k 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 < Safer 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 < Safer 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 < Safer 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 < Safer 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 23Oct94 60 Minutes broadcast, The Ugly Face of Freedom: The irony is that Hewitt - the creator of the TV show famous for unveiling corruption and hypocrisy among the powerful - has been accused of worse deeds than any of the sexual charges leveled at Clinton. In 1991, reporter Mark Hertsgaard, author of "On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency," wrote an article for Rolling Stone magazine in which he documented Hewitt's own serious problems with impulse control. 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. Correspondent Mike Wallace was singled out for bottom slapping, lewd comments and unsnapping co-workers' bras. While today no one would hesitate to call such behavior sexual harassment, Wallace's cheerful willingness to do it in public - even in front of a stranger - made him seem like a good (albeit unpleasant) old boy. 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. Hewitt vehemently denied the story and all other allegations to Hertsgaard, while Wallace admitted his own antics and promised they would never happen again. Rolling Stone eventually published Hertsgaard's article in a drastically reduced form, although Hertsgaard says Hewitt pulled all the strings he could to get the story killed. In an interview from his home in Takoma Park, Md., Hertsgaard spoke to Salon about the allegations of sexual harassment at "60 Minutes" that never made it into print - and about how the "men's club" within the media exposes other sexually reckless men, but still protects its own. Your story has some pretty explosive accusations against Don Hewitt. How did you come to write the piece? Sexual harassment was not the point of the investigation. I literally witnessed sexual harassment on my first day of interviews at "60 Minutes" and women began to tell me about it, so it gradually found its way into the story. But that wasn't the point, it just was so pervasive at the time that you couldn't miss it. What did you witness when you were there? The first day I was in the corridor talking with a female staffer and I saw out of the corner of my eye Mr. Wallace coming down the hall. He didn't know me yet because I hadn't interviewed him, so he had no idea that it was a reporter standing there. I'm sure it would have changed his mind. Anyway, just before he reached her she pushed both her hands behind her bottom, like a little kid trying to ward off a mama's spanking, and got up on her toes and leaned away. But that didn't stop him. As he went by, he swatted her on the butt with a rolled up magazine or newspaper or something like that. That's no big deal, one could say, but I must say it did raise my eyebrows. I said to her, "God, does that happen all the time?" and she said, "Are you kidding? That is nothing." And that led to people telling me how he'd also unsnap your bra strap or snap it for you. So he had a reputation for that. Then I also heard about this far-more-worrisome incident with Hewitt and that one did get into the piece, although in a much censored form, where he lunges at a woman in a deserted place, pins her against the wall and sticks his tongue in her mouth. There were other incidents women told me about Hewitt, and, of course, (former) Washington Post journalist Sally Quinn was already on the record in her book "We're Going to Make You a Star" accusing Hewitt of making an aggressive pass at her and sabotaging her work when she refused him. Was the sexual harassment at "60 Minutes" pervasive? It sure seemed that way. There's a woman quoted in my story saying that Mike would constantly have his hands on your thigh, or whatnot. One producer said that basically Mike Wallace and Don Hewitt felt this was their right. And that's how a lot of men in television felt for many years. Women were basically hired for their looks. You had to be competent too, but you damn well better look good. I understand that you had a difficult time getting the story published in Rolling Stone. The entire piece almost never ran because Don Hewitt tried to kill it and (Rolling Stone editor and publisher) Jann Wenner almost went along with him. They did emasculate the piece by taking out a lot of the damaging material. You'll see in there that there is one basic episode involving Don. There were four that I had reported. [...] So what did you think when you saw Hewitt taking a stand for Kathleen Willey? It was odd to me, seeing Don quoted in the New York Times on Friday and Saturday as he was hyping Sunday's broadcast. He's talking about what happened and I just thought of that old Dylan song: "You've got a lot of nerve." I hoped somebody would call him on it. In today's Times, Patricia Ireland, head of NOW, is quoted as saying if these charges by Ms. Willey are true, it has crossed a very important line from sexual harassment to sexual assault. And if that's the case, we have to be very serious about it. Well, the situation where Hewitt stuck his tongue down that women's throat - that's assault. That is assault. She certainly felt like she was assaulted. She freed herself by kicking him in the balls - which they also cut out. She runs away and then the next day, there was a fancy gala event where you have to come in evening dress and she's there and Hewitt, this son of a gun - he's like a randy old goat - he just could not take no for an answer. She was wearing a backless gown and suddenly she feels someone running his fingers up and down her bare back. She turns around, obviously jumpy from what had happened the day before, and sees the object of her horror - Hewitt - saying, "Don't be scared, I just think you're a very attractive girl." They cut that out of the article too. There's a lot of huffing and puffing within the media about Clinton's alleged behavior, with a lot of journalists complaining about the public's so-called apathy on the subject. But in the case of men like Hewitt, it seems pretty hypocritical. It's absolutely unmistakable - and Hewitt is an extremely good example - how most of the discourse about this issue involves people who have no more moral standing than this ball-point pen in my hand. And that goes not just for Hewitt, but for many of these clowns both in the media here in Washington and in the Congress. Anybody who has spent any time around Capitol Hill knows that a large number of congressmen, both in the House and in the Senate, fool around with either their young staffers or the young female staffers of their colleagues. To any reporter who had their eyes open, this is not news. Carol Lloyd, A Feel For a Good Story, Mothers Who Think, 17Mar98. With respect to Carol Lloyd's statement above, I wonder if I could have your answers to just four questions: (1) Is 60 Minutes infected with a slackness of integrity? What Carol Lloyd appears to be describing in the upper echelons of the 60 Minutes administration - I am thinking particularly of executive producer Don Hewitt and co-editor Mike Wallace - is a deep-rooted slackness of integrity: the 60 Minutes environment has "more in common with a drunken frat party than a professional newsroom," the top 60 Minutes staff are "people who have no more moral standing than this ball-point pen in my hand," and executive producer Don Hewitt comports himself "like a randy old goat." Might it be the case, then, that the cause of your failing to satisfy minimal journalistic standards in your 23Oct94 60 Minutes broadcast The Ugly Face of Freedom, and of your failing also in the years since that broadcast to retract any of its many errors, is that you yourself became infected by the same slackness of integrity that had already gripped other of the 60 Minutes leadership? (2) Does female hiring demonstrate a willingness to sacrifice program quality? If the top 60 Minutes staff require their female employees to be physically attractive and sexually accessible, then might the resulting inability of 60 Minutes to retain women of high professional quality have resulted in a degradation in the average competence of female employees? One may speak of demanding competence together with beauty, but what woman of high competence would have hesitated to find alternative employment upon discovering the harassment and assault and career strangulation that threatened to be her lot if she remained at 60 Minutes? And so, in turn, might this readiness to lose the brightest women not be symptomatic of a readiness of the 60 Minutes administration to place extraneous goals - in this case, personal sexual gratification - above program quality? And might this same policy of demoting program quality to less than top priority have ultimately resulted in a severe degradation of the quality of some 60 Minutes broadcasts, as for example your story The Ugly Face of Freedom? (3) Does male hiring demonstrate any similar willingness to sacrifice program quality? One cannot help contemplating that if 60 Minutes is willing to promote goals other than program quality in its hiring of female employees, that it might be willing to promote goals other than program quality in its hiring of male employees as well. Might it be the case, for example, that male employees are sometimes hired not for competence, but for adherence to a 60 Minutes ideology? Or might it be the case that men of high professional quality left 60 Minutes, or refused to join 60 Minutes, upon witnessing the ideological claptrap that they might be asked to read over the air in violation of journalistic ethics and in violation of rules of evidence? This too could help explain the low quality of The Ugly Face of Freedom. (4) Do some 60 Minutes employees feel that malfeasance is their right? Referring to the harassment and assaulting of female employees, reporter Mark Hertsgaard is quoted as saying that "One producer said that basically Mike Wallace and Don Hewitt felt this was their right." This observation leads me to wonder whether there is not on the part of certain 60 Minutes staff some similar attitude to the effect that broadcasting their prejudices against Ukraine as facts is their right, and that enjoying freedom from accountability concerning what they have broadcast about Ukraine is also their right? Lubomyr Prytulak cc: Ed Bradley, Jeffrey Fager, Don Hewitt, Steve Kroft, Andy Rooney, Lesley Stahl, Mike Wallace. HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE SAFER < Safer Safer > 965 hits since 21Apr99 Morley Safer Letter 7 21Apr99 Does drinking wine promote longevity? At bottom, then, I see little difference between your French Paradox story of 5Nov95 and your Ugly Face of Freedom story of 23Oct94 - in each case, you ventured beyond your depth, giving superficial judgments on topics that you were unqualified to speak on, discussing questions that your education had given you no grounding in, and causing damage because your conclusions proved to be false. April 21, 1999 Morley Safer 60 Minutes, CBS Television 51 W 52nd Street New York, NY USA 10019 Morley Safer: I find your photograph. Recently, I was searching the internet looking for a photograph of you that I could use on the Ukrainian Archive (UKAR), and I did manage to find an attractive one, and I did put it on UKAR, as you can see at: http://www.ukar.org/safer.shtml I attach to it a caption. Underneath this photograph I selected from the many ill-considered things that you said in your 23Oct94 60 Minutes broadcast, The Ugly Face of Freedom, your statement "Western Ukraine also has a long, dark history of blaming its poverty, its troubles, on others." A moment's reflection upon this statement must convince any objective observer that it is unlikely to be the case that some historian that you consulted had recommended to you the conclusion that Western Ukrainians were more predisposed than other people to blaming their troubles on others. Rather, a moment's reflection must convince any objective observer that it is likely that this statement came off the top of your head without the least evidence to support it, and that you then had the temerity to pass it along to tens of millions of viewers as if it were a fact. In making this statement, and in making the scores of other erroneous or unsupported statements that you also made on that broadcast, you were inflicting harm upon Ukraine, you were lowering the credibility of 60 Minutes, and you were undermining your standing as a journalist of competence and integrity. What you are most famous for. The reason that I am writing to you today, however, concerns The Ugly Face of Freedom only indirectly. What concerns me today is a surprising discovery that I made while searching for your name on the Internet. The discovery is that your name seems to be most closely connected to the conclusion that drinking three to five glasses of wine per day increases longevity, which conclusion you proposed on a 60 Minutes story broadcast on 5Nov95, apparently under the title The French Paradox. It seems that you have become famous for this story, and that it may constitute the pinnacle of your career. For example, a representative Internet article that is found upon an InfoSeek search for "Morley Safer, 60 Minutes" is written by Kim Marcus and appears on the Home Wine Spectator web site. The article's headline announces that 60 Minutes Examines Stronger Evidence Linking Wine and Good Health, with the comparative "stronger" signifying that the evidence presented in the 5Nov95 broadcast was better than the evidence presented in a similar 60 Minutes broadcast four years earlier. This Home Wine Spectator article viewed your broadcast as demonstrating the existence of a causal connection between (what some might judge a high volume of) wine consumption and longevity, underlined your own high credibility and the high authority of your sources, pointed out the vast audience to which your conclusions had been beamed, and suggested that wine consumption shot up as a result of at least the first French Paradox broadcast: The study also found that the benefits of wine drinking extended to people who drank from three to five glasses of wine per day. "What surprised us most was that wine intake signified much lower mortality rates," Safer said to the television show's audience. Overall, the segment should prove a big boost to the argument that wine drinking