Страница:
been held here. We have a Jewish ensemble, a Jewish theater, a philharmonic
orchestra which recently, at the opening of the season, performed the works of
Tchaikovsky and of two Jewish composers. A Jew, Kotlyk, head of the Jewish Society,
was elected as a member of the City Council.
Two years ago, in the center of the city, not far from "Hitler Square," a monument
dedicated to the victims of the Lviv ghetto was unveiled. This is the biggest and
most prominent Jewish memorial in all of Europe. Haven't you seen it?
As head of the Jewish Council, I was present at all the events that I am describing,
and I can document them. Your discussing these events in a future broadcast would
present a wonderful balance which together with your video footage would paint an
accurate picture of Jewish life in Ukraine, and not a deliberately one-sided one.
One cannot indict any nation on the grounds that a few of its members were evil.
Evil individuals exist in every nation. But why didn't you show those Ukrainians
and Poles who rescued Jews? There are many of them. Initially, we ourselves didn't
know about them, as they remained silent, and our former regime forbade them to
speak on such topics. In Lviv, Simon Wiesenthal himself was rescued from death, and
in Boryslav, the head of the Israeli parliament, Shevakh Weiss, with whom in 1992 I
personally visited his own rescuers.
We have a list of almost 2,500 Ukrainians who rescued Jews, and many of these are
precisely from the Western region. We have brought these rescuers to Israel,
presented them with certificates, and are now supporting them with pensions. We are
presently in the process of submitting this list of rescuers to the Holocaust Museum
in Washington. Concerning this I have been making particular arrangements, as I
will be in the United States later this year.
You broadcast that Lviv is being depopulated of Jews. However, this has been
happening throughout the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), and began not
recently, but even during the Bolshevik regime - but nobody is blaming this on
anti-Semitism. Rather, other motives are responsible: economics, Chornobyl, the
reunification of families. Anti-Semitism plays a far weaker role. Our Council
interviews Jewish emigrants and has definitive information on this question.
Jews, perhaps more than others, should avoid throwing blanket insults and
accusations at other peoples because they themselves - as a people and not as
individuals - have been blamed by the Fascists for all sins. Why do you, then,
proclaim all Ukrainians to be genetic anti-Semites? Why, in addition to talking
about the police did you not also talk about the rescuers of Jews, did not show a
single one of them? And in Lviv, there are many of them. Is it that you couldn't
find any, or that you didn't want to look?
I wish to declare to you officially: in the new Ukraine, there is no state-sponsored
anti-Semitism. Not long ago, a Jew fulfilled the obligations of the prime minister
of Ukraine. The mayors of Odessa and Vynnytsia are Jews. The mayor of Cherkasy was
a Jew. There are six Jews in parliament. Some Deputy Ministers are Jews. It is
such outstanding facts as these that convey the predominant attitude of Ukrainians
to Jewish rebirth, to Jewish culture.
Among the CIS, Ukraine was the first to hold a Jewish Congress. The Days of Jewish
Culture were celebrated this year as a National holiday, dedicated to the 135th
anniversary of Shalom Aleichem. In Ukraine, there are active Jewish organisations
in 89 cities. Eleven Jewish newspapers are published. Ten schools are in
operation. Jewish groups have been formed within Pedagogical and Theatrical
Institutes (composed of 80% Ukrainians who have mastered Hebrew). We have held a
festival of children's vocal and dance ensembles in which 46 groups applied to
participate. Ukrainian television broadcasts two Jewish programs. Jewish
spectacles are performed on the stages of Ukraine.
For the fifth year now we have honored the victims of Babyn Yar, where there has
been erected the Jewish monument "Menorah," and at which have been placed wreaths
both from the President of Ukraine and from the Kyiv City Council. Just this year,
the Days of Babyn Yar commemorations were conducted over the period of an entire
week. In all cities (in all!) in which Jews were shot during the War, annual
remembrance days are observed.
All this you failed to see, and so you did great harm not only to Ukrainians, but to
Jews as well.
In our work of resurrecting Jewish life, we receive help from such prominent
Ukrainian intellectuals and parliamentarians as B. Oliynyk, P. Osadchuk, O. Yemets,
D. Pavlychko, V. Yavorivskyi, I. Drach, P. Movchan, M. Shulha, I. Dziuba, V.
Durdynets, and many others. We do not want to return to former times, and yet that
is the direction in which your broadcast is pushing us. You have done as the
Bolsheviks used to do - you presented information that is one-sided, suppressed
information that does not fit your stereotype, biased the selection of materials,
strengthened and reinforced negativism. It would be as if the Los Angeles riots
were shown to us here as representative American events.
If you want to convince yourselves that everything I have been saying is true,
please come to us and film anything you want. Please regard this as an official
invitation of our Jewish Council.
Certainly there exist many disappointments in our work. A lot remains to be done in
revitalizing Jewish culture. We cannot immediately realize all our goals. But this
is never merely because we are Jews; it is never attributable to either
state-sponsored or spontaneous anti-Semitism. You must be aware in what a difficult
economic situation Ukraine finds itself - and yet despite this, the government gives
high priority to the support of cultural diversity, included in which is the support
of Jewish culture. For example, the observance of the Days of Jewish Culture in
Ukraine was funded entirely by the Ukrainian government - close to two billion
karbovantsi, and this in our difficult economic times!
It is these many things, then, that are of importance to us, and not the activities
of individual ultra-nationalists who don't receive support from most Ukrainians;
where in fact most Ukrainians condemn their activities.
Oh, democracy! Is there any country, even the United States, which has succeeded in
ridding itself of anti-Semitism? And are the American anti-Semites representative
of official government attitudes toward Jews? Or are isolated events in Los Angeles
reflective of United States government attitudes toward Blacks?
Esteemed gentlemen! You didn't do a good thing insulting the Ukrainian people.
Imagine if someone collected similarly true but unrepresentative facts to paint a
negative picture of the Jewish people. Remember the Biblical injunction: Don't do
anything to another that you would not want done to yourself.
Please revisit us with an open mind, and not with any fixed bias. The United States
is presently awaiting the visit of our President, and we don't want his visit to be
marred by any anti-Ukrainian actions from anybody, especially not from Jews; nor
would we want American assistance to our country to depend on isolated individuals
who are opposed to granting such assistance.
We await you in Ukraine.
Respectfully,
I.M. Levitas
Head of the Jewish Council of Ukraine
Head of the Nationalities Associations of Ukraine
HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE JORDAN 726 hits since 23May98
Jordan Letter 5 Jul 18/96 Genetic anti-Semitism
July 18, 1996
Michael H. Jordan
Chairman, Westinghouse Electric Corporation
11 Stanwix Street
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
USA 15222
Dear Mr. Jordan:
I have some questions for Morley Safer, and I route them to him through you, as I have discovered over the years
that he is not very communicative when addressed directly - perhaps if the request to respond to these questions came
from you, he might be more forthcoming. Specifically, I wonder if you would be so good as to ask Mr. Safer the
questions organized under the following eight points, all of them in connection with his October 23, 1994 statement
that "The Church and Government of Ukraine have tried to ease people's fears, suggesting that ... Ukrainians, despite
the allegations, are not genetically anti-Semitic.":
(1) Through what source did Mr. Safer become aware of the allegation that Ukrainians were genetically
anti-Semitic? And what were the qualifications of this source in the field of human genetics, particularly in the
field of the genetic inheritance of cognitive predispositions?
(2) Before broadcasting this allegation, did Mr. Safer verify its plausibility with any responsible geneticist?
(3) What does Mr. Safer mean by "the church of Ukraine"? This reference is as puzzling as would be a reference
to "the church of the United States."
(4) Could Mr. Safer divulge the name of the church representative who issued this denial of a genetic
predisposition to anti-Semitism on the part of Ukrainians, and indicate as well the time and the place of the denial?
(5) Could Mr. Safer similarly identify the Government of Ukraine representative who issued this same denial of a
genetic predisposition to anti-Semitism on the part of Ukrainians - who was it, when, where?
(6) Is Mr. Safer aware of a genetic predisposition to anti-Semitism on the part of any other group - or is this
in his estimation a uniquely Ukrainian phenomenon?
(7) Has Mr. Safer considered the possibility that his own antipathy toward Ukrainians is genetically based? If
not, then how would he account for it? And if not, would Mr. Safer be willing to issue a public statement to the
effect that his anti-Ukrainianism is not genetic in origin?
(8) Could Mr. Safer comment on the possibility that the refusal of CBS personnel to discuss "The Ugly Face of
Freedom" might similarly be genetically-based? If CBS personnel reject the notion that their corporate decisions are
genetically influenced, then could Mr. Safer persuade them to issue a joint statement to this effect, and in
particular denying that they are genetically anti-Ukrainian?
These few and simple questions, it seems to me, serve the useful purpose of establishing what category Mr.
Safer's statement falls into: that of a responsible journalist who picks his words carefully and later stands by them,
or that of a bigot who gets up in front of the camera and begins to ramble off the top of his head - and later selects
muteness as the optimal defense for his irresponsibility.
Sincerely yours,
Lubomyr Prytulak
cc: Ed Bradley, Steve Kroft, Morley Safer, Lesley Stahl, Mike Wallace
HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE JORDAN
HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE JORDAN 1473 hits since 23May98
Jordan Letter 6 Jul 19/96 Allowing a fabulist on 60 Minutes
July 19, 1996
Michael H. Jordan
Chairman, Westinghouse Electric Corporation
11 Stanwix Street
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
USA 15222
Dear Mr. Jordan:
When I began reading Simon Wiesenthal in late 1994, I was naive enough to imagine
that my discovery that he had a credibility problem was an original one. Since that
time, however, I have learned that Mr. Wiesenthal's lack of credibility is widely known
and openly acknowledged. For example, on April 28, 1996, I received a letter from a
Jewish faculty member at an American University, from which I quote the following:
I do not doubt for a moment ... that Simon Wiesenthal is a fabulist
which is the fancy literary word for an unmitigated liar. My father
(an Auschwitz inmate) told me many terrible stories about Wiesenthal's
role after the war in the Austrian DP camps. Wiesenthal is of the same
ilk as Elie Wiesel: a secular saint, he can make the most absurd claims
without fear of exposure.
Now the question that I would like to add to the ones that I have already addressed
to you is the following: How did it come to pass that in 1994 a reputable investigative
journalism show featured as its star witness someone who is widely known to be - shall
we say - a "fabulist"?
And from this question springs a second one: How does it come to pass today that a
reputable investigative journalism show, having learned that it has been victimized by
a "fabulist," refuses to take any corrective action?
Yours truly,
Lubomyr Prytulak
cc: Ed Bradley, Steve Kroft, Morley Safer, Lesley Stahl, Mike Wallace, Simon Wiesenthal
HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE JORDAN 1763 hits since 23May98
Bleich Letter 8 23May98 Please substantiate or retract
If your 60 Minutes testimony concerning violent attacks on Jews by Ukrainians and
motivated by anti-Semitism is true, then it behooves you to substantiate it and in so doing
to remove the doubt which surrounds it. If your 60 Minutes testimony is false, then it
behooves you to retract it. Either option will constitute a step toward restoring your
standing in the eyes of the Ukrainian community, and in ameliorating Ukrainian-Jewish
relations.
Silence is an option only if you are prepared to encourage the conclusion that you spoke
impulsively and irresponsibly, and that you subsequently lacked the courage and integrity
to admit your error.
May 23, 1998
Rabbi Yaakov Dov Bleich
29 Shchekavytska Street
Kiev 254071
Ukraine
Dear Rabbi Bleich:
In your appearance on the 60 Minutes broadcast "The Ugly Face of Freedom" of 23
October 1994, you offered some startling testimony concerning the existence of
anti-Semitism in contemporary Ukraine. In your own words:
There have been a number of physical attacks. In a small town, two
elderly Jews were attacked at knifepoint and stabbed because they are
Jews and because of the myth that all Jews must have money hidden in
their homes. The same thing was in west Ukraine, the Carpathian
region. These are very, very frightening facts, because it's - again
that stereotype that we mentioned before, when that leads someone to
really - to - to stab an older couple and leave them helpless, and
you know? - they left them for dead. That means that we have serious
problems.
In the mind of the typical 60 Minutes viewer, your statement would constitute a
substantial proportion of the Ugly Face of Freedom's evidence for the existence of
anti-Semitism in today's Ukraine, and the only evidence at all for the eruption of this
anti-Semitism into violence.
However, I cannot help noticing that your statement is devoid of detail. You do
not disclose the names of the victims, nor the places and dates of the attacks. Nor do
you indicate the source of your information - did you hear about these attacks on the
radio, see them on television, read about them in the newspapers, receive personal
communication, or what? This lack of detail is particularly troubling in view of four
considerations:
(1) that your non-specific testimony occurred in the middle of a broadcast which
was dominated by misrepresentation and disinformation;
(2) that it came from the mouth of an individual recognized in the Ukrainian
community for holding anti-Ukrainian views, and for spreading anti-Ukrainian hatred, as
I think I have demonstrated in my seven previous letters to you of 6Jan95, 26Sep97,
27Sep97, 28Sep97, 29Sep97, 29Sep97, and 30Sep97, in which letters are discussed such
issues as that of your reciting every Saturday in the capital city of Ukraine the
Khmelnytsky curse;
(3) that Jewish interests have sometimes employed exaggerated, or wholly-imagined,
or even self-inflicted anti-Semitic acts to achieve such aims as heightened group
cohesion or increased emigration to Israel; and
(4) that Jewish groups in Ukraine who monitor anti-Semitic incidents report being
unaware of the two attacks that you describe.
Specifically with respect to point (4) above, an open letter to Morley Safer and
the 60 Minutes staff from I. M. Levitas, Head of the Jewish Council of Ukraine as well
as of the Nationalities Associations of Ukraine, as published in the Lviv newspaper Za
Vilnu Ukrainu (For a Free Ukraine) on December 2, 1994, included the following
observations, which I translate from the original Ukrainian. In the portion of the
letter that I quote below, Mr. Levitas argues that the attacks you describe may have
been simple robberies devoid of anti-Semitism. More importantly, Mr. Levitas provides
us with reason to wonder whether the attacks occurred at all:
You reported that two Jews were robbed and beaten. This might have
happened, but most likely not because they were Jews. I imagine that
in Lviv, Ukrainians are also robbed (and significantly more often!),
and yet nobody draws from this the sort of conclusions concerning
ethnic hostility that you draw from the robbing of these two Jews.
Our Jewish Council constantly receives news concerning Jews in
Ukraine, but during the past five years, we have received not a single
report of anyone being beaten because he was a Jew. However, it must
be admitted that such a thing may have occurred without it coming to
our attention - there are plenty of miscreants in every country.
The above speculations lead us once again to the questions of whether your
orientation toward the Ukrainian state is supportive or destructive, responsible or
irresponsible, restrained by reason or fired by emotion. A step toward answering such
questions would be taken by your responding to the points below:
(1) Would you be able to provide the names of the two sets of Jewish victims that
you alluded to (that is, the victims of the knife attack, and the similar victims in the
"Carpathian region"), and the places and dates of the attacks? If by "a number of
attacks" you mean more than two, I would appreciate receiving such documentation for the
other attacks as well. If in addition you are in possession of corroborative evidence
such as videotapes, newspaper clippings, or letters, I would appreciate receiving copies
of these as well.
(2) If the attacks did occur, then there follows the question of what motivated
them. Mr. Levitas suggests that if the knife attack occurred, then it was more likely
driven by economic motives than anti-Semitic ones. You, on the other hand offer that
the attack occurred "because they are Jews," and "because of the myth that all Jews must
have money hidden in their homes," and because "it's - again that stereotype." But for
you to know that the motivation was predominantly anti-Semitic, the perpetrators of the
attacks must have been caught and must have confessed and disclosed their motivation,
unless there exists some alternative evidence pointing to the same conclusion. In any
case, whatever the nature of the material that you relied upon to conclude that the two
attacks had been motivated by anti-Semitism, I wonder if you would be able to provide me
with a copy of it.
(3) I myself was unaware of any Ukrainian "myth that all Jews must have money
hidden in their homes." This strikes me not so much as a myth believed by Ukrainians
about Jews, as a myth believed by yourself about Ukrainians. I wonder if you could
inform me of what evidence you have that Ukrainians are so primitive in their thinking
as to entertain the fantastic myth that "all Jews must have money hidden in their
homes."
If your 60 Minutes testimony concerning violent attacks on Jews by Ukrainians and
motivated by anti-Semitism is true, then it behooves you to substantiate it and in so
doing to remove the doubt which surrounds it. If your 60 Minutes testimony is false,
then it behooves you to retract it. Either option will constitute a step toward
restoring your standing in the eyes of the Ukrainian community, and in ameliorating
Ukrainian-Jewish relations.
Silence is an option only if you are prepared to encourage the conclusion that you
spoke impulsively and irresponsibly, and that you subsequently lacked the courage and
integrity to admit your error.
Yours truly,
Lubomyr Prytulak
cc: Ed Bradley, Jeffrey Fager, Don Hewitt, Steve Kroft, Andy Rooney, Morley Safer,
Lesley Stahl, Mike Wallace.
HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE SAFER Safer > 815 hits since 24May98
Morely Safer Letter 1 28Dec94 Please explain silence
December 28, 1994
Morley Safer
51 W 52nd Street
New York, NY
USA 10019
Dear Mr. Safer:
I have been wondering which of the following three reasons best explains why 60 Minutes has not yet broadcast a
correction, a retraction, and an apology for "The Ugly Face of Freedom":
(1) The amount of disinformation in the broadcast was so large that a considerable amount of research and
introspection are necessary before a full and just response can be formulated - but one will soon be forthcoming.
(2) 60 Minutes' researchers and consultants have concluded that none of the objections to the broadcast are
valid, and a full rebuttal of these objections will shortly be made available.
(3) Whether the Ukrainian objections are right or wrong is irrelevant what is relevant is that CBS views
Ukrainians as too weak to force CBS to suffer any loss of face.
As time passes with no response from 60 Minutes, Ukrainians are increasingly pulled toward the third of these as
the correct explanation.
Yours truly,
Lubomyr Prytulak
HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE SAFER 669 hits since 24May98
Morely Safer Letter 2 19Mar96 Contempt for the viewer
March 19, 1996
Morley Safer
60 Minutes, CBS Television
51 W 52nd Street
New York, NY
USA 10019
Dear Mr. Safer:
I have been resisting occasional impulses to expand and amplify "The Ugly Face of 60 Minutes," which as you know
is my December 1994 critique of 60 Minutes broadcast "The Ugly Face of Freedom" - as it presently stands, this
critique covers the main points adequately, and I do not have time to polish it. Occasionally, however, some defect
or other of the 60 Minutes broadcast presents itself from a new angle, and I find myself wondering if adding a
description of this freshly-viewed defect to my critique would not strengthen it. For example, just now I thought of
adding:
Mr. Safer tells us of the Lviv reunion of Galicia Division veterans that "Nowhere, not even
in Germany, are the SS so openly celebrated," and yet does not pause to explain how it can be
that in this most open of all celebrations of the SS, not a single portrait of Hitler can be
seen, not a single hand is raised in a Heil Hitler salute, no Nazi marching songs are being sung
or played, no Nazi speeches are recorded, not a single swastika is anywhere on display - not even
a single "SS" can be discovered anywhere among the many medals and insignia worn by the
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 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
compelling images that goes instantaneously to forty, fifty million
people - a sizable percentage of the whole country - and murders our
reputation. Murders it. Unjustifiably. That's the situation we're
talking about here. So," Marder said, "what do you advise us to do,
Ed?"
"Well," Fuller cleared his throat again. "I always advise my
clients to tell the truth."
Of course Michael Crichton's depiction above is fictional, and so may be
exaggerated. However, anyone who is acquainted with 60 Minutes' broadcast The Ugly
Face of Freedom of 23 Oct 1994 - hosted by yourself - cannot help wondering whether
Crichton's depiction might in fact be accurate, at least in occasional instances.
I wonder if you would not at long last care to break your silence and say a word
either of retraction and apology, or if not that, then at least some word in defense
of your broadcast and of your profession?
Yours truly,
Lubomyr Prytulak
cc: Ed Bradley, Jeffrey Fager, Don Hewitt, Steve Kroft, Andy Rooney, Lesley Stahl,
Mike Wallace.
HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE SAFER 820 hits since 9Apr99
Morley Safer Letter 5 9Apr99 Who blew the hands off Maksym Tsarenko?
The sort of powerful story that neither you nor Rabbi Bleich were able to find is one of
a Russian summer-camp councillor who had his hands blown off by Ukrainian
nationalists for using the Russian language within Ukraine; or one of a Jewish
summer-camp councillor having his hands blown off by Ukrainian nationalists for using
Hebrew or Yiddish within Ukraine. Such things do not happen within Ukraine to either
Russians or to Jews - they happen only to Ukrainians.
April 9, 1999
Morley Safer
60 Minutes, CBS Television
51 W 52nd Street
New York, NY
USA 10019
Morley Safer:
Who Blew The Hands Off
Maksym Tsarenko?
The photograph above shows Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma bestowing the Order of
Yaroslaw the Wise on Maksym Tsarenko. My free translation of the text which explains
the photograph is as follows:
Among the first recipients of the Order, awarded on the fourth
anniversary of the national independence of Ukraine, were leading
Ukrainian workers in the fields of culture, art, and law: O.
Basystiuk, A. Mokrenko, and F. Burchak.
On this same day, the president of Ukraine also bestowed this mark
of distinction, "for valor" upon twenty-year-old student at the
Vynnytsia Pedagogical Institute, Maksym Tsarenko.
During the summer holidays, Maksym was working as a councillor at a
summer camp for young girls near Yevpatoria, Crimea.
Haters of Ukraine, who rush to propose the view that Crimea is not a
peninsula attached to Ukraine, but rather is an island unconnected
to Ukraine, reacted with hostility to this summer camp, especially
provoked by the Ukrainian language spoken by the Ukrainian children,
which dared to resound even within Ukrainian Crimea. The hatred
mounted to such an irrepressible degree that it provoked the bandits
to the most egregious crime: they constructed an explosive and threw
it into the window of the children's dormitory. Ten or so children
could have been killed by the explosion. But the young Ukrainian
councillor showed no confusion as to his duty. He picked up the
bomb, shielding it with his own body, and jumped out of the
building. Unfortunately, the bomb went off, seriously wounding
Maksym.
The best local surgeons fought for several days to save the boy's
life. Thanks to them, the youth's life was spared. Unfortunately,
it was not possible to save his hands.
No one can accuse the recipient of not having earned his award.
Ukrainian awards, in contrast to Soviet, are fully deserved.
(Ukrainian-language newspaper, Novyi Shliakh (New Pathway) of
7Oct95, based on the earlier report in Ukrains'ke Slovo, (Ukrainian
Word), Kyiv, No. 37, 14Sep95)
The above story of Maksym Tsarenko compels me to ask - not for the first time - who
is in danger in Ukraine? The Western media urge us to accept that it is Jews and
Russians who are in danger, threatened by Ukrainian nationalists. That, for example,
is the conclusion of your infamous 60 Minutes broadcast The Ugly Face of Freedom of
23Oct94. However, you came back from your brief visit to Ukraine with no data to
substantiate such a claim. Almost a year ago, the Ukrainian Archive has requested
both of you and of Rabbi Bleich the evidence backing your report of violence against
Jews, and neither of you has as yet condescended to reply, strengthening the
suspicion that your story was fabricated.
The sort of powerful story that neither you nor Rabbi Bleich were able to find is one
of a Russian summer-camp councillor who had his hands blown off by Ukrainian
nationalists for using the Russian language within Ukraine; or one of a Jewish
summer-camp councillor having his hands blown off by Ukrainian nationalists for using
Hebrew or Yiddish within Ukraine. Such things do not happen within Ukraine to either
Russians or to Jews - they happen only to Ukrainians. It is the story of Ukrainians
being persecuted within Ukraine that you could have richly documented and broadcast
to the world. The story of Maksym Tsarenko can be found multiplied many times over
the torture-murders of Ukrainian activist Volodymyr Katelnytsky and his mother in
their Kyiv apartment providing a recent example. The contrasting story of Jewish or
Russian victimization within Ukraine is bogus - and yet that is the story that you
unscrupulously chose to broadcast.
Lubomyr Prytulak
cc: Rabbi Bleich, Ed Bradley, Jeffrey Fager, Don Hewitt, Steve Kroft, Andy Rooney,
Lesley Stahl, Mike Wallace.
HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE SAFER 1973 hits since 20Apr99
Morley Safer Letter 6 20Apr99 What kind of people run 60 Minutes?
Women who worked in the "60 Minutes" offices described to Hertsgaard a sexually
charged environment that had more in common with a drunken frat party than a
professional newsroom. - Carol Lloyd
The excerpt quoted in my letter to Morley Safer below is taken from a Carol Lloyd's A
Feel For a Good Story of 17Mar98, published on the web site Mothers Who Think, whose
home page can be accessed by clicking on the link immediately above, or on the logo
immediately below:
60 Minutes Executive Producer,
Don Hewitt.
But the charges against Hewitt make Clinton's alleged behavior look
like clumsy courtship. One woman described to Hertsgaard how
Hewitt slammed her against a wall, pinned her there and forced his
tongue down her throat. - Carol Lloyd
April 20, 1999
Morley Safer
60 Minutes, CBS Television
51 W 52nd Street
New York, NY
USA 10019
Morley Safer:
I call to your attention the following excerpt from Carol Lloyd's A Feel For a Good
Story, published on the web site Mothers Who Think on 17Mar98. I will be asking you
further below whether the information provided by Carol Lloyd might help explain your
orchestra which recently, at the opening of the season, performed the works of
Tchaikovsky and of two Jewish composers. A Jew, Kotlyk, head of the Jewish Society,
was elected as a member of the City Council.
Two years ago, in the center of the city, not far from "Hitler Square," a monument
dedicated to the victims of the Lviv ghetto was unveiled. This is the biggest and
most prominent Jewish memorial in all of Europe. Haven't you seen it?
As head of the Jewish Council, I was present at all the events that I am describing,
and I can document them. Your discussing these events in a future broadcast would
present a wonderful balance which together with your video footage would paint an
accurate picture of Jewish life in Ukraine, and not a deliberately one-sided one.
One cannot indict any nation on the grounds that a few of its members were evil.
Evil individuals exist in every nation. But why didn't you show those Ukrainians
and Poles who rescued Jews? There are many of them. Initially, we ourselves didn't
know about them, as they remained silent, and our former regime forbade them to
speak on such topics. In Lviv, Simon Wiesenthal himself was rescued from death, and
in Boryslav, the head of the Israeli parliament, Shevakh Weiss, with whom in 1992 I
personally visited his own rescuers.
We have a list of almost 2,500 Ukrainians who rescued Jews, and many of these are
precisely from the Western region. We have brought these rescuers to Israel,
presented them with certificates, and are now supporting them with pensions. We are
presently in the process of submitting this list of rescuers to the Holocaust Museum
in Washington. Concerning this I have been making particular arrangements, as I
will be in the United States later this year.
You broadcast that Lviv is being depopulated of Jews. However, this has been
happening throughout the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), and began not
recently, but even during the Bolshevik regime - but nobody is blaming this on
anti-Semitism. Rather, other motives are responsible: economics, Chornobyl, the
reunification of families. Anti-Semitism plays a far weaker role. Our Council
interviews Jewish emigrants and has definitive information on this question.
Jews, perhaps more than others, should avoid throwing blanket insults and
accusations at other peoples because they themselves - as a people and not as
individuals - have been blamed by the Fascists for all sins. Why do you, then,
proclaim all Ukrainians to be genetic anti-Semites? Why, in addition to talking
about the police did you not also talk about the rescuers of Jews, did not show a
single one of them? And in Lviv, there are many of them. Is it that you couldn't
find any, or that you didn't want to look?
I wish to declare to you officially: in the new Ukraine, there is no state-sponsored
anti-Semitism. Not long ago, a Jew fulfilled the obligations of the prime minister
of Ukraine. The mayors of Odessa and Vynnytsia are Jews. The mayor of Cherkasy was
a Jew. There are six Jews in parliament. Some Deputy Ministers are Jews. It is
such outstanding facts as these that convey the predominant attitude of Ukrainians
to Jewish rebirth, to Jewish culture.
Among the CIS, Ukraine was the first to hold a Jewish Congress. The Days of Jewish
Culture were celebrated this year as a National holiday, dedicated to the 135th
anniversary of Shalom Aleichem. In Ukraine, there are active Jewish organisations
in 89 cities. Eleven Jewish newspapers are published. Ten schools are in
operation. Jewish groups have been formed within Pedagogical and Theatrical
Institutes (composed of 80% Ukrainians who have mastered Hebrew). We have held a
festival of children's vocal and dance ensembles in which 46 groups applied to
participate. Ukrainian television broadcasts two Jewish programs. Jewish
spectacles are performed on the stages of Ukraine.
For the fifth year now we have honored the victims of Babyn Yar, where there has
been erected the Jewish monument "Menorah," and at which have been placed wreaths
both from the President of Ukraine and from the Kyiv City Council. Just this year,
the Days of Babyn Yar commemorations were conducted over the period of an entire
week. In all cities (in all!) in which Jews were shot during the War, annual
remembrance days are observed.
All this you failed to see, and so you did great harm not only to Ukrainians, but to
Jews as well.
In our work of resurrecting Jewish life, we receive help from such prominent
Ukrainian intellectuals and parliamentarians as B. Oliynyk, P. Osadchuk, O. Yemets,
D. Pavlychko, V. Yavorivskyi, I. Drach, P. Movchan, M. Shulha, I. Dziuba, V.
Durdynets, and many others. We do not want to return to former times, and yet that
is the direction in which your broadcast is pushing us. You have done as the
Bolsheviks used to do - you presented information that is one-sided, suppressed
information that does not fit your stereotype, biased the selection of materials,
strengthened and reinforced negativism. It would be as if the Los Angeles riots
were shown to us here as representative American events.
If you want to convince yourselves that everything I have been saying is true,
please come to us and film anything you want. Please regard this as an official
invitation of our Jewish Council.
Certainly there exist many disappointments in our work. A lot remains to be done in
revitalizing Jewish culture. We cannot immediately realize all our goals. But this
is never merely because we are Jews; it is never attributable to either
state-sponsored or spontaneous anti-Semitism. You must be aware in what a difficult
economic situation Ukraine finds itself - and yet despite this, the government gives
high priority to the support of cultural diversity, included in which is the support
of Jewish culture. For example, the observance of the Days of Jewish Culture in
Ukraine was funded entirely by the Ukrainian government - close to two billion
karbovantsi, and this in our difficult economic times!
It is these many things, then, that are of importance to us, and not the activities
of individual ultra-nationalists who don't receive support from most Ukrainians;
where in fact most Ukrainians condemn their activities.
Oh, democracy! Is there any country, even the United States, which has succeeded in
ridding itself of anti-Semitism? And are the American anti-Semites representative
of official government attitudes toward Jews? Or are isolated events in Los Angeles
reflective of United States government attitudes toward Blacks?
Esteemed gentlemen! You didn't do a good thing insulting the Ukrainian people.
Imagine if someone collected similarly true but unrepresentative facts to paint a
negative picture of the Jewish people. Remember the Biblical injunction: Don't do
anything to another that you would not want done to yourself.
Please revisit us with an open mind, and not with any fixed bias. The United States
is presently awaiting the visit of our President, and we don't want his visit to be
marred by any anti-Ukrainian actions from anybody, especially not from Jews; nor
would we want American assistance to our country to depend on isolated individuals
who are opposed to granting such assistance.
We await you in Ukraine.
Respectfully,
I.M. Levitas
Head of the Jewish Council of Ukraine
Head of the Nationalities Associations of Ukraine
HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE JORDAN 726 hits since 23May98
Jordan Letter 5 Jul 18/96 Genetic anti-Semitism
July 18, 1996
Michael H. Jordan
Chairman, Westinghouse Electric Corporation
11 Stanwix Street
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
USA 15222
Dear Mr. Jordan:
I have some questions for Morley Safer, and I route them to him through you, as I have discovered over the years
that he is not very communicative when addressed directly - perhaps if the request to respond to these questions came
from you, he might be more forthcoming. Specifically, I wonder if you would be so good as to ask Mr. Safer the
questions organized under the following eight points, all of them in connection with his October 23, 1994 statement
that "The Church and Government of Ukraine have tried to ease people's fears, suggesting that ... Ukrainians, despite
the allegations, are not genetically anti-Semitic.":
(1) Through what source did Mr. Safer become aware of the allegation that Ukrainians were genetically
anti-Semitic? And what were the qualifications of this source in the field of human genetics, particularly in the
field of the genetic inheritance of cognitive predispositions?
(2) Before broadcasting this allegation, did Mr. Safer verify its plausibility with any responsible geneticist?
(3) What does Mr. Safer mean by "the church of Ukraine"? This reference is as puzzling as would be a reference
to "the church of the United States."
(4) Could Mr. Safer divulge the name of the church representative who issued this denial of a genetic
predisposition to anti-Semitism on the part of Ukrainians, and indicate as well the time and the place of the denial?
(5) Could Mr. Safer similarly identify the Government of Ukraine representative who issued this same denial of a
genetic predisposition to anti-Semitism on the part of Ukrainians - who was it, when, where?
(6) Is Mr. Safer aware of a genetic predisposition to anti-Semitism on the part of any other group - or is this
in his estimation a uniquely Ukrainian phenomenon?
(7) Has Mr. Safer considered the possibility that his own antipathy toward Ukrainians is genetically based? If
not, then how would he account for it? And if not, would Mr. Safer be willing to issue a public statement to the
effect that his anti-Ukrainianism is not genetic in origin?
(8) Could Mr. Safer comment on the possibility that the refusal of CBS personnel to discuss "The Ugly Face of
Freedom" might similarly be genetically-based? If CBS personnel reject the notion that their corporate decisions are
genetically influenced, then could Mr. Safer persuade them to issue a joint statement to this effect, and in
particular denying that they are genetically anti-Ukrainian?
These few and simple questions, it seems to me, serve the useful purpose of establishing what category Mr.
Safer's statement falls into: that of a responsible journalist who picks his words carefully and later stands by them,
or that of a bigot who gets up in front of the camera and begins to ramble off the top of his head - and later selects
muteness as the optimal defense for his irresponsibility.
Sincerely yours,
Lubomyr Prytulak
cc: Ed Bradley, Steve Kroft, Morley Safer, Lesley Stahl, Mike Wallace
HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE JORDAN
HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE JORDAN 1473 hits since 23May98
Jordan Letter 6 Jul 19/96 Allowing a fabulist on 60 Minutes
July 19, 1996
Michael H. Jordan
Chairman, Westinghouse Electric Corporation
11 Stanwix Street
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
USA 15222
Dear Mr. Jordan:
When I began reading Simon Wiesenthal in late 1994, I was naive enough to imagine
that my discovery that he had a credibility problem was an original one. Since that
time, however, I have learned that Mr. Wiesenthal's lack of credibility is widely known
and openly acknowledged. For example, on April 28, 1996, I received a letter from a
Jewish faculty member at an American University, from which I quote the following:
I do not doubt for a moment ... that Simon Wiesenthal is a fabulist
which is the fancy literary word for an unmitigated liar. My father
(an Auschwitz inmate) told me many terrible stories about Wiesenthal's
role after the war in the Austrian DP camps. Wiesenthal is of the same
ilk as Elie Wiesel: a secular saint, he can make the most absurd claims
without fear of exposure.
Now the question that I would like to add to the ones that I have already addressed
to you is the following: How did it come to pass that in 1994 a reputable investigative
journalism show featured as its star witness someone who is widely known to be - shall
we say - a "fabulist"?
And from this question springs a second one: How does it come to pass today that a
reputable investigative journalism show, having learned that it has been victimized by
a "fabulist," refuses to take any corrective action?
Yours truly,
Lubomyr Prytulak
cc: Ed Bradley, Steve Kroft, Morley Safer, Lesley Stahl, Mike Wallace, Simon Wiesenthal
HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE JORDAN 1763 hits since 23May98
Bleich Letter 8 23May98 Please substantiate or retract
If your 60 Minutes testimony concerning violent attacks on Jews by Ukrainians and
motivated by anti-Semitism is true, then it behooves you to substantiate it and in so doing
to remove the doubt which surrounds it. If your 60 Minutes testimony is false, then it
behooves you to retract it. Either option will constitute a step toward restoring your
standing in the eyes of the Ukrainian community, and in ameliorating Ukrainian-Jewish
relations.
Silence is an option only if you are prepared to encourage the conclusion that you spoke
impulsively and irresponsibly, and that you subsequently lacked the courage and integrity
to admit your error.
May 23, 1998
Rabbi Yaakov Dov Bleich
29 Shchekavytska Street
Kiev 254071
Ukraine
Dear Rabbi Bleich:
In your appearance on the 60 Minutes broadcast "The Ugly Face of Freedom" of 23
October 1994, you offered some startling testimony concerning the existence of
anti-Semitism in contemporary Ukraine. In your own words:
There have been a number of physical attacks. In a small town, two
elderly Jews were attacked at knifepoint and stabbed because they are
Jews and because of the myth that all Jews must have money hidden in
their homes. The same thing was in west Ukraine, the Carpathian
region. These are very, very frightening facts, because it's - again
that stereotype that we mentioned before, when that leads someone to
really - to - to stab an older couple and leave them helpless, and
you know? - they left them for dead. That means that we have serious
problems.
In the mind of the typical 60 Minutes viewer, your statement would constitute a
substantial proportion of the Ugly Face of Freedom's evidence for the existence of
anti-Semitism in today's Ukraine, and the only evidence at all for the eruption of this
anti-Semitism into violence.
However, I cannot help noticing that your statement is devoid of detail. You do
not disclose the names of the victims, nor the places and dates of the attacks. Nor do
you indicate the source of your information - did you hear about these attacks on the
radio, see them on television, read about them in the newspapers, receive personal
communication, or what? This lack of detail is particularly troubling in view of four
considerations:
(1) that your non-specific testimony occurred in the middle of a broadcast which
was dominated by misrepresentation and disinformation;
(2) that it came from the mouth of an individual recognized in the Ukrainian
community for holding anti-Ukrainian views, and for spreading anti-Ukrainian hatred, as
I think I have demonstrated in my seven previous letters to you of 6Jan95, 26Sep97,
27Sep97, 28Sep97, 29Sep97, 29Sep97, and 30Sep97, in which letters are discussed such
issues as that of your reciting every Saturday in the capital city of Ukraine the
Khmelnytsky curse;
(3) that Jewish interests have sometimes employed exaggerated, or wholly-imagined,
or even self-inflicted anti-Semitic acts to achieve such aims as heightened group
cohesion or increased emigration to Israel; and
(4) that Jewish groups in Ukraine who monitor anti-Semitic incidents report being
unaware of the two attacks that you describe.
Specifically with respect to point (4) above, an open letter to Morley Safer and
the 60 Minutes staff from I. M. Levitas, Head of the Jewish Council of Ukraine as well
as of the Nationalities Associations of Ukraine, as published in the Lviv newspaper Za
Vilnu Ukrainu (For a Free Ukraine) on December 2, 1994, included the following
observations, which I translate from the original Ukrainian. In the portion of the
letter that I quote below, Mr. Levitas argues that the attacks you describe may have
been simple robberies devoid of anti-Semitism. More importantly, Mr. Levitas provides
us with reason to wonder whether the attacks occurred at all:
You reported that two Jews were robbed and beaten. This might have
happened, but most likely not because they were Jews. I imagine that
in Lviv, Ukrainians are also robbed (and significantly more often!),
and yet nobody draws from this the sort of conclusions concerning
ethnic hostility that you draw from the robbing of these two Jews.
Our Jewish Council constantly receives news concerning Jews in
Ukraine, but during the past five years, we have received not a single
report of anyone being beaten because he was a Jew. However, it must
be admitted that such a thing may have occurred without it coming to
our attention - there are plenty of miscreants in every country.
The above speculations lead us once again to the questions of whether your
orientation toward the Ukrainian state is supportive or destructive, responsible or
irresponsible, restrained by reason or fired by emotion. A step toward answering such
questions would be taken by your responding to the points below:
(1) Would you be able to provide the names of the two sets of Jewish victims that
you alluded to (that is, the victims of the knife attack, and the similar victims in the
"Carpathian region"), and the places and dates of the attacks? If by "a number of
attacks" you mean more than two, I would appreciate receiving such documentation for the
other attacks as well. If in addition you are in possession of corroborative evidence
such as videotapes, newspaper clippings, or letters, I would appreciate receiving copies
of these as well.
(2) If the attacks did occur, then there follows the question of what motivated
them. Mr. Levitas suggests that if the knife attack occurred, then it was more likely
driven by economic motives than anti-Semitic ones. You, on the other hand offer that
the attack occurred "because they are Jews," and "because of the myth that all Jews must
have money hidden in their homes," and because "it's - again that stereotype." But for
you to know that the motivation was predominantly anti-Semitic, the perpetrators of the
attacks must have been caught and must have confessed and disclosed their motivation,
unless there exists some alternative evidence pointing to the same conclusion. In any
case, whatever the nature of the material that you relied upon to conclude that the two
attacks had been motivated by anti-Semitism, I wonder if you would be able to provide me
with a copy of it.
(3) I myself was unaware of any Ukrainian "myth that all Jews must have money
hidden in their homes." This strikes me not so much as a myth believed by Ukrainians
about Jews, as a myth believed by yourself about Ukrainians. I wonder if you could
inform me of what evidence you have that Ukrainians are so primitive in their thinking
as to entertain the fantastic myth that "all Jews must have money hidden in their
homes."
If your 60 Minutes testimony concerning violent attacks on Jews by Ukrainians and
motivated by anti-Semitism is true, then it behooves you to substantiate it and in so
doing to remove the doubt which surrounds it. If your 60 Minutes testimony is false,
then it behooves you to retract it. Either option will constitute a step toward
restoring your standing in the eyes of the Ukrainian community, and in ameliorating
Ukrainian-Jewish relations.
Silence is an option only if you are prepared to encourage the conclusion that you
spoke impulsively and irresponsibly, and that you subsequently lacked the courage and
integrity to admit your error.
Yours truly,
Lubomyr Prytulak
cc: Ed Bradley, Jeffrey Fager, Don Hewitt, Steve Kroft, Andy Rooney, Morley Safer,
Lesley Stahl, Mike Wallace.
HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE SAFER Safer > 815 hits since 24May98
Morely Safer Letter 1 28Dec94 Please explain silence
December 28, 1994
Morley Safer
51 W 52nd Street
New York, NY
USA 10019
Dear Mr. Safer:
I have been wondering which of the following three reasons best explains why 60 Minutes has not yet broadcast a
correction, a retraction, and an apology for "The Ugly Face of Freedom":
(1) The amount of disinformation in the broadcast was so large that a considerable amount of research and
introspection are necessary before a full and just response can be formulated - but one will soon be forthcoming.
(2) 60 Minutes' researchers and consultants have concluded that none of the objections to the broadcast are
valid, and a full rebuttal of these objections will shortly be made available.
(3) Whether the Ukrainian objections are right or wrong is irrelevant what is relevant is that CBS views
Ukrainians as too weak to force CBS to suffer any loss of face.
As time passes with no response from 60 Minutes, Ukrainians are increasingly pulled toward the third of these as
the correct explanation.
Yours truly,
Lubomyr Prytulak
HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE SAFER 669 hits since 24May98
Morely Safer Letter 2 19Mar96 Contempt for the viewer
March 19, 1996
Morley Safer
60 Minutes, CBS Television
51 W 52nd Street
New York, NY
USA 10019
Dear Mr. Safer:
I have been resisting occasional impulses to expand and amplify "The Ugly Face of 60 Minutes," which as you know
is my December 1994 critique of 60 Minutes broadcast "The Ugly Face of Freedom" - as it presently stands, this
critique covers the main points adequately, and I do not have time to polish it. Occasionally, however, some defect
or other of the 60 Minutes broadcast presents itself from a new angle, and I find myself wondering if adding a
description of this freshly-viewed defect to my critique would not strengthen it. For example, just now I thought of
adding:
Mr. Safer tells us of the Lviv reunion of Galicia Division veterans that "Nowhere, not even
in Germany, are the SS so openly celebrated," and yet does not pause to explain how it can be
that in this most open of all celebrations of the SS, not a single portrait of Hitler can be
seen, not a single hand is raised in a Heil Hitler salute, no Nazi marching songs are being sung
or played, no Nazi speeches are recorded, not a single swastika is anywhere on display - not even
a single "SS" can be discovered anywhere among the many medals and insignia worn by the
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 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
compelling images that goes instantaneously to forty, fifty million
people - a sizable percentage of the whole country - and murders our
reputation. Murders it. Unjustifiably. That's the situation we're
talking about here. So," Marder said, "what do you advise us to do,
Ed?"
"Well," Fuller cleared his throat again. "I always advise my
clients to tell the truth."
Of course Michael Crichton's depiction above is fictional, and so may be
exaggerated. However, anyone who is acquainted with 60 Minutes' broadcast The Ugly
Face of Freedom of 23 Oct 1994 - hosted by yourself - cannot help wondering whether
Crichton's depiction might in fact be accurate, at least in occasional instances.
I wonder if you would not at long last care to break your silence and say a word
either of retraction and apology, or if not that, then at least some word in defense
of your broadcast and of your profession?
Yours truly,
Lubomyr Prytulak
cc: Ed Bradley, Jeffrey Fager, Don Hewitt, Steve Kroft, Andy Rooney, Lesley Stahl,
Mike Wallace.
HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE SAFER 820 hits since 9Apr99
Morley Safer Letter 5 9Apr99 Who blew the hands off Maksym Tsarenko?
The sort of powerful story that neither you nor Rabbi Bleich were able to find is one of
a Russian summer-camp councillor who had his hands blown off by Ukrainian
nationalists for using the Russian language within Ukraine; or one of a Jewish
summer-camp councillor having his hands blown off by Ukrainian nationalists for using
Hebrew or Yiddish within Ukraine. Such things do not happen within Ukraine to either
Russians or to Jews - they happen only to Ukrainians.
April 9, 1999
Morley Safer
60 Minutes, CBS Television
51 W 52nd Street
New York, NY
USA 10019
Morley Safer:
Who Blew The Hands Off
Maksym Tsarenko?
The photograph above shows Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma bestowing the Order of
Yaroslaw the Wise on Maksym Tsarenko. My free translation of the text which explains
the photograph is as follows:
Among the first recipients of the Order, awarded on the fourth
anniversary of the national independence of Ukraine, were leading
Ukrainian workers in the fields of culture, art, and law: O.
Basystiuk, A. Mokrenko, and F. Burchak.
On this same day, the president of Ukraine also bestowed this mark
of distinction, "for valor" upon twenty-year-old student at the
Vynnytsia Pedagogical Institute, Maksym Tsarenko.
During the summer holidays, Maksym was working as a councillor at a
summer camp for young girls near Yevpatoria, Crimea.
Haters of Ukraine, who rush to propose the view that Crimea is not a
peninsula attached to Ukraine, but rather is an island unconnected
to Ukraine, reacted with hostility to this summer camp, especially
provoked by the Ukrainian language spoken by the Ukrainian children,
which dared to resound even within Ukrainian Crimea. The hatred
mounted to such an irrepressible degree that it provoked the bandits
to the most egregious crime: they constructed an explosive and threw
it into the window of the children's dormitory. Ten or so children
could have been killed by the explosion. But the young Ukrainian
councillor showed no confusion as to his duty. He picked up the
bomb, shielding it with his own body, and jumped out of the
building. Unfortunately, the bomb went off, seriously wounding
Maksym.
The best local surgeons fought for several days to save the boy's
life. Thanks to them, the youth's life was spared. Unfortunately,
it was not possible to save his hands.
No one can accuse the recipient of not having earned his award.
Ukrainian awards, in contrast to Soviet, are fully deserved.
(Ukrainian-language newspaper, Novyi Shliakh (New Pathway) of
7Oct95, based on the earlier report in Ukrains'ke Slovo, (Ukrainian
Word), Kyiv, No. 37, 14Sep95)
The above story of Maksym Tsarenko compels me to ask - not for the first time - who
is in danger in Ukraine? The Western media urge us to accept that it is Jews and
Russians who are in danger, threatened by Ukrainian nationalists. That, for example,
is the conclusion of your infamous 60 Minutes broadcast The Ugly Face of Freedom of
23Oct94. However, you came back from your brief visit to Ukraine with no data to
substantiate such a claim. Almost a year ago, the Ukrainian Archive has requested
both of you and of Rabbi Bleich the evidence backing your report of violence against
Jews, and neither of you has as yet condescended to reply, strengthening the
suspicion that your story was fabricated.
The sort of powerful story that neither you nor Rabbi Bleich were able to find is one
of a Russian summer-camp councillor who had his hands blown off by Ukrainian
nationalists for using the Russian language within Ukraine; or one of a Jewish
summer-camp councillor having his hands blown off by Ukrainian nationalists for using
Hebrew or Yiddish within Ukraine. Such things do not happen within Ukraine to either
Russians or to Jews - they happen only to Ukrainians. It is the story of Ukrainians
being persecuted within Ukraine that you could have richly documented and broadcast
to the world. The story of Maksym Tsarenko can be found multiplied many times over
the torture-murders of Ukrainian activist Volodymyr Katelnytsky and his mother in
their Kyiv apartment providing a recent example. The contrasting story of Jewish or
Russian victimization within Ukraine is bogus - and yet that is the story that you
unscrupulously chose to broadcast.
Lubomyr Prytulak
cc: Rabbi Bleich, Ed Bradley, Jeffrey Fager, Don Hewitt, Steve Kroft, Andy Rooney,
Lesley Stahl, Mike Wallace.
HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE SAFER 1973 hits since 20Apr99
Morley Safer Letter 6 20Apr99 What kind of people run 60 Minutes?
Women who worked in the "60 Minutes" offices described to Hertsgaard a sexually
charged environment that had more in common with a drunken frat party than a
professional newsroom. - Carol Lloyd
The excerpt quoted in my letter to Morley Safer below is taken from a Carol Lloyd's A
Feel For a Good Story of 17Mar98, published on the web site Mothers Who Think, whose
home page can be accessed by clicking on the link immediately above, or on the logo
immediately below:
60 Minutes Executive Producer,
Don Hewitt.
But the charges against Hewitt make Clinton's alleged behavior look
like clumsy courtship. One woman described to Hertsgaard how
Hewitt slammed her against a wall, pinned her there and forced his
tongue down her throat. - Carol Lloyd
April 20, 1999
Morley Safer
60 Minutes, CBS Television
51 W 52nd Street
New York, NY
USA 10019
Morley Safer:
I call to your attention the following excerpt from Carol Lloyd's A Feel For a Good
Story, published on the web site Mothers Who Think on 17Mar98. I will be asking you
further below whether the information provided by Carol Lloyd might help explain your