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
