The third feature, a very disadvantageous one for Denikin's army and
government, appears as a result of the comparison of the declarations by
the Ukrainian government on the Jewish question, of laws concerning
personal-national autonomy and Jewish Communities on the one hand, with
the clauses restricting the number of Jews in educational institutions as
well as in civil and military services in Denikin's empire - on the other
hand. Here, on the part of the Ukrainian government, an effort to draw
on representatives of Jews in all levels of government posts, and over
there - in Denikin's camp - removal of Jewish officers from the army, and
of Jewish officials from district and city offices. And this - in spite
of the fact that so many Jews joined voluntarily at the very beginning
Koltchak's and Denikin's armies. And how many Jews having been brought
up with a Russian culture died for Russia that had been always a
stepmother to them? On the other hand, how small a group of us, Jews,
joined the Ukrainian movement at the beginning of the second revolution!
Of course, there was nothing strange in it. Wilson's points had been
declared but recently, and the realization of the right of
self-determination by the Ukrainian people wa such a new and fresh event
that not only the average Jewish citizen, but also the intellectuals,
with few exceptions, did not digest or understand all that had happened.
But the fact remains, Jews were represented by a very considerable number
in the ranks both of the Bolsheviks and, at the beginning, of Denikin's
army. The Ukrainian movement was joined only by a few Jews.
The representatives of Russian and Jewish capital and heavy industry were
marching hand-in-hand with the Volunteer Armies of Denikin, Yudenitch,
and Koltchak. And even after all those pogroms committed by Denikin's
army, the Jewish capitalists and industrialists followed the call of his
successor Wrangel, and joined him
Finally, one more feature out of many others that distinguish the
Ukrainian Movement from that of Denikin: An anti-Jewish pogrom was openly
carried on in Kiev in the presence of Denikin's generals, Drahomirov and
Bredov. Never did happen anything like that, wherever the Directorate
set up headquarters, neither in Kiev, nor in Vynnytsia, nor in
Kamanets-Pololsk. The Kiev population knows from bitter experience the
difference between those two regimes.
Nevertheless, in spite of all these quite essential differences, here
abroad the pogroms of the followers of Petlura are much more known than
those perpetrated by Denikin's army, although the latter numerically and
qualitatively surpassed considerably the former. This is to be explained
not only by the propaganda of the Russian groups which have old
connections and larger means in Europe and America, but also by the
incontestable fact that the first series of pogroms attracted the
greatest attention and brought forth the strongest expression of
dissatisfaction on the part of the public.
(In F. Pigido (ed.), Material Concerning Ukrainian-Jewish Relations
during the Years of the Revolution (1917-1921): Collection of Documents
and Testimonies by Prominent Jewish Political Workers, The Ukrainian
Information Bureau, Munich, 1956, pp. 48-51)
HOME DISINFORMATION 60 MINUTES 989 hits since 12Aug98
Ginsburg U.S. Court of Appeals 11Aug98 Serafyn vs. Federal Communications Commission
Serafyn also submitted evidence that "60 Minutes" had no policy against
news distortion and indeed that management considered some distortion
acceptable. For example, according to the Washington Post, Mike
Wallace, a longtime reporter for "60 Minutes," told an interviewer: "You
don't like to baldly lie, but I have."
An introduction to the United States Court of Appeals decision below can
be found in an Associated Press article by Jeannine Aversa which is on
the Ukrainian Archive.
The original of the Court of Appeals decision below can be found on the
United States Court of Appeals web site whose home page is at
www.cadc.uscourts.gov and where the decision can either be accessed by
following links from the Court of Appeals home page, or else accessed
directly at www.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199808/95-1385a.txt.
As page numbering was not indicated in the Court of Appeals web site
version, it could not be inserted below, although page boundaries could
be inferred and are indicated below by means of horizontal lines.
The version below inserts clickable yellow CONTENTS boxes to remedy the
general problem of a reader's losing track of where he is within a large
document when reading it on screen, and to facilitate moving effortlessly
from one part of the document to another.
CONTENTS:
Title Page
I. Background
II. News Distortion
A. Evidentiary standard
B. Licensee's policy on distortion
C. Nature of particular evidence
1. Extrinsic evidence
(a) Outtakes of the interview with Rabbi Bleich
(b) The viewer letters
(c) The refusal to consult Professor Luciuk
2. Evidence of factual inaccuracies
D. Misrepresentation
III. Conclusion
United States Court of Appeals
