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