‘60 Minutes’ Airs Apology on Benghazi

[240 is Back]

 

Source: New York Times

Lara Logan was scheduled to deliver a report on Sunday’s “60 Minutes” about disabled veterans who climb mountains. Instead, she appeared in front of the newsmagazine’s trademark black backdrop and issued an apology.

Ms. Logan said that Dylan Davies, one of the main sources for a two-week-old piece about the attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, had misled the program’s staff when he gave an account of rushing to the compound the night the attack took place. “It was a mistake to include him in our report. For that, we are very sorry,” Ms. Logan said.

The apology lasted only 90 seconds and revealed nothing new about why CBS had trusted Mr. Davies, who appeared on the program under the pseudonym Morgan Jones. Off-camera, CBS executives were left to wonder how viewers would react to the exceptionally rare correction.

While veteran television journalists spent the weekend debating whether the now-discredited Benghazi report would cause long-term damage to the esteemed newsmagazine’s brand, some media critics joined the liberal advocacy group Media Matters for America in calling for CBS to initiate an independent investigation of missteps in the reporting process.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/business/media/60-minutes-airs-apology-on-benghazi.html?_r=0

[240 is Back]

I didn't see any of the original CBS coverage on it - 33 and friends know way more about this issue than I do.  What does this mean?


Former '60 Minutes' Producer: Discredited Benghazi Story Was Done To Appeal To Conservatives


Former '60 Minutes' Producer: Discredited Benghazi Story Was Done To Appeal To Conservatives

by Igor Bobic at TPM

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/former-60-minutes-producer-discredited-benghazi-story-was-done-to-appeal-to-conservatives

"SNIP.................... ...........



A former "60 Minutes" producer who was fired over a 2004 story about then-President George W. Bush's service in the Air National Guard said Friday that CBS' now retracted story detailing the attack in Benghazi, Libya was done to appeal to conservatives.

"My concern is that the story was done very pointedly to appeal to a more conservative audience's beliefs about what happened at Benghazi," Mary Mapes told Media Matters. "They appear to have done that story to appeal specifically to a politically conservative audience that is obsessed with Benghazi and believes that Benghazi was much more than a tragedy."

Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather, who is also widely believed to have left the network as a result of the 2004 flap, declined to comment on the discredited Benghazi story when reached by TPM through a spokesperson on Friday.

The chairman of CBS News and executive producer of "60 Minutes" on Friday apologized for airing the story, telling Variety that the network would now "own it."

[blacken700]

hahahahaha

[Straw Man]

posted on Friday and not a single response from our right wing friends on this board

Simon & Schuster recalls book by '60 Minutes' Benghazi source
By Ryan Faughnder
November 8, 2013, 12:59 p.m.

Publisher Simon & Schuster is dropping the book by Dylan Davies, the man who served as a primary source for a discredited "60 Minutes" report on last year's attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Lybia.

In his statements to CBS News' "60 Minutes" and in his recently published book, Davies claimed to give an eyewitness account of the terrorist attack that left a U.S. ambassador dead. But those versions contradicted an FBI  incident report that showed he was not there the night of the incident.  

The book titled "The Embassy House," written by Davies under the pseudonym Sgt. Morgan Jones, was published late last month by Threshold Editions, a part of Simon & Schuster, which is owned by CBS Corp.  

"In light of information that has been brought to our attention since the initial publication of 'The Embassy House,' we have withdrawn from publication and sale all formats of this book, and are recommending that booksellers do the same," Jennifer Robinson, spokeswoman for Threshold Editions, said  Friday. "We also are notifying accounts that they may return the book to us."

In the Oct. 27 "60 Minutes" story, Davies claimed he had confronted one of the attackers on the night of the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, and that he had seen the body of the ambassador, Christopher Stevens, in a hospital.

After the FBI report surfaced last week, CBS News defended Davies, but is now admitting that it made an error. The reporter on the "60 Minutes" story, Lara Logan, has said that she made "a mistake" by trusting Davies and putting him on the air.  

"We take the vetting of sources and stories very seriously at '60 Minutes'," Logan said Friday on "CBS This Morning." "But we were misled, and we were wrong."  

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-simon-schuster-recalls-book-by-60-minutes-benghazi-source-20131108,0,2045072.story#axzz2kAojB48y

[Soul Crusher]

posted on Friday and not a single response from our right wing friends on this board

Who harped on the 60 minutes story?  Benghazi scandal has little or nothing to do w this guy.  The scandal started that night when Obama went to bed and off to a fundraiser and then spent 2 months blaming a fake video for the terrorist attack that the lybian PM told him was the cauase.

[Straw Man]

Who harped on the 60 minutes story?  Benghazi scandal has little or nothing to do w this guy.  The scandal started that night when Obama went to bed and off to a fundraiser and then spent 2 months blaming a fake video for the terrorist attack that the lybian PM told him was the cauase.

you mean the non-scandal that Repubs have been trying to gin up into something/anything

too bad Repubs couldn't have spent the time doing something meaningful like helping to ensure the roll out of the ACA went well

Has the Boehner Congress passed any legislation that does anything the help the country.

[Soul Crusher]

you mean the non-scandal that Repubs have been trying to gin up into something/anything

too bad Repubs couldn't have spent the time doing something meaningful like helping to ensure the roll out of the ACA went well

Has the Boehner Congress passed any legislation that does anything the help the country.

LOL  - you leftists buy into so many false narratives its not even funny.  stay in your liberal bubble tool

[Straw Man]

LOL  - you leftists buy into so many false narratives its not even funny.  stay in your liberal bubble tool

damn, pot meet kettle

you've been living in a bubble for what appears to be years

Republicans have been trying their hardest to scrape together anything they can and they fail every time

[Soul Crusher]

damn, pot meet kettle

you've been living in a bubble for what appears to be years

Republicans have been trying their hardest to scrape together anything they can and they fail every time

[Straw Man]

does this mean something to you ?

please translate

I don't know how to read "crazy"

[blacken700]

Lindsey Graham Silent About Discredited '60 Minutes' Benghazi Report That He Hyped
 

 


   
TOM KLUDT – NOVEMBER 8, 2013, 2:49 PM EST

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) trumpeted the recent "60 Minutes" piece on last year's attack in Benghazi perhaps louder than any other Republican, but he's been mostly silent since CBS News retracted the report on Friday.

After TPM submitted multiple requests for comment, a spokesman for Graham finally responded with an email saying that the senator "will be a guest on CNN State of the Union discussing the latest on Benghazi and the Iranian nuclear program" this Sunday.

Graham has drawn heavy attention to the "60 Minutes" report since it first aired on Oct. 27.

He told CNN's Wolf Blitzer last week that the report filed by CBS News correspondent Lara Logan proved that "the story told by the administration about what happened in Benghazi doesn't have an ounce of truth in it."

full article
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lindsey-graham-silent-about-discredited-60-minutes-benghazi-report-that-he-hyped

[tonymctones]

sorry but how does this discredit the facts behind the incident?

Ms. Logan has said that a year of reporting informed the Oct. 27 piece, which was Mr. Davies’s first interview. Some of Ms. Logan’s conclusions still hold up to scrutiny — for example, that “contrary to the White House’s public statements, which were still being made a full week later, it’s now well established that the Americans were attacked by Al Qaeda in a well-planned assault.”

This just discredits this guy, not the facts...what aspects of the story are called into question due to his lying?

[blacken700]

 

[Straw Man]

Colbert did a pretty funny bit too

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/430355/november-11-2013/-60-minutes--benghazi-controversy---lara-logan-s-apology

m: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/430356/november-11-2013/-60-minutes--benghazi-controversy---poncho-denews--bogus-bombshell

[blacken700]

Colbert did a pretty funny bit too

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/430355/november-11-2013/-60-minutes--benghazi-controversy---lara-logan-s-apology

m: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/430356/november-11-2013/-60-minutes--benghazi-controversy---poncho-denews--bogus-bombshell

hahahaha that's better                Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi

[tonymctones]

sorry but how does this discredit the facts behind the incident?

Ms. Logan has said that a year of reporting informed the Oct. 27 piece, which was Mr. Davies’s first interview. Some of Ms. Logan’s conclusions still hold up to scrutiny — for example, that “contrary to the White House’s public statements, which were still being made a full week later, it’s now well established that the Americans were attacked by Al Qaeda in a well-planned assault.”

This just discredits this guy, not the facts...what aspects of the story are called into question due to his lying?

[GigantorX]

sorry but how does this discredit the facts behind the incident?

Ms. Logan has said that a year of reporting informed the Oct. 27 piece, which was Mr. Davies’s first interview. Some of Ms. Logan’s conclusions still hold up to scrutiny — for example, that “contrary to the White House’s public statements, which were still being made a full week later, it’s now well established that the Americans were attacked by Al Qaeda in a well-planned assault.”

This just discredits this guy, not the facts...what aspects of the story are called into question due to his lying?

Yep. This guy was a sideshow.

Things that are still facts:

The administration knowingly fabricated events and lied about the reasons behind the attacks.
The administration was show to be totally incompetent.
Susan Rice knowingly went on live TV and lied
The admin closed ranks and stonewalled

Among other things.

This guys fabrication doesn't change the facts

[Straw Man]

Yep. This guy was a sideshow.

Things that are still facts:

The administration knowingly fabricated events and lied about the reasons behind the attacks.
The administration was show to be totally incompetent.
Susan Rice knowingly went on live TV and lied
The admin closed ranks and stonewalled

Among other things.

This guys fabrication doesn't change the facts

please provide link to proof for all of these "facts"

[Soul Crusher]

please provide link to prove of all of these "facts"

GMAFB - I posted endless stories on this.  The lybian PM told Hillary it was a terrorist attack by al queada that night!!!!

[tonymctones]

please provide link to proof for all of these "facts"

so you honestly think the admin is incompetent enough to think a video that caused this?

I dont know whats more disturbing

[Straw Man]

so you honestly think the admin is incompetent enough to think a video that caused this?

I dont know whats more disturbing

please feel free to explain what difference it makes what they thought or said the cause (or multiple causes) were

if they were given that information and then later found out it was not correct in part or in whole....... so what?

[tonymctones]

please feel free to explain what difference it makes what they thought or said the cause (or multiple causes) were

if they were given that information and then later found out it was not correct in part or in whole....... so what?

b/c it was obvious to anyone that a video was not the cause and that this was not some spontaneous, random event.

If they were incompetent enough to FIRST believe an obviously bullshit story and TWO incompetent enough to not at least find some compelling evidence to support the bullshit story, you think thats ok?

on top of that they continued to parrot the bullshit story for weeks after

[Straw Man]

b/c it was obvious to anyone that a video was not the cause and that this was not some spontaneous, random event.

If they were incompetent enough to FIRST believe an obviously bullshit story and TWO incompetent enough to not at least find some compelling evidence to support the bullshit story, you think thats ok?

on top of that they continued to parrot the bullshit story for weeks after

I'm glad you think things were so obvious but apparently they were getting different data

again I ask you So What ?

What difference does it make ?

[tonymctones]

I'm glad you think things were so obvious but apparently they were getting different data

again I ask you So What ?

What difference does it make ?

b/c it shows them to either be incompetent or liars, again I dont know which one is worse

[Soul Crusher]

I'm glad you think things were so obvious but apparently they were getting different data

again I ask you So What ?

What difference does it make ?

This is why I consider you and your communist Obama voting brethoren scum and worthless slime