Four Days in November: The Original Coverage of the John F. Kennedy Assassination

Rating:
Summary: HISTORY'S FIRST DRAFT
Review: I highly recommend this book by Tom Wicker, one of the most respected print journalists of our time. I also caution people who try to compare the assassination of JFK in 1963 with the events of September 11, 2001. Both were life-changing events and both events changed the country, but from the short perspective we have now of the events of September 11, 2001, at this moment it seems to me as though the impact of JFK's assassination was greater -- it was not merely a tragedy; it was an event that literally changed this country and, in many respects the world, in a way that went far beyond fear, war and the current paranoia we are experiencing. I remember well that day in November when JFK lost his life -- I was living in Boston at the time -- and I still get chills when I remember those four days. Of course the tragedies of September 11, 2001 were enormous as well, but it simply is impossible to compare -- or "rate" -- the two events. If one wishes to be well educated on turning points in our recent history, one would do well to read extensively about both events and not try to assess them as one being more important than the other.

Rating:
Summary: Still a Tragedy
Review: I highly recommend this book by Tom Wicker, one of the most respected print journalists of our time. I also caution people who try to compare the assassination of JFK in 1963 with the events of September 11, 2001. Both were life-changing events and both events changed the country, but from the short perspective we have now of the events of September 11, 2001, at this moment it seems to me as though the impact of JFK's assassination was greater -- it was not merely a tragedy; it was an event that literally changed this country and, in many respects the world, in a way that went far beyond fear, war and the current paranoia we are experiencing. I remember well that day in November when JFK lost his life -- I was living in Boston at the time -- and I still get chills when I remember those four days. Of course the tragedies of September 11, 2001 were enormous as well, but it simply is impossible to compare -- or "rate" -- the two events. If one wishes to be well educated on turning points in our recent history, one would do well to read extensively about both events and not try to assess them as one being more important than the other.

Rating:
Summary: PRESIDENT KENNEDY ASSASSINATION
Review: IF YOU GET JUST ONE BOOK TO COMMEMORATE THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY FOUR DAYS IN NOVEMBER THE ORIGINAL COVERAGE OF THE JOHN F.KENNEDY ASSASSINATION BY THE NEW YORK TIMES IS THE ONE YOU MUST HAVE. FOUR DAYS IN NOVEMBER HAS REPRINTS OF THE STORIES BY THE NEW YORK TIMES FROM THEIR COVERAGE OF THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY FROM NOVEMBER 22-25,1963. FOUR DAYS ALSO HAVE 32 PAGES OF PHOTOS OF THE EVENTS OF NOVEMBER 22-NOVEMBER 25,1963.
I WAS BORN ONE YEAR AFTER THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY NOVEMBER 22,1964.

Rating:
Summary: Four Days of Poor Reporting
Review: The New York Times throws its hat in the ring to capitalize on the fortieth anniversary of the murder of President Kennedy. Yes-fellow boomers, it has been forty years since time stopped and a memory of forever was imprinted upon the face of our generation. I wish I could say "Four Days in November: The Original Coverage of the John F. Kennedy Assassination" by The Staff of The New York Times is a book worth buying. It simply is not. The poorest of the reporting of those horrible days was written in the Times. The Times stories where all second hand rehashes of other papers stories and other reporter's work.

The Times is as always, incredible inflated and blinded by it's own belief of it's carefully manufactured golden image. And because of this it failed to see that the Assassination of our young President was Televisions story. It was the moment Television over took the print media and began to takes its place as the new news media and the new opinion maker machine. The Times failed to see it then and fails to see it now

Televisions reporting of the events dwarfed all the other media combined. Across American, news papers where left idol and wet on un-cut front lawns, barely touched if brought in side, and while Americans where glued to the Television, the front page Of the Times caught more bird droppings than any other paper in the history of print media..

Forty years have passed, since our young President was brutally murdered in the streets of Dallas. Forty years have passed and the New York Times will still not acknowledge, what our government has already acknowledged, there was a conspiracy that day. There was a conspiracy that day that change our government and changed America forever. There was a conspiracy that day, and the NEW YORK TIMES FAILED TO GET THE STORY STRAGHIT THEN AND FAILS TO GET THE STORY OF THE CENTURY NOW!

Rating:
Summary: For nostalgia only
Review: The only value I have found in this book is its representation of the assassination news as it was released to and approved for the press. And in that sense, as primary source material, it's okay. Don't look for any brilliant reporting or editorializing or investigating here. This was a very typical New York ("Don't rock the boat") Times era. I would say this is strictly for nostalgic purposes.

Rating:
Summary: HISTORY'S FIRST DRAFT
Review: This is a hard book to review as I feel I am critiquing articles that were probably never meant to be critiqued by the public. This is, as described in the preface or introduction, history's first draft. It is history in its rawest form and it shows.

I did not expect to learn anything new about the assassination. This book captures the moment of tragedy as it happened and how the reporters responded to the challenge. Yes, there were inaccuracies in the reports. Yes, there was a lot of eulogizing over the fallen president. Yes, there was a lot of speculation about the man to replace him. Yes, there was a lot of downplaying the tensions between JFK and LBJ and, more importantly, the tensions between Bobby Kennedy and LBJ. Yes, there was a lot of speculation about their future that is now part of our past (e.g., the 1964 election, LBJ's ability to pass legislation that JFK could not, Vietnam, etc.). But all that was to be expected and that was part of the intrique with the book. For example, I found the very first article by Tom Wicker very revealing. It was, in my opinion, disjointed and poorly organized -- an article that under normal circumstances would have been heavily edited before being put into a newspaper. But those were not normal circumstances.

I often find it fascinating reading old magazine or newspaper articles written by people who have no clue as to what the future would hold while I, as the reader, do have a clue. I thought the publishers should have included articles from the 22 Nov 63 edition about the presidential party's activities on the previous day to show the sense of normalcy the writers were in as the covered JFK's swing through Texas. Then a reader could contrast that normalcy with the shock and grief that was to follow.

Yes, this may be a cheap effort by the publishers of the New York Times to capitalize on the 40th anniversary of President Kennedy's death. But it is still a good historical reference.

Rating:
Summary: somewhat of a disappointment
Review: This is strictly an overpriced reprint of the orignial articles. I wouldn't mention to this one to anybody but a serious Kennedy collector.