Posted on 11/11/2013 3:27:11 AM PST by lbryce
Jeff Fager tells The Hollywood Reporter how the FBI's incident report prompted the news division's retraction of the story, defends anchor Lara Logan and describes why Dylan Davies was used as a source: "He deceived us. … This is not some sort of rogue player. There were a lot of reasons to believe he was credible. We were wrong to believe that."
An FBI incident report that directly contradicts eyewitness claims made by Dylan Davies about the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya, was the "lynchpin" for CBS News executives' decision to retract an Oct. 27 60 Minutes report.
"As soon as we learned about the FBI report, we knew right away. All of us. There wasn't any debate about it," CBS News chairman and 60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager told The Hollywood Reporter during a phone interview on Friday.
Until then, Fager had defended Lara Logan's report despite growing questions about Davies' credibility. But The New York Times uncovered [8] the contents of the FBI report on Thursday night, citing "two senior government officials" who said that Davies told the FBI he was not on the scene until the next morning.
(Excerpt) Read more at hollywoodreporter.com ...
Bullcrap. this entire episode was created to minimize the Benghazi scandal. First, do an expose from a historical INVESTGATIVE news staple, televise it with the hype, and just a week later say OOPS, we messed up. The down side is that they effectively sullied the credibility of any of the 32 survivors if and when they ever come out to tell their story.
They knew, they knew all along.
Weird. Lara Logan got fooled this easily? Times quoting administration sources? Something smells.
CBS will do whatever it takes to make Queen Hildabeast look good. This is a scandal for her and they need to turn it into “old news” before the election.
maybe they can hire Dan Rather to report on Bush43’s AWOL, since that was impeccably sourced
sarc
Of course they knew. This is another black eye for CBS news. 60 minutes has lost a lot of credibility over the years. They need to stay with the milk toast stories.
Even those will be suspect from now on.
In the whole scheme of things, being duped by a ‘witness’ pales in comparison to something like, say, “it was an internet video that caused the spontaneous riots.”
In my humble opinion (IMHO) That is an impossible task.
Unless we get another Dole/Juan/Romney and she gets the Rat nomination all the conservative needs to do is show clips of her many lies and the famous "What Difference Does It Make?
Please GOD don't let the witch any where near the controls of our beautiful country.
They must have received a call from the WH and/or Clinton.
They NEVER APOLOGIZED.
How come NYT gets a report from the FBI, but the FBI won’t give Congress the time of day? Why is the FBI leaking reports to NYT?
sure distracts us from teh contents of the story, eh?
No, they already had a black eye by not persuing the Benghazi story from the beginning.
From the start this was a shrewd orchestration to silence the other 30 potential leakers during Hillary’s impending candidacy. Its like a vaccine —you’re sure to get a tiny bit sick in the short run but the candidate is also certain to avoid what might otherwise have been totally fatal.
Someone smart and evil managed this —ValJar...?
60 min has been in the tank for Hillary for decades literally. Witness what they did to Chris Ruddy over his report on Vince Foster; edited his interview in 100 ways to make him look crazy.
This is more of the same —HILLARY IS THE CANDIDATE.
“What Difference, at this point, does it make?”
Madame Secretary, the “difference” is THE TRUTH!
And, the American People deserve to know THE TRUTH, about;
1. Why the Ambassador and 3 other Americans died that night?
2. What the Ambassador was doing in Benghazi that night?
3. Why was there no effort to improve the Security in Benghazi, after repeated requests by the Ambassador?
4. Why there was no effort to defend, protect, or rescue the Ambassador that night?
5. Why were the teams who had prepared to deploy, to attempt a rescue, PROHIBITED from proceeding?
6. WHO Prohibited those teams from proceeding?
7. Who authorized the lie about the attack being a protest against a video?
8. Why did Susan Rice, President Obama, and YOU, Madame Secretary, continue to repeat that lie, for more than a week after you KNEW that was a LIE?
If it’s reported that Jeff Fager and Lara Logan, in contrition, ate a bullet, then the SeeBS apology might be slightly believable.
Otherwise...
Ditto to that.
In 1983, Ed Bradley did a hit piece on the Maverick missile. They lied about the program and then lied about Senator Barry Goldwater. I got to read the correspondence between Senator Goldwater and Van Gordon Sauder (I think that's the spelling), president of CBS news at the time. I think I still have a video tape of that program.
I haven't watched the program since.
They are big boys over there at CBS. They know you don’t keep bringing up a mistake. This was all planned. A British guy who was in charge of training the crossing guards might or might not have been at the first facility. Big deal. This being released and rehashed right before we start to get some real testimony from people at Benghazi. Our major news people are being bribed by the Democrat party. Our major news organizations are trying to sell us into slavery. They are nothing more than two dollar whores.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.