Presidential Assassination Research Articles

Comment on Spitzer's “. . . A comparison of six investigations”

The following, a rebuttal to Prof. Spitzer's “Mass Media vs. Personal Sources of Information about the Presidential Assassination: A Comparison of Six Investigations,” should be read in connection with the preceding article. Dr. Mendelsohn is Professor and Director of Research in the School of Communication Arts at the University of Denver.

Broadcast vs. personal sources of information in emergent public crises: The presidential assassination

A great deal of interesting research into broadcasting's effectiveness has been the result of “targets of opportunity.” Cantril's study of Orson Welles' broadcast of “Invasion from Mars,” Merton's analysis of the Kate Smith war‐bond selling marathon, the many different examinations of facets of the “Great Debates” during the 1960 presidential election campaign come to mind. When President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas last November, a number of researchers were able to lay aside personal feelings and conduct research in the hope of obtaining some benefits from even such a dire event. Two of these studies are published in this issue of the Journal: Karl Nestvold's study of the response of Oregon broadcasting stations to the assassination, and Harold Mendelsohn's examination of the “two‐step flow” theory of communication under the abnormal stresses of a developing public crisis.