| Introduction
The political history of the United States has
been dotted with myriad events that could be considered
as "milestone events" in constructing
the American Dream. Narrative recounts of these
events through the media, whether print, electronic
or films have proven to be the major sources for
our understanding of our past to build our future.
Many of these milestones such as the Civil War
Era, the Progressive Era, the Civil Rights Era,
Reconstruction, Post World War II and even the
post modern day Industrial and Automation Revolution
etc. all have been recorded by the print and electronic
media by journalists, authors, film makers alike.
With the emergence of talking movies, these historians
have also even ventured into this field to achieve
greater depth and insight to historical events
such as Martin Luther King, JFK, Malcolm X and
Watergate etc. The attempts have been to provide
accurate and factual details of the actual historical
event and in the process to reveal how each event
act as a stepping stone in building the American
dream.
One such event had been the assassination of the
President John F. Kennedy which paralyzed the
whole nation during the years 1960s and beyond.
Various historians have taken different approaches
in delving into the case of JFK's assassination
and the causes for it. Although, many historians
came up with varying theories and answers, there
has been no definite conclusion to the death of
JFK. In the course of their investigations however,
historians have greatly influenced the way the
Americans believe what had happened during the
JFK assassination through their bias portrayal
of the same. In the following sections the author
hypothesizes that the media, and not historians
in their analysis and portrayal of the events
of JFK's assassination that have had great cultural
impact on how the Americans perceive it must have
happened and who has been responsible for his
death.
Discussion
Historical narrative whether in print or on films
have similar characteristics: they are all influenced
by the opinions of the historians; the interpretations
of the facts and events; identification of the
protagonist and antagonist; and they are influenced
by the general acceptance of the public. Hence,
any historical piece of narrative is dependent
on a combination of portrayal (or the message)
and the acceptance (of the message) by the public.
Alternatively there are some historians who are
careful in becoming bias in the interest of the
intellect or the public. Instead these historians
are more concerned about the historical accuracy
and depictions of the past events. These are the
same individuals who feel they are responsible
for carrying forward a great culture to our future
generations. The myriad films and prints produced
by these historians not only have formed the basis
for our understanding of the American Dream but
also the basis for accepting the events they present
as our true heritage. These historians are the
"founders" of accurate history but how
do we as readers and observers judge for their
authenticity? One of the most important ways to
judge is to survey expert opinions on the event
and then weigh the consequences of it. In Mark
C. Carnes (1995) Past Imperfect, the editor outlined
this very fact by enumerating on various historical
events judged by expert opinions.
Through the expert opinions one can not only judge
of the authenticity of the facts portrayed in
particular historical documents or documentary
but also whether the accurate portrayal had deviated
the audience's perception too. For example though
many historians have followed the historical figure
of Christopher Columbus yet only the 1949 film
version by Frederic March seems to fit the facts
pertaining to his life, according to Carla Rahn
(Carnes 1995). In historical film media therefore,
historical accuracy is judged by the transformation
of cultural event, transcendence of the legend
into myth, interpretation of the past as well
as the spirit of the past that may fabricate the
facts.
How does this affect the audience? It is a natural
phenomenon that people who are not acquainted
with the past tend to rely on historians to wean
historical data in an attempt to reconstruct the
facts and events. Take the events of JFK's assassination
for example; many would consider Lee Harvey Oswald
a psychopath and a madman responsible for JFK's
death while there are others who are critical
of the facts and events surrounding the assassination.
David Lubin (2003) in his book "Shooting
Kennedy" could be used as a point of reference.
Lubin in his analysis and investigation of the
linkages in the JFK case takes a different and
subjective view of the facts surrounding Kennedy's
assassination.
According to the author, the historical events
surrounding the assassination of Lincoln by John
Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald seem similar
because they are relative. Following a relativistic
post modern approach Lubin provides the explanation
for JFK's assassination. His views are not only
superfluous but at times seem out of context.
He takes into account of the media photos, art
and films on JFK by comparing them. His view thus
is an integration of art and history which does
not make his account of the events of JFK's assassination
illustrative or even informative. For an intellect
his work is considered to be corrective and creative
reportage that does not seem fitting for historical
documentation. For a lay audience however, this
has a different impact.
The imagery and interpretation of the events
differ due to his portrayal of the cultural aspect
of the event. One of the enumerating impressions
that Lubin wants to portray is that after thousands
of years, after Caesar Augustus, JFK emerged as
a vibrant and revered leader that the nation craved
for. This fact he reveals by comparing a series
of photos and work of art of Kennedy and Caesar.
The author also outlines that Kennedy had been
an ideal and a representation of an innocent and
optimistic America at time of political turbulence.
The loss of the President not only crippled the
nation but has also been a personal loss. Due
to his contacts and command of the mass media,
every citizen seemed to know the President which
has made his death even more sorrowful for them.
But perhaps the most important aspect of the JFK
assassination according to Lubin is that Jacqueline
Kennedy continued to play the bereaved widow through
media coverage. Her constant presence in the media
not only continues to sensitize the audience but
also has made a great impact on their subconsciousness.
The public image that she commanded weaned public
sympathy and in the process gained their loyalty
to Kennedy. This interpretation of the JFK assassination
contributes to the general distrust that the Americans
had developed against the authority.
This fact can be enumerated by Art Simon's (1996)
analysis of the same event.
The US political history cannot be illustrated
through art neither its gravity can be measured
by the degree of complexity inherent in the political
structure. Events shape not only the political
authority that lead the US but also become its
main progress determination. Interpretation of
the historical events must take into account of
the various aspects and especially for what purpose.
Little knowledge limits the scope of interpretation
while too much information becomes redundant and
befuddles the mind. There is no such thing as
the right amount of information. In fact in his
book Simon traces the historical development of
the Warren Commission Report and its verdict on
the assassination, and presents the thesis that
JFK assassination had been a conspiracy for murdering
the President. It has been a conspiracy that is
so pervasive that it covers both the political
authority as well as the public.
On the one side the authority has become divided
between the conservative and the leftist. The
division of the authority has created great distrust
among the public so that the legal grounds, political
explanations and the Warren Commission report
seemed inadequate in satisfying the public inquiry.
In fact it has been during the investigation of
the assassination that the public has become aware
of the media focused national tendency and how
those in the authority greatly capitalized on
this fact, among which JFK was one. Subjectivity
of association and interpretation of the events
of the JFK assassination therefore has become
relative, depending on the different political
groups, ethnicity, and social class. The subjectivity
nature of the case consequently fragmented the
political body. The Congressional documents, journalistic
accounts as well as legal professionals' work
no longer have credibility in the public's eyes.
Instead it has been during this period that the
American public became aware of the government's
under handed dealings and strategies to divert
American public from critical political strategies
that affect them.
Simon (1996) thus counteract those projected by
Carnes and Lubin who although present the same
theory but deviate in their approaches. Simon's
approach demonstrates a political bias towards
the public by portraying the unethical and immoral
attitudes of the government which deceived the
American public throughout the history of the
United States.
Not only has this but it been the government which
has been responsible for the demise of a great
strategy for reviving the falling status of the
American citizens. What Simon eventually wanted
to present is the fact that the JFK assassination
has given rise to a culture of distrust against
the government. People has grown to distrust their
government due to the lack of evidence, "snowballing"
attitudes of the officials and the superficial
attempt to deviate their attention from crucial
political agendas that have long term effects
on their lives. They have learned a great lesson
in American political figures who not only command
the mass media, like JFK did but also have the
ability to convince the public to enter into public
policy that work against their interests. In this
context it can be said that Simon's (1996) report
historical narrative can be biased not only for
the authority but also towards the audience. Whether
the account is on films, prints or documentaries,
the authority that is responsible for the account
often become bias in the interest of the party
concerned. Hence, in the process they create a
bias judgment and logic for the events that has
taken place. One trend emerged from the assassination
of JFK and its history is that:
"The discoveries set in motion around Watergate
and the great aftershocks of Chile and Cointelpro
have crystallized public awareness of the realities
of power politics in the United States. We are
at one of those moments when a providential convergence
of events opens a window and shows us the treacheries
involved in the struggle for state power. It is
more possible today for masses of Americans to
understand the need for a new framework of political
thought which coherently situates these murders
in an overall perspective on American politics
during the Cold War." (Simon 1996). For this
reason Simon's work can be construed as one of
that mainstream historiography that add a piece
to the puzzle and help the audience to realize
the prevailing political and social culture at
the time.
Historical records in the above context should
reflect not only the sentiments of the public
or the authority but also the facts and details
that would allow one to form objective opinion
of certain events. JFK's assassination has been
one of the defining moments in American history
because it not only altered the way the audience
view the American presidentship but it also introduced
a new awareness among the public to form objective
opinions towards the political leaders and those
involved in forming political infrastructure.
As the events of the assassination unfold, new
documents and films have been introduced to the
audience demanding them to construct their own
judgment towards the case. Movies such as JFK
(1994) merely emphasizes on the still empathetic
American sentiments towards President Kennedy.
These films and documentary movies provide the
basis for forming analytical "... model of
civic pluralism that holds a nation should be
a home to all, and race, color, religion, and
creed should be no bar to belonging" (Burgoyne
1997, 11). This has been the essence of historian
Burgoyne's book "Film Nation" which
uses five movies to trace the development and
progress of American history. Historical films
according to the author are responsible for articulating
.
America's history. These films are graphic and
tend to marginalize the details that sometimes
are missed out by the historian print authors.
Issues such as race, gender, and social class
play great roles in determining the kind of opinion
the public has towards the historical event. Films
by portraying one or more aspects of the same
event and especially in JFK offers an objective
narrative leaves one with a self impression of
the historical events.
Perhaps the most important aspect of Burgoyne's
narrative is the fact that since the American
nation is media oriented and hunger for media
coverage and media based opinions, any historical
event reflects their thirst for reports and films
that portray their opinions. They in a sense command
the media. When the assassination of JFK took
place the public had been sensitized by the fact
that their favorite president had died. To reflect
the public sentiment, the media covered almost
all aspects not from an objective point of view
but rather subjective, specifically reflecting
the sentiments of the public. This is because
the American public and Hollywood has a deep sense
for developing the American consciousness and
identity. The JFK assassination in this context
too reconstructed the American Dream and the American
identity. The American identity according to Burgoyne
is inherent in the social antagonisms and contradictions
prevalent at that time. To demonstrate, Burgoyne
(1997) outlines the fact that JFK the movie reflect
the fragmented society that demanded answers and
blame for JFK's death. As the events unfold and
the Warren Commission provides reports after reports,
this identity became even more complex day by
day. The media however remained one of the most
reliable sources for uncovering the "truth"
despite of them being aware of its bias.
Conclusion
From the above discussion one can conclude that
the American public has always been dependent
on the media for recounting historical events,
whether it is print or electronic. The media on
the other hand is dependent on the historians
that project thee historical event. To illustrate
the events and its cultural impact of the JFK
assassination has been taken into account. Various
historians have covered this event yet each have
a different view of the cultural impact. While
Lubin emphasize on the subjective view, Simon
offers an objective view of the same. Similarly,
Burgoyne offers an entirely different concept
as he focuses on the audience reception of the
historical events and its development. In essence,
any historical development in a society that largely
depend on the media for truths, facts and judgment
would trust the media projection more than any
other source for reconstructing, projecting and
form objective judgment of any historical event.
In the case of JFK, a recount of the above review
indicates that JFK's assassination had to do more
with media manipulation and its cultural impact
on the audience than the actual event's impact
itself. Thus, historical evidence becomes less
authentic through media intervention yet, the
public tend to trust its presence for authentication
of the facts and details.
|