"REASONS FOR PUBLIC INDIFFERENCE TO THE JFK CASE" 

           While we know the opinion polls are overwhelmingly in our
favor (always have been, even post-JAMA, Posner, and Mailer), and that the
ARRB and the Z-film video livened us all up (and, to a lesser extent, the
media), one thing has become very clear to me post-STONE MOVIE
(1991/1992): public indifference to the JFK case. I think I know the general
reasons why, and they might just surprise you...hear me out:

               1) ***We live in the context of the times***---between
1988 (the 25th anniversary, a real barnburner) and 1992 (the Stone film,
several best-sellers, and the Senate hearings on releasing the
files), Ronald Reagan and George Bush were President. One was an old actor
who looked like a President (as JFK was a President who looked like an
actor) and who was, despite being labelled "the great communicator" (ala
JFK, the tv king), was rapidly deteriorating in popularity (among other
things...), while the other was a relatively old, WWII veteran who was
also the former head of the CIA during part of the HSCA era. Both were
Republicans and represented to many the antithesis of what JFK was. Then came
Candidate Clinton (late 1991/ 1992), another young Democrat trading off
of the then-revered memory of JFK (with a July 1963 handshake film
to boot)...
          2) ***key people still alive, with less 'distractions'***---Up 
to 1993, Governor Connally was still alive; up to May 1994, Jackie was
still alive (as was Nixon, for what it's worth...). This was Pres.
Clinton's FIRST term, pre-scandal, and pre-O.J. SIMPSON era (June 1994 to
early 1997).
          Finally, the internet, the so-called "information
superhighway", was still in its infancy: "snail mail", phone calls, and 
conferences (remember the FIRST A.S.K.???) ruled and contacts/ research had 
a more intimate, personal, and emotional quality;

               So, what's the point, you say?

               Just this: with the second coming of the young Democratic
President Bill Clinton (2nd term) and all his MANY faults (and
PERCEIVED faults),the once "evil" days of Reagan-Bush, the halcyon era of the
case (1988-1992), have effectivley diminished the context of
President Kennedy's relevance and importance to the 1990's. Sort of,
"JFK was a bum, so is Clinton." No doubt, Seymour Hersh ("The Dark Side of
Camelot") helped matters here, as did Thomas Reeves before him ("A
Question of Character")---diminsh the memory of the man (JFK), while
drawing parallels to the current young Democrat in office (Clinton). Result?
"Hey, who cares about the assassination: JFK was a bum just like Bill."
Remember, in America, where soundbites, fast food, and dirty laundry
(scandal) rules,
           PERCEPTION IS REALITY.

           Also, many have overlooked the significance of Jackie's,
and, to a lesser extent, Connally's, death. With the elegant former
First Lady's death, many felt EMOTIONAL closure to the assassination---the
end of Camelot, so to speak (Gosh, is THAT a dirty word nowadays!).
And, with Connally's death, and the subsequent failure to be able to
test the fragments still in his body, we lost both a living paradox
(he said no conspiracy, yet no single bullet, either) and a touchstone
for further inquiry/ debate (right before his death, Connally appeared on
ALOT of tv programs and such).

           AND, last but not least, the American public has been greatly
distracted with other newsworthy items: the Oklahoma City bombing, the 
JonBonet Ramsey case, and, most of all, the O.J. SIMPSON CASE.
Think about it: after the anti-climax of the 30th anniversary,
post-Posner, right when we might have been able to launch an effective
counter-offensive against Posner (and Mailer, later on), right on the 
heels of Jackie's death (May 1994), came the media overkill and heavy distract-
ion of the O.J. case (mid-June 1994). And, while that debacle has largely
diminished since early 1997 (post-civil case and GRODEN's 'testimony'), the
effects were devastating: no one in the media or general public really
cared a whole hell of alot about JFK then! Zooming up to the present, the
Clinton have-a-cigar-with-Monica scandal has provided more distraction, 
more desensitivity...more indifference.

         So, while it is alittle much to ask the average citizen
who only really cares about his backyard to care a whole lot about
America, now or (especially) THEN, it is NOT too late for us, the 
"research community".

           What can we do, then?
           Exactly what we have been doingly lately: researching and
writing for HISTORY'S SAKE, not for public opinion polls (yawn), not for
the media (the silence is deafening), and certainly not for ourselves
(that's been done to death: preaching to the converted choir is old
news---that went out with the typewriter and the old secondary-source laden
journal articles!!!!). If we keep working with primary sources, the
new releases, and getting as many people on the record as we can before
they die, then I have hope that, as we approach the new millenium, the JFK
case WILL have relevance, despite the public's indifference.

           You mark my words: the 35th anniversay will come, the tv
programs will intrigue the masses, and then most of them will say, "How
about that football game yesterday!"


           Vince Palamara



-------------  end  ---------------