How Long Did It Take for News of Kennedy’s Assassination To Spread across the Globe?
Published in El Mundo
(Spain) on 25 November 2013
by Justino Sinova (link to original)
It is said that, from the time Lee Harvey Oswald pulled the trigger, news of Kennedy’s assassination in 1963 took three minutes to arrive to newsrooms. Not long after this, the news spread worldwide. This showed the power of the American president’s image and, above all, the speed that the transmission of news had reached half a century ago. It is impossible to confirm such figures, but a few minutes more or less — there is no doubt that the emotional impact of the news meant that it circulated at a speed unknown until that point in the media sector. Then, this quickly spread among the people, who were shaken by the sudden destruction of someone who was now a popular myth.
I remember well how I found out the news and the general impression it caused. I read it around 8:30 p.m. on a board, which the evening paper — then edited in Valladolid, Libertad — attached to the front of its headquarters, located in Calle de Santiago, in the city center. It was not a neon sign, unknown to that place, but on a board that could have been taken from a school classroom. This was the way the newspaper made daily announcements of the affairs it was covering. I was walking with some friends through the area, which was busy every evening — Santiago, Plaza Mayor, Zorrilla — and I was able to witness that the shock among the people as a result of the attack was tremendous, as if it had happened nearby.
At most an hour had passed since the assassination in Dallas; already, the news had spread around the city. A little later, the roads became deserted. At the start of the night, it was the radio stations that become the main source of information until the city’s morning papers were printed: Diario Regional and El Norte de Castilla. Television, which was only eight years old at the time, started to become the most appealing means of communication. Even though its scope was still limited, it contributed to supplying, both directly and indirectly, the necessary information to a considerable amount of people.
Without being able to confirm the details, it is not worthwhile arguing whether the news of President Kennedy’s death was what had spread the quickest until that point. However, there is no point of comparison between the speed of its spread and today’s achievements as a result of technological developments. The first attack on the twin towers 12 years ago could be seen instantly worldwide thanks to the CCTV cameras installed in lots of Manhattan enclaves; the second attack was seen live while televisions broadcast images from the first one.
Furthermore, in the Kennedy event, there was a crucial episode that the cameras captured: Oswald's assassination by Jack Ruby, as he was being transferred to jail. However, now, technological means allow news to be broadcast as it happens. Instantaneous transmission, which was not possible by simultaneity, is now normal. New technology has meant that we could become spectators of what is happening, but we cannot rejoice unreservedly; the communication party cannot be complete while there are still large gray areas around the world where information is scarce or nonexistent.
The immediate and general transmission new technologies have made possible is neither immediate nor general in large parts of the world. There still remain several barriers erected by political parties and politicians who administer knowledge and deny the human right to information. Since Kennedy’s assassination, this world has not advanced much. The communist systems that exist — China, North Korea, Cuba — and the dictatorships across Asia, Africa and parts of Latin America prevent independent reporting and replace it with propaganda and mendacious messages. In these places, only outside information that is harmless or favorable to their interests is allowed to circulate. The rest is detained at the border. There is no point in talking to them about the speed of news circulation, simply because there the news is nonexistent.
I remember well how I found out the news and the general impression it caused. I read it around 8:30 p.m. on a board, which the evening paper — then edited in Valladolid, Libertad — attached to the front of its headquarters, located in Calle de Santiago, in the city center. It was not a neon sign, unknown to that place, but on a board that could have been taken from a school classroom. This was the way the newspaper made daily announcements of the affairs it was covering. I was walking with some friends through the area, which was busy every evening — Santiago, Plaza Mayor, Zorrilla — and I was able to witness that the shock among the people as a result of the attack was tremendous, as if it had happened nearby.
At most an hour had passed since the assassination in Dallas; already, the news had spread around the city. A little later, the roads became deserted. At the start of the night, it was the radio stations that become the main source of information until the city’s morning papers were printed: Diario Regional and El Norte de Castilla. Television, which was only eight years old at the time, started to become the most appealing means of communication. Even though its scope was still limited, it contributed to supplying, both directly and indirectly, the necessary information to a considerable amount of people.
Without being able to confirm the details, it is not worthwhile arguing whether the news of President Kennedy’s death was what had spread the quickest until that point. However, there is no point of comparison between the speed of its spread and today’s achievements as a result of technological developments. The first attack on the twin towers 12 years ago could be seen instantly worldwide thanks to the CCTV cameras installed in lots of Manhattan enclaves; the second attack was seen live while televisions broadcast images from the first one.
Furthermore, in the Kennedy event, there was a crucial episode that the cameras captured: Oswald's assassination by Jack Ruby, as he was being transferred to jail. However, now, technological means allow news to be broadcast as it happens. Instantaneous transmission, which was not possible by simultaneity, is now normal. New technology has meant that we could become spectators of what is happening, but we cannot rejoice unreservedly; the communication party cannot be complete while there are still large gray areas around the world where information is scarce or nonexistent.
The immediate and general transmission new technologies have made possible is neither immediate nor general in large parts of the world. There still remain several barriers erected by political parties and politicians who administer knowledge and deny the human right to information. Since Kennedy’s assassination, this world has not advanced much. The communist systems that exist — China, North Korea, Cuba — and the dictatorships across Asia, Africa and parts of Latin America prevent independent reporting and replace it with propaganda and mendacious messages. In these places, only outside information that is harmless or favorable to their interests is allowed to circulate. The rest is detained at the border. There is no point in talking to them about the speed of news circulation, simply because there the news is nonexistent.