Лев Гунин - ГУЛаг Палестины

feelings that he was sharing with 60 Minutes viewers that he quite overlooked the absence of

corroborative evidence. But if so, then is it not the case that he was taking another step

toward turning a broadcast that purported to be one of investigative journalism into an Oprah

Winfrey-style I-bare-my-secret-emotions-to-all-fest, with the secret emotions bared being those

of the correspondent himself?

What do you think? - Would this paragraph be worth adding or not? Perhaps it is too strong, and would only

weaken the critique? On the other hand, how else to get CBS to retract and to winnow its staff of offending personnel

than by stating the defects of "The Ugly Face of Freedom" boldly?

Yours truly,

Lubomyr Prytulak

cc: Ed Bradley, Steve Kroft, Michael Jordan, Lesley Stahl, Mike Wallace.

Morley Safer Letter 3 24May98 Your name inevitably comes up

If you cannot find instances of unfairness or inaccuracy in the many accusations that

have been leveled against The Ugly Face of Freedom, then I wonder whether your

refusing to retract and apologize satisfies standards of journalistic ethics.

May 24, 1998

Morley Safer

60 Minutes, CBS Television

51 W 52nd Street

New York, NY

USA 10019

Dear Mr. Safer:

I am enclosing a copy of my letter to Rabbi Yaakov Dov Bleich dated 23May98

asking him to corroborate or to retract certain of his statements broadcast on the 60

Minutes story The Ugly Face of Freedom of 23Oct94. The subject of that letter leads

to further questions that I would like to put to you.

As your broadcast The Ugly Face of Freedom was devoid of evidence supporting the

extreme conclusions that you were offering, and as the documentation of the two

attacks on Jews that Rabbi Bleich describes would have begun to provide some such

missing evidence, why did you not get in touch with the two sets of victims, as well

as with law enforcement officials, and interview them for the 60 Minutes broadcast?

In the case of the knife attack on two elderly Jews, Rabbi Bleich describes the

victims as having been left "for dead." Thus, the severity of this attack possibly

resulted in the taking of police and medical photographs, and possibly resulted in

newspaper coverage, and these photographs and newspaper stories, together with any

on-camera testimony of the victims and police officials would have begun to add

substantiation to your broadcast. In fact, if the perpetrators of any of the attacks

had been apprehended, you might have been able to interview them as well. Any of

these steps would have done much to enhance the quality of your work and yet you

seem to have failed to take any of these elementary and obvious steps. I wonder if

you could explain why.

The suspicion that you would be attempting to refute in your answer is that you

did indeed take the obvious steps of attempting to interview the victims and

attempting to confirm the stories with law enforcement officials, discovered that the

stories did not pan out, but finding yourself thin on material, broadcast Rabbi

Bleich's allusions to them anyway.

You will see that in my letter to Rabbi Bleich, I request particulars concerning

the two or more attacks that he refers to. I now put the same request to you: if you

are able to provide confirmatory details, please do so - at a minimum, the names of

the victims, and the locations and dates of the attacks; copies of newspaper

clippings or other documentation if you have it. If you are unable to document Rabbi

Bleich's stories, then it would seem appropriate that you retract them.

A comment on a related point. You must be aware that a number of the defects of

the 60 Minutes broadcast The Ugly Face of Freedom are discussed on the Ukrainian

Archive web site, particularly in the section at www.ukar.org/60min.shtml, and to a

lesser extent in other places on the larger site at www.ukar.org. Your name

inevitably comes up in these discussions. Using the site's internal search engine to

search for your name reveals that it appears hundreds of times spread over dozens of

documents. I mention this to invite you to examine these many references with the

aim of determining their accuracy and fairness. If you have any comments to make

concerning these references, then I can promise you that these comments will be

reproduced on the Ukrainian Archive complete and unedited, and that any instances of

unfairness or inaccuracy that you bring to my attention will be immediately

corrected.

If you cannot find instances of unfairness or inaccuracy in the many accusations

that have been leveled against The Ugly Face of Freedom, then I wonder whether your

refusing to retract and apologize satisfies standards of journalistic ethics.

Yours truly,

Lubomyr Prytulak

cc: Ed Bradley, Jeffrey Fager, Don Hewitt, Steve Kroft, Andy Rooney, Lesley Stahl,

Mike Wallace.

HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE SAFER 626 hits since 5Dec98

Morely Safer Letter 4 5Dec98 Press responsibility and accountability

The fairness doctrine, which included the equal-time provision, was scrapped under

Reagan. Television news programs are under no obligation to present all sides of an

issue.

December 5, 1998

Morley Safer

60 Minutes, CBS Television

51 W 52nd Street

New York, NY

USA 10019

Dear Mr. Safer:

The passage below from Michael Crichton's novel Airframe draws a picture of

American television news as irresponsible and lacking accountability:

Edward Fuller was the head of Norton Legal. He was a thin, ungainly

man of forty. He sat uneasily in the chair in Marder's office.

"Edward," Marder said, "we have a problem. Newsline is going to

run a story on the N-22 this weekend on prime-time television, and it

is going to be highly unfavorable."

"How unfavorable?"

"They're calling the N-22 a deathtrap."

"Oh dear," Fuller said. "That's very unfortunate."

"Yes, it is," Marder said. "I brought you in because I want to

know what I can do about it."

"Do about it?" Fuller said, frowning.

"Yes," Marder said. "What can we do? Can we prevent them from

running the story?"

"No."

"Can we get a court injunction barring them?"

"No. That's prior restraint. And from a publicity standpoint,

it's ill advised."

"You mean it would look bad."

"An attempt to muzzle the press? Violate the First Amendment?

That would suggest you have something to hide."

"In other words," Marder said, "they can run the story, and we

are powerless to stop them."

"Yes."

"Okay. But I think Newsline's information is inaccurate and

biased. Can we demand they give equal time to our evidence?"

"No," Fuller said. "The fairness doctrine, which included the

equal-time provision, was scrapped under Reagan. Television news

programs are under no obligation to present all sides of an issue."

"So they can say anything they want? No matter how unbalanced?"

"That's right."

"That doesn't seem proper."

"It's the law," Fuller said, with a shrug.

"Okay," Marder said. "Now this program is going to air at a very

sensitive moment for our company. Adverse publicity may very well

cost us the China sale."

"Yes, it might."

"Suppose that we lost business as a result of their show. If we

can demonstrate that Newsline presented an erroneous view - and we

told them it was erroneous - can we sue them for damages?"

"As a practical matter, no. We would probably have to show they

proceeded with 'reckless disregard' for the facts known to them.

Historically, that has been extremely difficult to prove."

"So Newsline is not liable for damages?"

"No."

"They can say whatever they want, and if they put us out of

business, it's our tough luck?"

"That's correct."

"Is there any restraint at all on what they say?"

"Well." Fuller shifted in his chair. "If they falsely portrayed

the company, they might be liable. But in this instance, we have a

lawsuit brought by an attorney for a passenger on 545. So Newsline

is able to say they're just reporting the facts: that an attorney

made the following accusations about us."

"I understand," Marder said. "But a claim filed in a court has

limited publicity. Newsline is going to present these crazy claims

to forty million viewers. And at the same time, they'll

automatically validate the claims, simply by repeating them on

television. The damage to us comes from their exposure, not from the

original claims."

"I take your point," Fuller said. "But the law doesn't see it

that way. Newsline has the right to report a lawsuit."

"Newsline has no responsibility to independently assess the legal

claims being made, no matter how outrageous? If the lawyers said,

for example, that we employed child molesters, Newsline could still

report that, with no liability to themselves?"

"Correct."

"Let's say we go to trial and win. It's clear that Newsline

presented an erroneous view of our product, based on the attorney's

allegations, which have been thrown out of court. Is Newsline

obligated to retract the statements they made to forty million

viewers?"

"No. They have no such obligation."

"Why not?"

"Newsline can decide what's newsworthy. If they think the

outcome of the trial is not newsworthy, they don't have to report

it. It's their call."

"And meanwhile, the company is bankrupt," Marder said. "Thirty

thousand employees lose their jobs, houses, health benefits, and

start new careers at Burger King. And another fifty thousand lose

their jobs, when our suppliers go belly up in Georgia, Ohio, Texas,

and Connecticut. All those fine people who've devoted their lives

working to design, build, and support the best airframe in the

business get a firm handshake and a swift kick in the butt. Is that

how it works?"

Fuller shrugged. "That's how the system works. Yes."

"I'd say the system sucks."

"The system is the system," Fuller said.

Marder glanced at Casey, then turned back to Fuller. "Now Ed," he

said. "This situation sounds very lopsided. We make a superb

product, and all the objective measures of its performance

demonstrate that it's safe and reliable. We've spent years

developing and testing it. We've got an irrefutable track record.

But you're saying a television crew can come in, hang around a day or

two, and trash our product on national TV. And when they do, they

have no responsibility for their acts, and we have no way to recover

damages."

Fuller nodded.

"Pretty lopsided," Marder said.

Fuller cleared his throat. "Well, it wasn't always that way.

But for the last thirty years, since Sullivan in 1964, the First

Amendment has been invoked in defamation cases. Now the press has a

lot more breathing room."

"Including room for abuse," Marder said.

Fuller shrugged. "Press abuse is an old complaint," he said.

"Just a few years after the First Amendment was passed, Thomas

Jefferson complained about how inaccurate the press was, how unfair

-"

"But Ed," Marder said. "We're not talking about two hundred

years ago. And we're not talking about a few nasty editorials in

colonial newspapers. We're talking about a television show with