Читаем ГУЛаг Палестины полностью

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