of its enormity on both the country and the world. Plus the controversy continues to stir up interest among those who were not even alive at the time of the event.
But this does ring true to something that was stated earlier in the thread. This 50th anniversary may be the last important one we will see, due to demographics, with the exception of true historians.
Let's start with an assumption. That is most who have a strong interest in this were born before or soon after the event occured. It is part of "their" lifetime, and that means a lot on a most basic level.
That having been said, this would include those born from about 1930 to 1964. So this would translate into a demo of 49-83. I use 1930 as the opening date as this is where a realistic death average would occur. The median here would be about 65, not exactly an in-demand demo today.
However, perhaps this event transcends all this because of its enormity on both the country and the world. Plus the controversy continues to stir up interest among those who were not even alive at the time of the event.
But this does ring true to something that was stated earlier in the thread. This 50th anniversary may be the last important one we will see, due to demographics, with the exception of true historians.
Last edited:
"However, perhaps this event transcends all this because of its enormity on both the country and the world. "
I don't agree. JFK's death was not, in itself, a "enormous" event worldwide. It had huge implications here in the USA, not so much for the loss of a president as for the incompetent idiot who would follow, and, of course Vietnam which bore the brunt of the event.
While we don't know for sure what track JFK would have taken regarding Vietnam most historians believe he would not have escalated the conflict as did Johnson. Likewise, we don't know for sure if JFK would have created anything like the "Great Society" with all its civil rights ramifications, and unfortunate legacies, but it is unlikely. The 60's and half of the 70's would have therefore been far more peaceful and we would not now be continuing to deal with the dependency issues of a welfare generation and the issues of later presidents who see our military as a political arm.
Vietnam, of course, suffered far more immediate damage and is just now beginning to extract itself from the effects of that terrible war.
If anything, Kennedy was the last president, in my lifetime at least, that was more or less universally respected although, as events have played out in the years since his death, he proved much more mortal than most of the general population suspected at the time. Since Eisenhower we haven't been able to elect a president who wasn't seriously flawed in one respect or another. And it just seems to get worse. Perhaps that is the greatest negative legacy of the Kennedy era - that he set the imaginary bar so high that no successor politician could possibly live up and therefore made a kaleidoscope of moral, political and economic mistakes that continue to drag this country down.
I was a high school sophomore when Kennedy was elected and in the Navy when he was assassinated. In my humble opinion the greatest misfortune created by Lee Harvey Oswald was not the killing of a sitting president but the future of what that presidency might have been. It seems in many ways the years following Abe Lincoln's death had much the same result.
I have given up hope that the details of JFK's assassination will be known during my lifetime. And it is because certain people continue to exploit that tragic event for fame and money that I will not bother to watch yet another supposition on what might have happened.
I don't agree. JFK's death was not, in itself, a "enormous" event worldwide. It had huge implications here in the USA, not so much for the loss of a president as for the incompetent idiot who would follow, and, of course Vietnam which bore the brunt of the event.
While we don't know for sure what track JFK would have taken regarding Vietnam most historians believe he would not have escalated the conflict as did Johnson. Likewise, we don't know for sure if JFK would have created anything like the "Great Society" with all its civil rights ramifications, and unfortunate legacies, but it is unlikely. The 60's and half of the 70's would have therefore been far more peaceful and we would not now be continuing to deal with the dependency issues of a welfare generation and the issues of later presidents who see our military as a political arm.
Vietnam, of course, suffered far more immediate damage and is just now beginning to extract itself from the effects of that terrible war.
If anything, Kennedy was the last president, in my lifetime at least, that was more or less universally respected although, as events have played out in the years since his death, he proved much more mortal than most of the general population suspected at the time. Since Eisenhower we haven't been able to elect a president who wasn't seriously flawed in one respect or another. And it just seems to get worse. Perhaps that is the greatest negative legacy of the Kennedy era - that he set the imaginary bar so high that no successor politician could possibly live up and therefore made a kaleidoscope of moral, political and economic mistakes that continue to drag this country down.
I was a high school sophomore when Kennedy was elected and in the Navy when he was assassinated. In my humble opinion the greatest misfortune created by Lee Harvey Oswald was not the killing of a sitting president but the future of what that presidency might have been. It seems in many ways the years following Abe Lincoln's death had much the same result.
I have given up hope that the details of JFK's assassination will be known during my lifetime. And it is because certain people continue to exploit that tragic event for fame and money that I will not bother to watch yet another supposition on what might have happened.
S
searadiofreak
Guest
Do you really believe JFK was not a world leader in 1963? I will respectfully disagree with your opinion on this. The US was THE strongest and most important country in that year.
Last edited:
According to the 2010 US Census, the number of people born between 1930 and 1964 is 74 million, so this is not a small audience by any stretch, but it would be 55% (estimated) age 65+.
But, somewhat surprisingly, this is not the audience who tuned into NatGeo for the premier of "Killing Kennedy" -- that audience was about 40% in the 25-54 demo.
I was referring to the NATIONAL media.
Of course he was a world leader. Since the end of WWII the POTUS has, by default, been a world leader. What I said was his death did not affect other countries so much as it did the USA and Vietnam. Look at the history of countries other than the USA and those in SE Asia after the assassination - not much impact at all.
As for the USA being "the strongest and most important country in the world" in 1963, I'm not sure what that, even if true, has to do with my post.
Like landtuna, I will not be watching either. I was born in 1952, so I was 11 when JFK was assasinated, and it was a huge event in my life. In the years that followed, the Warren Commission report on the assasination was heavily criticized, and many conspiracy theorists wrote books and did the talk-show circuit. The biggest was probably Mark Lane (Rush to Judgment), not to mention New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, who made it his life's work. I watched hundreds of hours of this stuff when I was in my tweens and teens.
Also like landtuna, I doubt we'll every really know what happened, and I long ago burned out on all the speculation, and am not really interested in going through it again.
As to the long-held theory that JFK would not have involved us in Vietnam to the extent that LBJ did - obviously, all we can do is speculate, but I'd point out that a number of the prominent pro-war advocates who thought the war was winnable in a short period of time - were Kennedy holdovers in Johnson's administration; most notably Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. McNamara finally admitted he was wrong about Vietnam...about 10 years ago.
I'd also point out that historically, credit for passing the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act goes to LBJ - as the former Majority Leader of the Senate, he was expert and twisting arms, making deals, and reminding others where their skeletons were housed. It's likely that if JFK had lived, it would have been much harder to pass this important legislation. JFK and his people disliked LBJ, and the feeling was mutual, so its somewhat doubtful LBJ would have helped Kennedy.
Also like landtuna, I doubt we'll every really know what happened, and I long ago burned out on all the speculation, and am not really interested in going through it again.
As to the long-held theory that JFK would not have involved us in Vietnam to the extent that LBJ did - obviously, all we can do is speculate, but I'd point out that a number of the prominent pro-war advocates who thought the war was winnable in a short period of time - were Kennedy holdovers in Johnson's administration; most notably Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. McNamara finally admitted he was wrong about Vietnam...about 10 years ago.
I'd also point out that historically, credit for passing the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act goes to LBJ - as the former Majority Leader of the Senate, he was expert and twisting arms, making deals, and reminding others where their skeletons were housed. It's likely that if JFK had lived, it would have been much harder to pass this important legislation. JFK and his people disliked LBJ, and the feeling was mutual, so its somewhat doubtful LBJ would have helped Kennedy.
Factually, on civil rights, I think you're right, although JFK had gotten a civil-rights bill, although more watered-down than the one that passed under LBJ, through the House before he was killed. Like anything else about JFK post 11/22/63, we can only speculate; could Bobby, who was far more passionate about civil rights, have persuaded his brother to push for something stronger (the southern leadership in the Senate might have blocked it)? Or possibly JFK could have seen the increasing anger in the African-American community and taken the initiative, but who knows? As for Vietnam, JFK hoped to neutralize it by means of a coalition government much as he did in Laos in 1961, and we know that he had set a goal of getting all of our advisers out by the end of 1965. If conditions had changed, though, it is absolutely possible he would have committed more troops, although hopefully not the 500,000 that ended up there on LBJ's watch. Things might have altered his thinking after the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem just three weeks before JFK's own murder.
But since this is a television board, let me get back to the specials that have been airing; I've only had a chance to watch the ones on National Geographic channel; I still feel the movie "Killing Kennedy" was too simplistic; the one about JFK's last 24 hours seemed to come down to a bunch of now-middle-aged women oohing and aahing over JFK's looks. I will say, though, that JFK's family was probably the last presidential family the American people really related to--and I think (and this is just my opinion) that was especially true if a family had young children. Larry Sabato, in his book "The Kennedy Half-Century," has even called the Kennedys a real-life version of some of the sitcom families of the era: the Nelsons, the Cleavers, the Reeds (he meant the Stones, on "The Donna Reed Show"), the Taylors ("The Andy Griffith Show"), and the Andersons ("Father Knows Best," which was in primetime reruns for much of the Kennedy era).
I like what Richard Reeves wrote about HBO's biography of RFK a few years ago in TV Guide: you had to be there to get Bobby, and after his assassination, for a time people wondered "what might have been?" "But in the end," says Reeves, "that question was directed at someone else--his big brother Jack."
But since this is a television board, let me get back to the specials that have been airing; I've only had a chance to watch the ones on National Geographic channel; I still feel the movie "Killing Kennedy" was too simplistic; the one about JFK's last 24 hours seemed to come down to a bunch of now-middle-aged women oohing and aahing over JFK's looks. I will say, though, that JFK's family was probably the last presidential family the American people really related to--and I think (and this is just my opinion) that was especially true if a family had young children. Larry Sabato, in his book "The Kennedy Half-Century," has even called the Kennedys a real-life version of some of the sitcom families of the era: the Nelsons, the Cleavers, the Reeds (he meant the Stones, on "The Donna Reed Show"), the Taylors ("The Andy Griffith Show"), and the Andersons ("Father Knows Best," which was in primetime reruns for much of the Kennedy era).
I like what Richard Reeves wrote about HBO's biography of RFK a few years ago in TV Guide: you had to be there to get Bobby, and after his assassination, for a time people wondered "what might have been?" "But in the end," says Reeves, "that question was directed at someone else--his big brother Jack."
Not out of the question, but according to Larry Sabato, JFK had asked for a full assessment of the situation in Vietnam, including ways to get out, to be ready when he returned from Texas. But it seems obvious that JFK was torn between seeing the situation through to total victory and disengagement of troops (he had said he wouldn't send draftees). Because he was saying different things to different audiences, and trying to avoid making Barry Goldwater (who was already consider a lock for the '64 GOP nomination) think he was too soft on Communism, it's debatable where he was going on Vietnam. But I'm still not convinced he would have engaged the U.S. in the way LBJ did. As for Diem, Sabato says JFK was genuinely shocked when he heard Diem had been murdered, blamed it on the CIA (Kennedy had supposedly warned Diem in the summer of '63 that his life was in danger), and vowed to do something to curtail the CIA's power to carry out such measures. As to how much JFK knew about an impending coup, your guess is as good as mine, but it doesn't appear he did anything else to stop it.
I think, however, we're all bordering dangerously on Take It Outside, since this is supposed to be about the National Geographic (and other) specials marking the anniversary of the assassination.
I think, however, we're all bordering dangerously on Take It Outside, since this is supposed to be about the National Geographic (and other) specials marking the anniversary of the assassination.
"I think, however, we're all bordering dangerously on Take It Outside, since this is supposed to be about the National Geographic (and other) specials marking the anniversary of the assassination. "
Maybe what I should have posted was simply that the JFK assassination has been researched and published to death and since nothing new of significance has come out in many years it is just an attempt by various media outlets to pad their coffers with ancient historical facts. Or, to paraphrase another well known comment "Other than that, how did you like the trip Mrs. Kennedy?"
Maybe what I should have posted was simply that the JFK assassination has been researched and published to death and since nothing new of significance has come out in many years it is just an attempt by various media outlets to pad their coffers with ancient historical facts. Or, to paraphrase another well known comment "Other than that, how did you like the trip Mrs. Kennedy?"
I finally watched Killing Kennedy. It was pretty good and seemed to show a lot of what was going on in Oswald's head at the time (which other programs just glaze over).
Didn't read the book, but the show presented everything in a timeline like fashion. So if it was based upon the book, then the book must just be a re-hash of Encyclopedia Britannica (which Bill O'reilly and the other author got rich-er from). So I am now writing my own book "Grits With Robert E. Lee".
Didn't read the book, but the show presented everything in a timeline like fashion. So if it was based upon the book, then the book must just be a re-hash of Encyclopedia Britannica (which Bill O'reilly and the other author got rich-er from). So I am now writing my own book "Grits With Robert E. Lee".
I watched PBS Nova on Kennedy's death and they tried to look at how the FBI, Secret Service and Dallas Police handled the investigations of Lee Harvey Oswald, John Kennedy and Jack Ruby. Well they did do their best to use modern forensics and de-bunk 50 years of Conspiracies.
- Status