endorses her story.
In the article, Smith seems conscious of her questionable qualifications to address the serious subjects of Kennedy and Cuba and the Church Committee. Throughout, she sprinkles in little aphorisms to neutralize any attacks. She quotes Oscar Wilde (not famous for his history books) when she says that history is merely yesterday's gossip. Later on she notes that "today's gossip is tomorrow's headline," a bit self-serving considering her profession. Rising to an Exner-like crescendo near the end, she quotes the ancient Greek historian Herodotus, who felt that history "is what people have said to me and what I've heard, that I must write down." She leaves out the fact that Herodotus did not have access to the National Archives, 3.5 million pages of newly declassified documents, and the on the record testimony of the principals involved via Sen. Frank Church.
Like the Washington Post and New York Times, Smith has her hatchet out for the Church Committee. About the most extensive investigation of the CIA and FBI ever, she says that it was a "little nothing of a half-assed investigation," that the report was written by "aides and underlings" and that they asked Exner "rather pointless questions." She finishes them off by characterizing it as "the pathetic 1975 Church hearings," the implication being that Smith - between interviews of Barbara Streisand and Julia Roberts - has been digging through the newly declassified record and will now set us straight.
But her only source is Exner. And, like Kelley, Smith seems to avoid asking the tough questions, probably because these two have been pals since 1977. At one point she calls her a "real star."
None of the inconsistencies or absurdities I have noted get into the article. In fact, Smith adds more of her own. As with Demaris, one of her aims is to make Exner a victim of the press so that she can imply that the "liberal media" is "protecting" the Kennedys. As demonstrated above, this is preposterous. E