poverty, its troubles, on others." A moment's reflection upon this statement must
convince any objective observer that it is unlikely to be the case that some historian
that you consulted had recommended to you the conclusion that Western Ukrainians were
more predisposed than other people to blaming their troubles on others. Rather, a
moment's reflection must convince any objective observer that it is likely that this
statement came off the top of your head without the least evidence to support it, and
that you then had the temerity to pass it along to tens of millions of viewers as if it
were a fact. In making this statement, and in making the scores of other erroneous or
unsupported statements that you also made on that broadcast, you were inflicting harm
upon Ukraine, you were lowering the credibility of 60 Minutes, and you were undermining
your standing as a journalist of competence and integrity.
What you are most famous for. The reason that I am writing to you today, however,
concerns The Ugly Face of Freedom only indirectly. What concerns me today is a
surprising discovery that I made while searching for your name on the Internet. The
discovery is that your name seems to be most closely connected to the conclusion that
drinking three to five glasses of wine per day increases longevity, which conclusion you
proposed on a 60 Minutes story broadcast on 5Nov95, apparently under the title The
French Paradox. It seems that you have become famous for this story, and that it may
constitute the pinnacle of your career.
For example, a representative Internet article that is found upon an InfoSeek search for
"Morley Safer, 60 Minutes" is written by Kim Marcus and appears on the Home Wine
Spectator web site. The article's headline announces that 60 Minutes Examines Stronger
Evidence Linking Wine and Good Health, with the comparative "stronger" signifying that
the evidence presented in the 5Nov95 broadcast was better than the evidence presented in
a similar 60 Minutes broadcast four years earlier. This Home Wine Spectator article
viewed your broadcast as demonstrating the existence of a causal connection between
(what some might judge a high volume of) wine consumption and longevity, underlined your
own high credibility and the high authority of your sources, pointed out the vast
audience to which your conclusions had been beamed, and suggested that wine consumption
shot up as a result of at least the first French Paradox broadcast:
The study also found that the benefits of wine drinking extended to
people who drank from three to five glasses of wine per day. "What
surprised us most was that wine intake signified much lower mortality
rates," Safer said to the television show's audience.
Overall, the segment should prove a big boost to the argument that wine
drinking in moderation can be a boon to one's health. The segment was
seen by more than 20 million people. "It isn't just information," said
John De Luca, president of California's Wine Institute, "it's the
credibility that comes with Morley Safer interviewing the scientists."
After the first French Paradox episode aired in November 1991 the
consumption of red wine shot up in the United States, and it has yet to
dip.
The Kim Marcus article underlined your failure to question the conclusion that wine
consumption increases life expectancy:
Throughout the episode, Safer didn't challenge the fact that wine is
linked to longer life; rather, he was interested in what it was about
wine that made it unique. "The central question is what is it about
wine, especially red wine, that promotes coronary health," he said.
Safer came to the conclusion that it is not only alcohol but other