(5) Could Mr. Safer similarly identify the Government of Ukraine representative who issued this same denial of a
genetic predisposition to anti-Semitism on the part of Ukrainians - who was it, when, where?
(6) Is Mr. Safer aware of a genetic predisposition to anti-Semitism on the part of any other group - or is this
in his estimation a uniquely Ukrainian phenomenon?
(7) Has Mr. Safer considered the possibility that his own antipathy toward Ukrainians is genetically based? If
not, then how would he account for it? And if not, would Mr. Safer be willing to issue a public statement to the
effect that his anti-Ukrainianism is not genetic in origin?
(8) Could Mr. Safer comment on the possibility that the refusal of CBS personnel to discuss "The Ugly Face of
Freedom" might similarly be genetically-based? If CBS personnel reject the notion that their corporate decisions are
genetically influenced, then could Mr. Safer persuade them to issue a joint statement to this effect, and in
particular denying that they are genetically anti-Ukrainian?
These few and simple questions, it seems to me, serve the useful purpose of establishing what category Mr.
Safer's statement falls into: that of a responsible journalist who picks his words carefully and later stands by them,
or that of a bigot who gets up in front of the camera and begins to ramble off the top of his head - and later selects
muteness as the optimal defense for his irresponsibility.
Sincerely yours,
Lubomyr Prytulak
cc: Ed Bradley, Steve Kroft, Morley Safer, Lesley Stahl, Mike Wallace
HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE JORDAN
HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE JORDAN 1473 hits since 23May98
Jordan Letter 6 Jul 19/96 Allowing a fabulist on 60 Minutes
July 19, 1996
Michael H. Jordan
Chairman, Westinghouse Electric Corporation
11 Stanwix Street
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
USA 15222
Dear Mr. Jordan:
When I began reading Simon Wiesenthal in late 1994, I was naive enough to imagine
that my discovery that he had a credibility problem was an original one. Since that
time, however, I have learned that Mr. Wiesenthal's lack of credibility is widely known
and openly acknowledged. For example, on April 28, 1996, I received a letter from a
Jewish faculty member at an American University, from which I quote the following:
I do not doubt for a moment ... that Simon Wiesenthal is a fabulist
which is the fancy literary word for an unmitigated liar. My father
(an Auschwitz inmate) told me many terrible stories about Wiesenthal's
role after the war in the Austrian DP camps. Wiesenthal is of the same
ilk as Elie Wiesel: a secular saint, he can make the most absurd claims
without fear of exposure.
Now the question that I would like to add to the ones that I have already addressed
to you is the following: How did it come to pass that in 1994 a reputable investigative
journalism show featured as its star witness someone who is widely known to be - shall
we say - a "fabulist"?
And from this question springs a second one: How does it come to pass today that a
reputable investigative journalism show, having learned that it has been victimized by
a "fabulist," refuses to take any corrective action?
Yours truly,
Lubomyr Prytulak
cc: Ed Bradley, Steve Kroft, Morley Safer, Lesley Stahl, Mike Wallace, Simon Wiesenthal