You won't hear about the ARRB on The Lost JFK Tapes either. But at least you won't have to suffer through the god-awful Dale Myers type manipulation of fact that produces an unsupportable conclusion, writes Jim DiEugenio.

This is a kind of odd book. Even for the MSM. Clarke and his cohorts seem to be just catching up to what people in the know understood about Kennedy decades ago. But only now, in 2013 can this be revealed. But even then, it must be accompanied by the usual MSM rumor-mongering and dirt.  I guess, under those restrictive circumstances, this is the best one can expect from someone who trusts the likes of Ben Bradlee, concludes Jim DiEugenio.

It is evident that [the] three shows [reviewed in this article] reveal a rather unwelcome truth. That is, today's cable TV companies are just as psychologically and socially incapable of telling the truth about President Kennedy's death as the networks were in the sixties and seventies, concludes Jim DiEugenio.

An interesting and worthwhile work. ... it has a unique approach to it, and Hancock’s analysis of the crime has sophistication, intelligence and nuance to it, writes Jim DiEugenio.

Any serious student of the King case should ignore both this program and the book by Hampton Sides. Instead, read The 13th Juror, concludes Jim DiEugenio.

Except for where he notes some of the problems with the JFK assassination's evidentiary record, this book is pretty much not just without distinction, but so agenda driven as to be misleading. On the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's murder, we needed a lot better, writes Jim DiEugenio.

Although [Bundy] thought [Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest] was an entertaining and informative read, he concluded that the central thesis was just wrong. It was not the advisers—the best and brightest—who did the staff work who got us into the Vietnam War. It was the difference in the men who occupied the Oval Office. It was the difference between Kennedy and Johnson, writes Jim DiEugenio.

The book is well worth buying. In my view, it closes the chapter on a debate that has been going on since 1992. As shown here, it's a debate that should have never started, concludes Jim DiEugenio.