Страница 220 из 340
irrationally refuses to admit that Jews collaborated with the Nazis (I don't have any data
either), and yet 60 Minutes does not seem to find the existence of this group noteworthy enough
to broadcast.
The following Sunday, November 6, 1994, 60 Minutes continued to focus on the Ukrainian reaction
to the original broadcast, but without correction, without retraction, without apology. 60
Minutes is willing to go as far as admitting that Ukrainians are upset, but not as far as
divulging that the cause of that upset is irresponsible and negligent reporting.
As of November 21, 1997, 60 Minutes has not broadcast any correction or retraction or apology.
CONTENTS:
Preface
The Galicia Division
Quality of Translation
Ukrainian Homogeneity
Were Ukrainians Nazis?
Simon Wiesenthal
What Happened in Lviv?
Nazi Propaganda Film
Collective Guilt
Paralysis of the Comparative
Function
60 Minutes' Cheap Shots
Ukrainian Anti-Semitism
Jewish Ukrainophobia
Mailbag
A Sense of Responsibility
What 60 Minutes Should Do
PostScript
A Sense of Responsibility
Jews have lived with no other peoples as intimately and for as long as they have with
Ukrainians. In this shared history, there have been bright periods and dark episodes. It is
possible to imagine a shared future in which the bright periods predominate and the dark
episodes are banished. This is the future that Ukrainians and Jews should strive toward, this
is the image that should guide them in their dialogues and that should have guided Mr. Safer in
his broadcast. Perhaps it is already the attitude that inspires the majority of both Ukrainians
and Jews.
The Jewish claim to a share of the newly-created nation of Ukraine is as tenable as that of the
ethnic Ukrainians and of the ethnic Russians and others who reside there. At present, all three
of these groups are begi
overlooked, cooperation is the norm, a bright future is possible.
Into this scene burst immature and undiplomatic people like Morley Safer needing a sensational
story, Simon Wiesenthal desperate to retain his relevance in the modern world by having it
believed that 1941 is repeating itself, and Yaakov Bleich disoriented by having been plucked
from the United States to fill this exotic role of rabbi of Ukraine and these three show no
grasp of the political situation, no comprehension of the complex world that they are
simplifying into their stereotypes, no sympathy for impulses toward reconciliation that are
manifest on all sides, certainly no sense of responsibility for nurturing these impulses. This
gang of three has no stake in Ukraine - Mr. Safer leaves for home immediately after reading his
lines into the camera, Mr. Wiesenthal lives in Vie
but not Ukrainians, he expediently concludes that Germans weren't as bad as Ukrainians), and
Yaakov Bleich - unhappy in his discovery that in slinging mud he has become muddied, every day
more deeply convinced that he has been miscast in this role of rabbi of Ukraine - we may expect
will shortly be catching a plane for home. What do any of them care if they are stirring up a
hornet's nest in Ukraine?
The Jews who are left behind in Ukraine, who have a stake in Ukraine, who need to get along - to
these 60 Minutes does not give air time. It's the irresponsible ones with nothing to lose who
are able to offer the more sensational testimonials.
And not only does 60 Minutes' trio of provocateurs have nothing to lose from chaos erupting in
Ukraine, they have this to gain - that if chaos does erupt, they will be able to play the role
of prophets who foretold its coming, and they will do this quite overlooking that they helped it
come.
CONTENTS:
Preface
The Galicia Division
Quality of Translation
Ukrainian Homogeneity
Were Ukrainians Nazis?
Simon Wiesenthal
What Happened in Lviv?
Nazi Propaganda Film
Collective Guilt
Paralysis of the Comparative
Function
60 Minutes' Cheap Shots
Ukrainian Anti-Semitism
Jewish Ukrainophobia
Mailbag
A Sense of Responsibility
What 60 Minutes Should Do
PostScript
What 60 Minutes Should Do
(1) 60 Minutes owes its viewers a detailed correction, a retraction, an apology. The product
was defective, it is dangerous, it must be recalled.
Acknowledging that Ukrainians are upset or that they are protesting is not a correction, it is
not a retraction, and it is not an apology. Directing attention to Ukrainian feelings is 60
Minutes' way of deflecting attention away from its own negligence.
60 Minutes has valiantly investigated and exposed hundreds of corrupt, or merely erring, people
and institutions - the time has come to turn the focus inwards and to investigate and expose
itself. Of course this can only be done objectively by an external investigator relying on his
or her own independent staff. Inviting such an external investigator to do a 60 Minutes story
is the right thing to do; it will be appreciated and admired; it will raise 60 Minutes'
integrity from its currently lowered position to a new pi
60 Minutes really wants respect, it should broadcast a story on itself and call it "The Ugly
Face of 60 Minutes."
As the misinformation that was planted in the original twelve-minute segment will take longer
than twelve minutes to uproot, 60 Minutes should devote an entire nominal sixty minutes to its
correction, retraction, and apology - only such a substantial allocation of time can begin to
undo the damage. At the other extreme, a correction, retraction, and apology confined to
Mailbag will be next to worthless.
(2) 60 Minutes should upgrade its research library by acquiring at least the two-volume
Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopaedia, the five-volume Encyclopaedia of Ukraine, Orest Subtelny's
Ukraine: A History, and Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews. This seems a
modest investment to plug a huge and dangerous gap in awareness.
(3) But books are nothing if they are sitting on the shelves of biased researchers. Find out
who contributed to the travesty of "The Ugly Face of Freedom" and get rid of them. And don't
worry about their careers - with their special talents, they will be able to get good jobs with
supermarket tabloids writing about sightings of Elvis Presley and UFO landings.
(4) 60 Minutes should examine with a more skeptical eye materials concerning Ukrainians, and
concerning Eastern Europeans generally, that come from biased sources. As a minimal step, 60
Minutes could adopt the rule of thumb that anyone who considers Eastern Europeans to be
sub-human might better be assigned to some other topic.
(5) 60 Minutes should not be afraid to consult sources capable of balancing a biased story.
There are a large number of historians and other academics (some of whom are Ukrainian or East
European, some of whom are Jewish, some of whom are both, some of whom are neither) that could
have told 60 Minutes at a glance that "The Ugly Face of Freedom" was bunkum.
(6) 60 Minutes should rethink its heavy-handed reliance on the gimmick of interviewing by
ambush by means of which the side favored by 60 Minutes is apprised in advance of the nature of
the interview, has a chance to organize his thoughts, and comes out looking good whereas the