Marina Oswald: Pitiable Creature or Private Socialite? An analysis on media portrayal of Marina Oswald

Published on 4th December 2017

Devon Sanders

November 22^nd, 1963. A moment that changed American history forever. What was meant as a simple parade and welcome to the city, parading the president through the streets of Dallas, Texas, resulted in the death of an American leader and a flood of infinite questions to which Americans demanded answers. As the initial shock of the event wore off, news flooded into American television and radio, all centering around one man; Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin. However, before he could offer much evidence or a possible motive, Oswald was shot dead by Jacob Leon Rubenstein. Without Oswald, the media took it upon itself to discover who this man was and why he did what he did. Their method? Investigating the people closest to him. And who closer to Oswald, a man with few friends and many enemies, than his wife? Marina Oswald became an instant source of speculation, and American’s desire to know the reasoning behind one of the nation’s most devastating moments was unavoidable. From the moment of the assassination, Marina Oswald was targeted by the media, who explored who exactly she was, and what she knew.

What is interesting in the coverage of Marina Oswald, is how exactly the media covered her. She was not, nor ever has been, forthcoming to the media, so her private life was and still is quite a mystery. Surrounding big moments in Marina’s life, the media took a specific stance for or against her, and formed their coverage around it. These biases in coverage can be seen through small details, phrasing, and spin of stories presented to the public. While the media seemed to set forth both a universal and ever-changing viewpoint, it also fed off public opinion in coverage of her and how the media portrayed Marina. It is truly striking how the opinion of Oswald’s widowchanged throughout her life, and how the media was specifically involved in that.

Media coverage of Marina Oswald began immediately following the assassination, as did one of the trends in coverage regarding Marina Oswald; initial sympathy. Preliminary coverage of Marina gave Americans the impression that she was a helpless young mother, and therefore created the ability to sympathize with her from the start.

After initial coverage, a strong narrative emerged of who Marina Oswald was that further emphasized this sympathy and pity. She was portrayed as a helpless wife who had suffered at the hands of an abusive and unbalanced husband. While at first this depiction of Marina was merely hinted at within the details surrounding her life, it quickly became the overwhelming and repeated narrative offered to the American public. For example, the detail that Lee Harvey Oswald would not let Marina learn English one that continued to be frequently broadcasted. This was a way to show the tragedy of Marina’s life, without directly telling the public how to feel. As time went on, the media became more aggressive in depicting Lee Harvey Oswald as the abusive husband he was. It became a completely common characteristic of any article pertaining to Marina to mention the mistreatment of her by her husband. By the end of 1964, Timemagazine described Marina Oswald as, “a pitiable creature, beaten and burdened by a psychotic husband who was a flat-out failure in every way.”This emphasis on Lee Harvey Oswald’s abusive and neglectful behavior towards his wife allowed Americans to more fully sympathize with her, and this sympathy continued on with other aspects of her life as well. The New York Timespublished a Portrait of Marina Oswald, in which author Jack Langguth documented her challenging childhood, wrote, “a friend who heard about [Marina] reminisce about growing up in wartime Russia describes the girl’s childhood as ‘gruesome’”. These details gave readers additional reason to pity Marina.

Sympathy for Marina continued throughout Justice Earl Warren Commission’s investigation on the assassination. Depictions of Marina during the hearings made sure to include her identifying Lee Harvey Oswald’s bloodstained clothing, and her emotional response to this. The commission’sfinal report also spoke to her credibility. In investigating her, the commission took Marina’s word for an inordinate amount of information that would not be attainable through anyone else. They trusted Marina to tell the truth and help Americans. understand the reasoning behind the attack. There was absolutely no speculation in the report that anything she had said was not entirely true. The confidence the commission showed in Marina allowed the public to trust her more, and any hints of speculation that she had anything to do with the assassination completely ceased by 1964.

The most tangible reaction to the sympathy for Marina Oswald was the outpouring of financial and general support directed to her. Two weeks after the assassination, Marina thanked the public for letters of support, donations, and general encouragement throughout this troubling time in her life. Donald Janson from The New York Timeswrote, “Mrs. Oswald has been overwhelmed at the sympathetic reaction to her plight. She has received hundreds of letters expressing understanding, and a total of $8000 has been sent to her from all over the country.”Even though her husband killed the president, and was decidedly one of the most hated men in America at the time, Marina was still regarded as a victim, and as a woman who needed support and help. In an ultimate illustration of the media’s sympathetic view of her, Time magazine published an article in which the author compared Jackie Kennedy and Marina Oswald’s Christmases. Marina was seen in the same light as other victims of Lee Harvey Oswald’s act, even though she was one of the closest people to him. She received gifts and huge monetary donations throughout this period including “a glittering tree surrounded by donated gifts.”

Another theme that emerged during this period was the idea of Marina becoming truly American. In 1963, Marina was cited saying that she loved America and its former President. This was repeated throughout multiple outlets, as if the media wanted to clearly make a distinction between Marina Oswald, who loved America, and Lee Harvey Oswald, who must have despised it to commit the crime that he did. Marina’s Americanization expanded in public media throughout the year, most specifically in the documentation of her physical appearance. Marina was portrayed as finally being able to live freely without Lee Harvey Oswald oppressing her. Time magazinewrote, “she had her hair set in a beauty parlor—something her late husband would not have allowed. She wore touches of makeup—something her husband had frowned upon. She lit a cigarette and smoked it—something he had disapproved of.”The media emphasized that without Lee, Marina was able to live her life as she chose; as an American. This contributed to the support of Marina.

Following the assassination Marina Oswald tried to move on with her life and not attract media attention. Because of this, media coverage of her drastically slowed down. However, this time period, from 1965 to 1967, in which Marina was out of the public eye and trying to live her life still contains some exposure which can still be used to track how the media portrayed her. The coverage during this time period, set specific boundaries as to what Marina could say and do that was seen as acceptable or unacceptable.

The first news story released at this time was Marina enrolling in an English class at a local community college. Marina learning English was seen in a positive light and went along with the theme of her becoming more American. However, this unwavering support and positivity that had been apparent since November 1963, came to a halt when news broke that she had remarried. An article written in The Times-Picayunein June 1965, reported her marriage and included details about her life. It claims that “once a withdrawn, silent woman [Marina had] become active socially as time blurred the impact of the assassination,”that she sold her small home for a larger one, and that she had become “financially well-to-do since the assassination.”There is a clear distinction in time between when Marina was portrayed positively because she was seen as a victim, and then where there was a shift into negative coverage in which she and was seen as profiting from the assassination and her husband’s death.

Furthermore, during this time period, William Manchester’s book, The Death of a President, came out and served as one of the first major discrepancies to the widely-held belief innocence of Marina Oswald. While the Warren Commission cites Lee Harvey Oswald’s “commitment to Marxism and Communism”as the reason for his actions, Manchester cites a fight between Marina and Lee Harvey Oswald, in which Marina seemingly no longer needed Oswald as the breaking point that basically drove Lee to assassinating the president. While this account is not necessarily primarily blaming Marina for the assassination, it does charge Marina with influencing his decision. He continues to argue that Lee’s attempt on the life of Major General Edward A. Walker had also been an attempt to impress and prove his manliness to Marina. Even in describing the general reactions to hearing the President has been assassinated, Manchester added that Marina carried on with her day and did not cry. Finally, one of the last mentions of Marina in The Death of a Presidenttook another jab at her financial gain in the wake of assassination. Manchester went into detail about how Marie Tippit, the widow of J.D. Tippit, the police officer Oswald murdered, saved all of the money she received for her children. He wrote, “she thanked contributors for the $643,863 she had received, put half in trust for her children, and spent almost none on herself.”Manchester then compared this to how Marina spent her money:

Marina, who could hardly do that, led a more colorful career. With $70,000 in donations she engaged a series of business agents…With affluence she had acquired mobility. At first she had told the press that the strongest force in her life was her love for the father of her children. This quickly changed…She bought an air-conditioned house, a wardrobe of Niemen-Marcus clothes, and a membership in the Music Box, a private club.

With all of these small details laid out by Manchester, he did not go as far as outright criticizing her, but instead gave a small amount of evidence that contradicted the innocent Marina that the media had portrayed prior to his book. Death of a Presidentserved as a critical point in the timeline of media coverage and portrayal of Marina, in which it seemingly became okay to publically criticize her.

Mark Lane’s Book, Rush to Judgement, came out in August 1966. The whole purpose of Lane’s book was to point out the faults in the Warren Commission Report. However, in doing this, Lane also pointed out negative attributes of Marina Oswald, and gave reason for speculation of the idea of her being an innocent, helpless woman. He wrote, “she admitted at an early date she had received public donations amounting to $57,000. Marina’s business manager, James H. Martin, testified that advances to her for stories alone totaled $132,350. Martin told the Commission that Marina had said, ‘the American people are crazy for sending me that money.’Reports to the press always under-stated the amounts donated, he said, ‘so people would keep contributing to her cause.’”These details painted a picture of a Marina that was extremely different from the one Americans thought had received prior to that time.

Lane continued to discuss the discrepancies in Marina’s testimony to the Commission, basically suggesting that she may not have been entirely forthcoming with all of the information that she knew. Both Manchester’s and Lane’s books hurt Marina’s reputation and served as the first of their kind in terms of direct criticism and negative coverage of her actions. They also foreshadowed the major shift in media portrayals of her.

The Trial of Clay Shaw and the Garrison Investigation surrounding it from 1967 to 1969 served as a dramatic shift in the Media’s portrayal and attitude of Marina Oswald. It was truly as if America as a whole decided that Marina was no longer someone to feel bad for.

While the Garrison Investigation brought up many factors of the assassination to re-investigate, it is interesting the lengths that Garrison’s team went to attempt to get Marina Oswald to testify, claiming that the office had “some very interesting questions to ask Mrs. Oswald”and had “inclinations that she was with Lee when he talked to people [the office of Jim Garrison] was interested in.”The decision to include Marina into the skepticism that the investigation served onto other witnesses is something that stood in contrast to the public trust, sympathy, and compassion for Marina that had existed in the years prior.

Furthermore, the coverage of her hesitation to appear on Garrison’s behalf was abundantly documented. It was made very clear through local coverage of the investigation that Marina was subpoenaed to come to testify, refused, and then was ordered by the Texas District Court Judge to testify. It was also made clear that Marina told the court that her appearing in court in New Orleans would count as a hardship, and was told by the Garrison’s office that she would receive a check for her travel expenses. This did not seem like newsworthy information, and the mere inclusion of this information into newspaper is evidence that this public disapproval of her financial actions was apparent during this time. Even though Marina did not end up testifying for the prosecution, the coverage leading up to the trial revealed the media’s opinion of her hesitation in coming to New Orleans.

Skepticism and scrutiny over Marina’s finances continued when in 1967, it was reported that Marina was seeking money for the sale Lee Harvey Oswald’s personal items.The Times-Picayune reported that Marina had sued the U.S government for $500,000 as compensation for the government’s seizure of Lee Harvey Oswald’s personal effects.While the choice of running the story alone alluded to disapproval of her seeking this sum, Timemagazine outright criticized Marina and reported, “though she hardly thought so during the years she was married to him, Marina Oswald figures that everything Assassin Lee Oswald ever touched has turned to gold.”There was a conflict at this point in which Americans no longer felt bad for Marina, and saw her as taking advantage of the assassination and the publicity surrounding it for her own personal financial gain. There was once again a shift in media portrayal, this time from a lack of sympathy, to an emergence of distrust and disapproval.

The final event in Marina Oswald’s life that produced media coverage was the release of her book, Marina and Lee, which she co-wrote with Priscilla Johnson McMillian in 1977. During the time of the book’s release, there was a continuation of criticism and a lack of remorse for Marina. However, there was also a small reemergence of the initial sympathy which she received following the president’s assassination.

As expected, money and fame came up during the release of Marina and Lee. In scheduling media appearances to promote the book, The Times-Picayunejoked that it was a lot “of talk spots for a lady who insists she has nothing to say.”A seemingly quick joke at the end of a story, this played into the idea that Marina was gaining publicity and earning money and celebrity from the tragedies surrounding her life, and the nations.

The largest change in this coverage as compared to other coverage in terms of criticism of Marina Oswald, was a direct source of blame on both Marina and Lee for the shortcomings of their marriage. While her role in the assassination had been questioned later in her life, one thing had remained constant; that she was a victim of a violent and unstable husband. However, after the release of her book, it seemed that this was no longer the case. Liz Smith from the Times-Picayune put blame on Marina in terms of their marriage, citing George De Mohrenschildt’s comment that the only person he had ever heard Lee saying he wanted to kill was his wife, and that De Mohrenschildt did not blame Oswald for that. Smith also mentions the attempt at an extramarital affair made by Marina. There was this gaping difference of portrayal of Marina and Lee Harvey Oswald’s marriage from the time of the assassination, to the time of the book’s release made by the media.

While the shift of blame in Marina and Lee’s marriage emerged, there was a simultaneous reemergence of sympathy for Marina. Although it did not match the sympathy she received by the media directly following the assassination, the details of the marriage and her life with Lee resurfaced, allowing for a wave of sympathy for Marina like before. With time and Marina’s perspective, the media took Marina’s own information and created a new wave of compassion for her. One of the ways that this happened was that Marina herself talked about her love for Lee Harvey Oswald by saying, “Lee was the only person I [Marina] had in this country”and that she was young and immature, but very much in love with him. This served as a reemergence of the idea of a “mourning wife”, and a portrayed real, although tragic, love story. Even though readers and the general public began to see fault in both Marina and Lee for their troubled marriage, with the testimony by Marina presented in the book about their love, it was more difficult to ignore the idea of love and loss.

The Release of Marina Oswald’s book in 1977 was the last major event that drew significant media coverage. She still continues to live her life in Dallas and shies away from the press; maybe this is for good reason. Ultimately, it is clear that Lee Harvey Oswald committed this heinous crime without the knowledge of Marina Oswald. However, throughout her life Marina handled the burden of blame for something that she could not have stopped. Merely covering Marina for the large duration of her life was burdensome enough, and the negative reportage added to that stress immensely. Everything Marina did in attempting to move on with her life was inadvertently criticized in some way, to the point that it was almost inescapable to have a negative opinion of her. It is incredible how quickly sympathy for Marina Oswald faded, and how quickly it partially reemerged when rehashing the details of the assassination of the president. While the media may forever be changing its views on how they feel about Marina, history and fact seems pretty decided on accentuating her innocence and strength.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Works Cited

PRIMARY SOURCES

Priscilla Johnson McMillian, Marina and Lee (New York: Harper and Row,1977).

Testimony of Marina Oswald (1969) (testimony of Marina Oswald in Garrison Investigation)

Testimony of Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald(1964) (testimony of Marina Oswald in Warren Commission)

Web version based on Report of the President's Commissionon the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1964. 1 volume, 888 pages.

William Manchester, Death of a President (New York: Back Bay Books, 1967).

Winfrey, Carey, “Oswald's Widow Tells of "Very High Level of Anger" at Him for the Legacy of Shame”, The New York Times, October 13, 1977.

SECONDARY SOURCES

Curran, Patricia, “Oswald Good Family Man, Says Woman Benefactor”, The Times-Picayune, November 25, 1963.

Doucet, Clarence, “Warren Report Critic Sure Garrison Will Prove Plot”, The Times-Picayune, March 29, 1967.

Everty, Arthur, “Portrait of President's Accused Killer Emerges”, The Times-Picayune, November 24, 1963.

Janson, Donald, “Oswald’sWife Plans to Stay in Dallas” The New York Times,December 8, 1963.

“People”, Time Magazine, November 10, 1967.

Langguth, Jack, “12 Perplexing Questions About Kennedy Assassination Examined”, The New York Times, January 26, 1964.

Langguth, Jack, “A Portrait of Marina Oswald”, The New York Times, January 19, 1964.

Mark Lane, Rush To Judgement(New York: Fawcett World Library, 1966, 259-260.

Morin, Relman, “Settling Political Dispute In Texas JFK Aim-Book”, The Times-Picayune,January 8, 1967.

Powers, Thomas, “The Heart of The Story: The Story”, The New York Times, October 30, 1977.

Smith, Liz, “Hot off the Press: ‘Marina and Lee’”, The Times-Picayune, September 10, 1977.

“Between Two Fires”, Time Magazine, February 14, 1964.

“Focus Fine Tuning”, The Times-Picayune, October 24, 1977.

“Grand jury Supena Goes to Marina Oswald Porter”, The Times-Picayune, January 25, 1986.

“Marina is Ordered to Appear in N.O.”, The Times-Picayune, February 2, 1968.

“Marina Oswald”, Time Magazine, December 4, 1964.

“Marina Oswald Enrolls in Michigan English Class”, The Times-Picayune, January 5, 1965.

“Marina Oswald Marries Texas Electronics Worker”, The Times-Picayune, June 2, 1965.

“Marina’s Testimony Called Helpful in Death Probe Plot”, The Times-Picayune, February 9, 1968.

“New Husband of Widow of Oswald Thrown in Jail”, The Times-Picayune, June 10, 1965.

“Oswald's Widow Seeking $500,000 for Seizure of Personal Items”,The Times-Picayune, October 31, 1967.

“Oswald Unforgiven” The Times-Picayune, October 12, 1977.

“Russo Fails to Identify Third Photo”, The Times-Picayune, March 16, 1967.

“The Others”, Time Magazine, November 27, 1964.

“Three Widows”, Time Magazine, January 3, 1964

“Widow Counter Russo Testimony”, The Times-Picayune, February 22, 1969.