The NYT Prefers its Own Conspiracy Theories

Here’s what to know,” insisted the New York Times Adam Nagourney in a lead editorial the day the JFK files dropped. “Oswald still did it.” If there was such a thing as a Confirmation Bias Olympics, Nagourney would have earned the right to represent the U.S. Reviewing and dismissing 64,000 pages of National Archives material in fewer than 24 hours is no small accomplishment even by the standards of the New York Times.

As opinion writer David Wallace-Wells reminded his readers a week later, the Times decides what is a valid conspiracy theory and what is not. Apparently, JFK theories are not. Wrote the supercilious Wallace-Wells, the JFK files “turned out to be, by the standards of conspiracy hype, a total dud.”

Although Wikipedia describes me as “an American author, blogger and conspiracy theorist,” I remain agnostic on the JFK assassination. If the files turn out to be a “total dud,” so be it. Similarly, if they indict LBJ and a rogue crew of CIA contractors, I would not be surprised.