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
1. Extrinsic evidence
We discuss first the Commission's analysis of the three
pieces of evidence it found were "extrinsic." The Commission
has the responsibility to determine the weight of such evi
dence. The reasons it gives for doing so, however, must be
reasonable and not unfounded.
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
(a) Outtakes of the interview with Rabbi Bleich
The outtakes show that all of Rabbi Bleich's quoted com
ments were made in response to questions about radical
nationalists. Serafyn argued to the Commission that CBS
had misrepresented Bleich's views when it broadcast his
statements without making clear the context in which they
were spoken and without including the qualifications and
positive statements that accompanied them. The Commission
found that the outtakes could indeed "properly serve as
circumstantial evidence of intent," but went on to find that
they did not demonstrate an intent to distort the news
because:
Rabbi Bleich's latter, allegedly misleading comments im
mediately followed ... Safer's statement ... that only
"some Ukrainians" are anti-Semitic.... Indeed, that
the focus of the "60 Minutes" program was upon only a
certain sector of the Ukrainian population is evident from
at least three other express references by Safer to