Lara Logan asked to take leave of absence from 60 Minutes

Lara Logan asked to take leave of absence from 60 Minutes

by Steveningen 

 

Well, finally. Chairman of CBS News and executive producer of 60 Minutes Jeff Fager, in a lengthy memo and outline of their findings from an internal investigation, has asked Lara Logan and producer Max McClellan to take a leave of absence from the program.

By now most of you have received the report from Al Ortiz about the problems with the 60 Minutes story on Benghazi. There is a lot to learn from this mistake for the entire organization. We have rebuilt CBS News in a way that has dramatically improved our reporting abilities. Ironically 60 Minutes, which has been a model for those changes, fell short by broadcasting a now discredited account of an important story, and did not take full advantage of the reporting abilities of CBS News that might have prevented it from happening.
As a result, I have asked Lara Logan, who has distinguished herself and has put herself in harm’s way many times in the course of covering stories for us, to take a leave of absence, which she has agreed to do. I have asked the same of producer Max McClellan, who also has a distinguished career at CBS News.

Al Ortiz, Executive Director of Standards and Practices, lists 10 paragraphs outlining the series of events that led 60 Minutes to invite Dylan Davies on the program under the false pretense that he was an eyewitness to the Benghazi attack. His story quickly unraveled and left CBS red-faced over the shoddy journalism involved. Logan should have been fired, but this is a start.
Huffington Post's Michael Calderone has the full memo and findings here.

Read More

Geraldo Rivera Blasts FOX News For Lying about Benghazi Attack 

Read More

Stop Fox News: Tell FCC To Revoke Broadcast License NOW!

Stop Fox News: Tell FCC To Revoke Broadcast License NOW! 

Help us take Fox News off the air—get the FCC to revoke Rupert Murdoch’s broadcast licenses NOW!

The deplorable actions Murdoch has taken to run his News Corp. empire prove we can't trust him to act in the public interest. Now, a study by Farleigh Dickinson University shows Fox News can’t even claim to inform its audience: its viewers are less informed than those who avoid news outlets altogether!

It’s the Federal Communications Commission’s job to consider the character of a media owner when dealing out broadcast licenses, and to label programs as news only when they actually inform viewers. The Murdoch Mafia has failed on both counts, and we have a chance to take them down for good. Save the airwaves from bigotry and corruption: tell the FCC to enforce the law NOW!

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION: Rupert Murdoch has failed every “character” test available, and the programs under his broadcasting licenses have both been implicated in scandal and have been proven to make audiences less informed, not more. We urge you to revoke Murdoch’s broadcasting licenses immediately, and to take a stand against his corrupt media empire.

SIGN HERE!!!

Read More

What Is CBS Hiding? Who Is CBS Protecting at 60 Minutes?

What Is CBS Hiding? Who Is CBS Protecting at 60 Minutes?

Blog ››› 3 hours and 44 minutes ago ››› ERIC BOEHLERT 

Journalism veterans and media observers continue to strike the same chord while launching a chorus of criticism at CBS News in recent days: The network needs to be transparent and explain exactly what happened with its botched Benghazi report, and start detailing how such an obviously flawed report made in onto the most-watched news program in America.
And yet it's silence from CBS, which is now stonewalling press inquiries, as well as the calls for an outside review of its Benghazi reporting. CBS' refusal to undergo a public examination in the wake of such a landmark blunder stands in stark contrast to how news organizations have previously dealt with black eyes; news organizations that once included CBS News.
CBS is now taking a radically different approach. There appears to have been a corporate decision made that granting members of an independent review panel unfettered access to 60 Minutes represents a greater danger than the deep damage currently being done to the network's brand via the two-week-old scandal.
So again and again the question bounces back to this: What is CBS hiding? And who is CBS protecting?
I'm sure network executives there are embarrassed by the controversy and wish the report hadn't aired as it did. There's a reason Jeff Fager, Chairman of CBS News (above left), ranked it as among the worst mistakes in the nearly 50 year history of 60 Minutes. But as we learn more and more about the errors and oversights, it's becoming increasingly difficult to understand the magnitude of the malfeasance; the refusal by CBS to follow even rudimentary rules of journalism.
In a small but telling example, Mother Jones recently reviewed the Benghazi book that CBS' discredited "witness," Dylan Davies,  co-wrote, and which CBS supposedly relied on to corroborate this tale, which included him informing the FBI about his heroic actions the night of the attack at the U.S. compound in Benghazi. (It was later confirmed Davies wasn't even at the compound and the book was quickly recalled.)  Mother Jones found Davies' published account to be completely, and almost comically, unbelievable:

Davies' improbable account of FBI agents weeping and spouting grateful platitudes only underscores how negligent 60 Minutes was in vetting its story. Even if the FBI wouldn't confirm Davies' account, why didn't they corroborate his tale with others who'd been there?

But is being embarrassed really justification for not trying to find out why the mistakes were made and to inform viewers what happened? And if CBS refuses to learn from these sloppy mistakes, isn't the network guaranteed to repeat them?
As it stonewalls, CBS cannot avoid the fact that in 2004 when 60 Minutes II was caught in a crossfire of conservative outrage after airing a disputed report about President Bush's Vietnam War record, the network appointed a former Republican attorney general, Richard Thornburgh, to investigate what went wrong. The review panel was given "full access and complete cooperation from CBS News and CBS, as well as all of the resources necessary to complete the task." Those resources included reporters' notes, e-mails, and draft scripts. The panel worked for three months, interviewed 66 people, and issued an-often scathing 234-page report.
Today, that standard established by CBS is being purposefully bypassed. But why? Is it a fear of even further embarrassment? If you're asking what could be more embarrassing than the current set of facts in which CBS was duped by an "eyewitness" impostor, the answer is, plenty. Imagine the possibly explosive findings to these questions:
*Did CBS executives have internal discussions about the network's clear conflict of interest with regards to Davies' book being published by CBS-owned Simon & Schuster and decided not to reference that conflict in the final Benghazi report?
*Did the impending book release impact the reporting in the segment or the timing of the broadcast?
*Did 60 Minutes producers have extensive contacts with partisan Republican sources while reporting on Benghazi?
*Did any CBS executives express serious doubts about Davies' account only to be overruled by Logan?
*Were script changes made to remove any doubts about Davies' account?  
*Did any co-workers think that Logan was pursuing a political agenda with the Benghazi report?
My guess is that a truly transparent review would find 'yes' answers to two or three of those questions. But without an independent inquiry we won't know. In that regard, refusing to appoint a review panel covers up more bad news, which is what CBS seemingly wants. But a review could also help exonerate CBS with regards to some allegations, and address doubts about its professionalism.
Recall that one of the key conclusions from the National Guard panel review was that political bias did not play a role in how the controversial 2004 story was put together. For the Benghazi story though, it's impossible to know if CBS is equally free of prejudice unless there's an independent assessment.
The other key question: By resisting an honest and open evaluation, are CBS bosses trying to protect key players? Keep in mind that following the release of the National Guard panel review, several employees were fired, including the executive producer of 60 Minutes II. Given the extent of the Benghazi screw-up, it's likely an outside review today would find fault with the executive producer of today's 60 Minutes. Who is executive producer of 60 Minutes? It's Jeff Fager, who also runs CBS News. (The dual titles seem like an obvious conflict of interest.)
And since 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan says she was deeply involved in the reporting and the editing of the Benghazi piece, it's likely she would be the target of a stinging rebuke. So is CBS refusing to appoint an independent panel in an effort to protect its news boss Fager and its rising star Logan?
It certainly looks that way.

Read More

Jon Stewart Mocks '60 Minutes,' Lindsey Graham Over Benghazi Report

 Tom Kludt – November 12, 2013, 7:35 AM EST

Jon Stewart had a field day Monday mocking both "60 Minutes" for airing a discredited report on the attack in Benghazi, Libya and a Republican senator who exploited the segment.
After what initially appeared to be an explosive report turned out to be "total bullsh*t," Stewart took on "60 Minutes," which he said "sort of acknowledged" the error on Sunday.

Stewart found it amusing that the program finally considered the "is it true question" after the Benghazi report aired.
The "Daily Show" host also noted that "60 Minutes" is "not the only victim here." Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) hyped the report, which spurred his vow to block every Obama administration appointee until survivors of the Benghazi attack testify before Congress.
The senator's response to the "60 Minutes" retraction gave Stewart an excuse to employ his finest southern accents.

 

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook

Read More

CBS to Correct Erroneous Report on Benghazi

 CBS to Correct Erroneous Report on Benghazi

By BILL CARTER and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT

Published: November 8, 2013 

CBS Apologizes for Benghazi Report: Accounts 
differ from a man interviewed by “60 Minutes” 
who said he was at the U.S. mission the night 
of the attack that killed 
Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. 

As it prepared to broadcast a rare on-air correction Sunday for a now-discredited “60 Minutes” report, CBS News acknowledged on Friday that it had suffered a damaging blow to its credibility. Its top executive called the segment “as big a mistake as there has been” in the 45-year-old history of the celebrated news program.

CBS

Lara Logan acknowledged the “mistake” on Friday.

CBS

Dylan Davies was identified as Morgan Jones on the “60 Minutes” report.

The executive, Jeff Fager, conceded that CBS appeared to have been duped by the primary source for the report, a security official who told a national television audience a harrowing tale of the attack last year at the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. On Thursday night it was disclosed that the official, Dylan Davies, had provided a completely different account in interviews with the F.B.I., in which he said he never made it to the mission that night.

After that revelation, CBS decided to take multiple actions Friday. It removed the report from the CBS News website, and the correspondent for the segment, Lara Logan, appeared on the CBS morning news show to apologize personally for the mistakes in the report. And the company’s publishing division, Simon & Schuster, said it was suspending publication of a book by Mr. Davies, in which he tells the same narrative he recounted on “60 Minutes.”

“It’s a black eye and it’s painful,” Mr. Fager said in a phone interview. He declined to say whether there would be negative consequences for any of the journalists involved.

The retractions and the scale of the mistake spurred comparisons with another embarrassing episode for CBS News — a report in 2004 about George W. Bush’s National Guard record that CBS was also forced to retract. That report, which actually appeared on a short-lived spinoff program called “60 Minutes II,” resulted in several firings and played a role in the eventual separation between CBS and its longtime anchor, Dan Rather.

Mr. Davies, identified as Morgan Jones on the “60 Minutes” report and on the jacket of his book, “The Embassy House,” gave three separate interviews to the F.B.I., according to Obama administration officials. Each time he described the events in ways that diverged from his account to CBS, when he claimed to have been personally involved in the action during the attack — to the point of disabling one of the attackers with a blow from a rifle.

His interviews with the F.B.I., disclosed Thursday night by The New York Times, were critical in the unraveling of his story. Mr. Davies had already told his employer, the security firm Blue Mountain, that he never appeared at the mission the night of the attack, and the firm had prepared an incident report with that information. Mr. Davies contended that he had not created or approved the incident report and that he had needed to lie to his employer because he had defied orders to remain at his villa. The justification for believing him, Mr. Fager said Friday, was Mr. Davies’s assurance that had told the real truth to the F.B.I., one that would corroborate his account to CBS.

With agents unable to operate freely in Benghazi, the F.B.I., which is conducting an investigation into the attack, has struggled to get interviews with the guards hired to protect the mission and other witnesses. That has forced the agents to rely on the accounts provided by State Department officials and contractors who have left the country. As part of those efforts, the F.B.I. interviewed Mr. Davies by phone, teleconference and in Wales, where Mr. Davies lives. (Mr. Davies could not be reached Friday. Mr. Fager said he had told CBS News he had “gone into hiding.”)

Mr. Fager said CBS had been duped by a convincing liar. “There are people in the world who try to deceive others,” he said. “We believe we have a really good system to guard against that. This guy got through that.”

But the program seemed to make a crucial error in going ahead with its report before it knew for certain what was in the F.B.I. interviews. Mr. Fager said CBS had made extensive efforts to determine what Mr. Davies told the F.B.I. He said the network had sources who led the program to believe that the report was “in sync” with the account Mr. Davies gave to “60 Minutes.”

Informed Thursday night by The Times that the F.B.I. version diverged from what Mr. Davies said on “60 Minutes,” CBS News quickly checked its own F.B.I. sources, Mr. Fager said, and learned that what Mr. Davies had told the F.B.I. “differed from what he told us.”

Mr. Fager said that led to a difficult night with “a tremendous amount of soul-searching.” He said, “We were sick. We knew we were misled and for us that is a mistake and we shouldn’t have put him on the air.”

He called Ms. Logan and said she would have to appear on “CBS This Morning” to admit the error and apologize. “It is one of the most difficult things for a reporter to do and she did it extremely well, with the recognition that this is about the organization, not about her,” Mr. Fager said.

As CBS was backtracking on its report, Threshold Books, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, said in a statement that it was recommending that booksellers remove Mr. Davies’s book from their shelves. “The Embassy House” was published Oct. 29, and more than 38,000 copies are in print.

Ms. Logan did not reply to requests for an interview Friday. In an interview earlier this week, she had ardently defended Mr. Davies’s character and his veracity against charges that he had given differing accounts of the events that night in Benghazi.

She also suggested, as Mr. Fager did on Friday, that the “60 Minutes” report became enmeshed in the continuing political battle over the Benghazi incident. The compelling account from Mr. Davies had provided congressional Republicans with new ammunition to criticize the Obama administration.

Since the attack on the mission in Libya, Republicans have contended that the administration failed to secure the mission adequately, held back on sending military forces to rescue the Americans there, then tried to cover up how it handled the matter.

The day after the CBS report, several Republican senators held a news conference, demanding that the administration allow congressional investigators to interview survivors of the Benghazi attack. In particular, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said that he would block all administration nominations until it met the Republicans’ demands.

“We really hope that this will force him to drop his block on the nominations,” a senior administration official said on Friday.

A spokesman for Mr. Graham declined to address the matter on Friday, saying that Mr. Graham would address it on Sunday in an interview with CNN.

Julie Bosman and Brian Stelter contributed reporting.

A version of this article appears in print on November 9, 2013, on page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: CBS to Correct Erroneous Report on Benghazi.

 

Related

• The Lede: Lara Logan’s On-Air Apology for Flawed Benghazi Report(November 8, 2013)

• Accounts Differ to F.B.I. and CBS on Benghazi(November 8, 2013)

Read More