Страница 256 из 340
veterans. So devoid is this reunion of any of the signs that one might expect in any open
celebration of the SS that one wonders what led Mr. Safer to the conclusion that that is what it
was. Perhaps it is the case that Mr. Safer was so carried away by his enthusiasm for the
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 wi
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 ca
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 ca
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
ru
"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