Mythic Constructs and Go-To Excuses in the JFK Internet Swamps
How “Mockingbird” Became the Excuse for Rejection
Every few months, someone in the JFK research community invokes Operation Mockingbird to explain why their theory, book, documentary pitch, or YouTube channel hasn’t won world-wide critical acclaim. The latest example comes from John Simkin, founder of the JFK Education Forum, who recently lamented that the BBC declined to produce a documentary based on his research, concluding that this was the result of Operation Mockingbird.
He even wondered whether Netflix, a company that churns out true‑crime content like sausages, might be worth a try. Unless of course, the consensus has them as being “Mockingbirded”, as well.
This is where the term becomes a matter of faith.
Indeed, the belief in the existence of Mockingbird (and the Deep State) is endemic among members of that forum. I have yet to see anyone attempt serious pushback.
Mockingbird: What it was and What it Wasn’t
Operation Mockingbird was not a large-scale program of media‑control. It wasn’t a CIA octopus with tentacles reaching inside every newsroom from New York to The New Hebrides. It wasn’t a Ministry of Truth.
It was a small, targeted eavesdropping and harassment operation aimed at two journalists who had been leaking classified material. That’s it. The rest, which during the Cold War, was the CIA’s broader cultivation of journalists to support its propaganda efforts overseas, operated under different programs, different cryptonyms, and with less coordination than a drunken spider on a mirror. It did also extend such programs illegally, but not extensively, inside US borders to steer public perception. I meticulously detailed an example of this in my book.
In fact, it is more than possible that the two journalist who were targeted, had been CIA assets themselves, publishing leaked information that the CIA wanted leaked. Their downfall may have been the result of leaking material that they somehow obtained, which the agency did not want leaked.
The popular version of Mockingbird is a retrofitted umbrella term.
Public Opinion Demonstrates Non-Existence or Failure of Mockingbird
If the CIA’s media‑cultivation efforts were ever intended to shape public perception of the Kennedy assassination, the results speak for themselves. For sixty years, polling has shown that a majority of Americans reject the Warren Commission’s conclusions and believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy. Even at the Commission’s peak credibility, public acceptance never reached anything close to what you would expect from Mockingbird as portrayed by conspiracy theorists. Today, depending on the poll, between 60% and 80% of respondents believe the official story is false.
If any of the CIA’s Cold War media programs were meant to control the narrative, they failed spectacularly. The public didn’t buy it. They still don’t. And the persistence of conspiracy belief across generations is strong evidence that no coordinated media‑control program existed, let alone succeeded, on US soil. A smattering of US assets among journalists does not equate to capture or control of the media. Nor does occasional success with obscure historical sidebars.
The MICC, Rebranded
The same thing happened to the term Deep State. It has roots in a real world issue. Peter Dale Scott, in his 2015 book, The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil, and the Attack on U.S. Democracy. described the deep state as a hybrid system of private and government institutions. In short, it was more or less another name for what Eisenhower’s speech writers had originally called the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex (MICC). In that context, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with Scott’s usage. It is the morphing of it into the Hydra that it is now that is the issue. There is not a problem on Earth that the Deep State has not been blamed for. There is no action taken by any government anywhere, that cannot be sheeted home to the Deep State – if it goes against an indiviual or group’s core beliefs, or adversely affects the individal or groups holding such beliefs.
Scott has said he regrets popularizing the term. Once it escaped academic context, it mutated into a catch‑all explanation for everything from FOIA delays to why someone’s book didn’t sell.
When Rejection Becomes Suppression
This is the real function of these terms today: they are useful in preserving one’s ego.
In the real world, when a broadcaster, publisher, or streaming platform rejects a pitch, there are many possible reasons:
The story isn’t commercially viable
The angle isn’t new
The evidence isn’t strong
The narrative has been done before
The producer doesn’t see an audience
The pitch simply wasn’t compelling
I am aware of the above from personal experience with rejection of pitches. Not once have I resorted to preserving my ego by pointing the finger at the Deep State or Mockingbird. I take the reasons for the rejection and work on those areas.
But for some, mundane, grounded explanations hurt. They require looking in the mirror. They require acceptance that the world may not be waiting breathlessly for their theory, after all.
“Mockingbird” offers a comforting alternative:
They didn’t reject me because the pitch wasn’t good. They rejected me because I’m too dangerous.
And…. voila… disappointment transforms into martyrdom.
The BBC Problem
Simkin’s argument rests on the idea that the BBC supports the Warren Commission and therefore suppresses dissenting views. But the facts aren’t hidden or hard to find: the BBC has aired both pro and anti‑Warren Commission content for decades.
Examples include:
The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy (2003): supports the Warren Commission
JFK: The Smoking Gun (2013): rejects the Warren Commission entirely
Radio 4 interviews with Cyril Wecht and other critics
World Service coverage of withheld CIA and FBI files
Rebroadcasts and discussions of The Men Who Killed Kennedy, which is anti‑Warren Commission
This is not coordinated propaganda at work. It’s the behaviour of a large public broadcaster with producers given a great degree of autonomy (albeit with guardrails), editorial priorities that change with the times, and no unified or codified stance on a 60‑year‑old murder.
If the BBC were part of a planned and coordinated suppression of history, you would expect uniformity rather than the patchwork of contradictory productions and interview subjects it has thus far given us.
The Messy Middle Ground
The truth is neither the conspiracy theorist’s fantasy nor the apologist’s denial.
Yes, intelligence agencies cultivate journalists.
Yes, Cold War propaganda existed.
Yes, bureaucracies have entrenched interests.
Yes, the military–industrial–congressional complex shapes policy. Much to my personal chagrin.
Do intelligence agencies still cultivate media assets?
Of course they do.
But the same circumstances apply now as they did in the Cold War: it is not a “one size fits all” program, and it certainly does not control the BBC. That remains true even if it could be proven that the BBC ever had individual personnel who were cultivated as intelligence assets. A single relationship does not equate to institutional capture, and a handful of informal contacts does not constitute a monolithic propaganda machine.
The world is messy, bureaucratic, inconsistent, often incompetent, occasionally secretive. The world is not controlled by an unseen, unknowable cabal.
The Real Deal
When someone invokes Mockingbird to explain why their work wasn’t commissioned, they’re not making a real-world argument. They’re making an internalised psychological excuse.
Invoking Mockingbird has become the equivalent of “the dog ate my homework.”
Once you hear a term used as an all‑purpose excuse, you can be pretty certain the user is fair way down the rabbit hole.
The Unfalsifiable Escape Hatch
Pointing out that the BBC has aired programs critical of the Warren Commission, the response from committed conspiracy theorists is going to be very predictable . Those “pro‑conspiracy” programs will be dismissed as either:
(A) deliberate nonsense designed to discredit conspiracy thinking, or
(B) “limited hangouts”. Partial truths released to distract from the real truth.
In other words, any example that contradicts the Mockingbird narrative is simply reabsorbed into it. If a documentary supports the Warren Commission, it’s propaganda. If it challenges the Warren Commission, it’s controlled opposition. If it doesn’t match my theory, it’s a psy‑op. The conclusion never changes; only the explanation does.
This is how a myth becomes unfalsifiable. It’s not a theory anymore, it’s a worldview with built‑in immunity to evidence.
Why This Happens
Once someone adopts the belief that institutions are controlled to beat down dissent, every institutional action that goes against someones theories, beliefs, or ideology, becomes proof that grievances are well-grounded. Here is how it plays out: Rejection confirms suppression. Acceptance confirms manipulation. Contradiction confirms complexity. Complexity confirns scale. Silence confirms secrecy. It is a worldview that can never be wrong because it has pre‑written explanations for every possible outcome.
John Simkin, an academic, demonstrates that no one is necessarily immune from this circular miasma. But we will never break free, let alone break through, when we can’t even escape the labyrinth of our own ego.
This substack has no subscription fees. But if you choose to,you can
Facebook Comments