11903.fb2 ГУЛаг Палестины - читать онлайн бесплатно полную версию книги . Страница 282

ГУЛаг Палестины - читать онлайн бесплатно полную версию книги . Страница 282

"Ukrainian ultranationalist parties," "the Social National

ists," and other apparently isolated groups of Ukrainians.

Thus, rather than constitute a distortion, Rabbi Bleich's

negative comments about Ukrainians as utilized can

rightly be viewed as limited to only a segment of the

Ukrainian population.... Nor do we find intent to

distort because CBS did not include in its episode posi

tive statements about Ukraine made by Rabbi Bleich....

[T]he determination of what to include and exclude from

a given interview constitutes the legitimate "journalistic

judgment" of a broadcaster, a matter beyond the Com

mission's "proper area of concern."

WGPR, 10 FCC Rcd at 8147.

Serafyn argues upon appeal that the Commission erred in

failing to find the outtakes persuasive evidence of CBS's

intent to distort. The Commission was not unreasonable,

however, in finding that Safer's phrase "some Ukrainians"

and his other references to extremist groups effectively limit

ed the scope of Bleich's comments to "a segment of the

Ukrainian population." Id.

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

(b) The viewer letters

The Commission held that the letters CBS received from

viewers were extrinsic evidence because they were "external

to the program." Id. at 8148. In the Commission's view,

however, the letters were not probative because the letter

writers were not

"insiders," that is, employees or members of manage

ment of CBS. Nor are they persons with direct personal

knowledge of intent to falsify.... And letters sent by

viewers subsequent to the broadcast [are] evidence clear

ly incapable of going to intent, because intent is a state of

mind accompanying an act, not following it.

Id.

The Commission's reasoning here is flawed in two respects.

First, a person need not have "direct" personal knowledge of

intent in order to have relevant information that constitutes