60 Minutes and Lara Logan Issue Apology
Last month, the Benghazi case was updated with a CBS 60 Minutes report given by Lara Logan. This marked the first time a major news outlet, other than FOX, had done a special on-air report on Benghazi and the segment came over a year after the attack. *Note – In the previous update, videos related to the Benghazi segment were pulled from YouTube by CBS.
This month, Logan has gone on the air to apologize for part of that report. Logan went on the air at the end of a 60 Minutes segment on November 10th, stating an account from Dylan Davies that 60 Minutes aired was now in question. Here is the statement that aired on the show via Business Insider:
We end our broadcast tonight with a correction on a story we reported October 27 about the attack on the American special mission compound in Benghazi, in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed. In the story, a security officer working for the State Department, Dylan Davies, told us he went to the compound during the attack and detailed his role that night.
After our report aired, questions arose about whether his account was true, when an incident report surfaced. It told a different story about what he did the night of the attack. Davies denied having anything to do with that incident report and insisted the story he told us was not only accurate — it was the same story told the FBI when they interviewed him.
On Thursday night, when we discovered the account he gave the FBI was different than what he told us, we realized we had been misled, and it was a mistake to include him in our report. For that, we are very sorry. The most important thing to every person at “60 Minutes” is the truth. And the truth is, we made a mistake.
Click here for the statement CBS published prior to Logan’s on-air apology. Note that Morgan Jones is the alias used by Dylan Davies.
Just a reminder here: Logan said 90% of what they learned in creating that segment was tossed on the cutting room floor. One now has to ask if they cut the wrong things.
Logan went on CBS This Morning to talk about it:
“…a new incident report surfaced”
Sharyl Atkinson has been trying to get documentation on Benghazi out of this administration for a year and now, after 60 minutes brings on Davies, a new incident report surfaces? This administration has been shown that it leaks information like a boat made of Swiss cheese when it suits their purposes.
Refusal To Rescue
Maybe this was an error on the part of Logan and Davies is not reliable or maybe this administration floated a new incident report after the fact to discredit him. Bear in mind, the assault lasted over seven hours. There was clearly a refusal to rescue our people. Either way, this turn of events with Davies doesn’t make a dent in the fact that Hillary Clinton and this administration bear responsibility.
Media Intimidation From Without and Within?
It is worth paying attention to the outlet who raised the question — The New York Times. It would seem the NY Times doth protest too much in this long winded article which is more about what outlet is more credible than the other instead of Benghazi. That was the point though, really. The Times goes out of its way to make sure Media Matters gets on the record. Lee Stranahan puts not to fine a point on it. Emphasis added is mine:
The goal of Hillary Clinton aligned Media Matters for America was to discredit the entire Benghazi story as “a hoax.” They were helped along by nameless people in the FBI who disputed part of what Dylan Davies said in the 60 Minutesinterview.
They got 60 Minutes to delete the entire segment. They got CBS News to issue an apology for the entire segment.
Yep. Stranahan also includes the transcript of Davies portion of the segment. Read the whole thing. By the way, one copy of the Benghazi segment seems to have survived on YouTube – for now. You can watch it here.
Something also a bit weird was that the NY Times posted their Benghazi/60 minutes apology story in the Business section. The Times does manage to mention CBS was worried about the report being undermined and, well, that’s exactly what happened. Excerpt from the NY Times article with emphasis added:
Ms. Logan’s confidence clearly influenced her bosses; so did a pervasive belief inside CBS News that administration officials were trying to undermine Mr. Davies and, by extension, the entire “60 Minutes” report. CBS’s retraction came only after the network confirmed a New York Times report in which government officials said that Mr. Davies gave a different account of events to the F.B.I. than he gave to CBS.
Overall, cries of “conservative bias” are not nearly as resonant as cries of “liberal bias” were in 2004, and conservative media outlets have largely ignored the CBS retraction in recent days. For those reasons, among others, “60 Minutes” is unlikely to take as severe a hit as “60 Minutes II,” the spinoff program that showed Mr. Rather’s National Guard report, took in 2004.
I’ve seen people ask why Sharyl Attkisson was not doing this report. I wondered that myself, as Attkisson had been the lead reporter on this story from the start. Perhaps now we know why her reports are now posted on her own website? At least some of her investigations are still archived on C-SPAN. Attkisson was asking hard questions. Was she sidelined or did she sideline herself?
I asked Pickering what message it sends our enemies that the US couldn’t get one plane to Benghazi in 8+ hrs including from nearby Souda Bay
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) September 20, 2013
Just after the 60 minutes report, an attorney for a Benghazi whistleblower named Paul DiGenova went on the record with WMAL about the case. Specifically, that there is good evidence that people who pushed for a rescue had been relieved of command. DiGenova also rejects that help could not have been sent. Doug Ross picked up on the this interview via Right Scoop:
Panetta has never told the full story.
Here’s an interesting question. Remember General Ham and what happened the night of the assault on the American embassy? We have reason to believe that things happened that night in the chain of command where people were relieved of their duties because they insisted that there be a military response. We’re working on trying to establish that with some news organizations but there’s very very good evidence that people were actually relieved of command because they refused not to try and dispatch troops and some response.
And by the way, this notion that the administration has put out – it’s this little strawman that military couldn’t have landed in Libya, Greg Hicks has testified and so have some other military people that if there had only been a flyover, that would have dispersed these crowds because they remembered what the American military did its flyovers and its assaults.
There were planes in Croatia that could have been there by the time of the attack on the annex and no planes were ever sent. That was because the president of the United States refused to issue an order allowing for the dispersal of military into Libya because that was considered an act of war. The president, himself, who went to sleep, refused to issue some order.
Right Scoop has the full audio of the DiGenova interview.