Deconstructing Television News, Evaluating Sources through CBS' Benghazi Story Debacle

CNL News Lesson

November 20, 2013 Added by Michael A. Spikes

Lesson Outline

November 20, 2013
Screen Shot 2013-11-20 at 10.35.18 AMThe CBS newsmagazine “60 Minutes” recently apologized for broadcasting a flawed report on one of the most contentious events in recent U.S. diplomatic history. Narrated by CBS correspondent Lara Logan, the report concerned events that took place Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi, Libya, when gunmen stormed a U.S. diplomatic compound and set its main building on fire. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and State Department computer expert Sean Smith, trapped inside, died of smoke inhalation. Hours later, attackers assaulted a CIA compound nearby, killing two security contractors.

The “60 Minutes” segment was controversial from the moment it was broadcast (Oct. 27, 2013), and its credibility soon came into question. One obvious problem was that it relied on another security contractor, Dylan Davies, whose story turned out to be a lie. Logan and CBS executives said they were sorry and that  “it was a mistake to include him in our report,”  saying they had been “misled.”  But numerous outside critics say the apology was inadequate and raised more questions than it answered. This close examination of the controversial piece by another news outlet, McClatchy, shows that there are other problems with the report, beyond its untruthful, hence unreliable, source:

  • CBS did not reveal that Davies, on whose recollections the report was largely based, was the author of a soon-to-be released book published by a CBS-owned publishing company that features the work of politically conservative authors.
  • On Oct. 31, The Washington Post revealed that Davies had filed a report with his employer, Blue Mountain Security, that contradicted his “60 Minutes” account, and The New York Times revealed Nov. 7 that Davies also gave an account to the FBI at odds with the “60 Minutes” version.
  • The report repeatedly referred to al Qaida as solely responsible for the attack on the compound and made no mention of another Islamic extremist group that has long been suspected. Al Qaida has never claimed responsibility for the attack, and the FBI, which is leading the U.S. investigation, has never named al Qaida as the sole perpetrator.
  • Equally questionable was Logan’s unsourced reference to the Benghazi Medical Center as being “under the control of al Qaida terrorists”  – an assertion that McClatchy correspondents on the ground at the time and subsequent reporting in Benghazi indicates is untrue.
  • The report also named three known insurgent operators as top suspects in the attack but did not explain the source of that assertion. There is no evidence of their roles in the attack.
  • Davies told “60 Minutes” he had gone to the diplomatic compound site during the attack, climbed a 12-foot-high wall and struck one of the attackers in the head with his rifle butt before discovering Ambassador Stevens’ body at the hospital. All of these claims contradicted multiple reports that have emerged in the year since the attacks.

The uproar over the inaccurate interview, shoddy reporting and inadequate apology reminded many of a previous CBS News scandal, when then-anchorman Dan Rather relied apparently forged documents in 2004 while reporting about President George W. Bush's National Guard service. Four CBS employees lost their jobs over the report and Rather later went into early retirement.

QUESTIONS

  • What if any other journalistic flaws did McCalthcehy and other critics of CBS uncover?
  • What might  Dylan Davies' connection to a CBS-owned publisher suggest?
  • CBS said that it was undertaking “a journalistic review that is ongoing” – the network’s first acknowledgement that concerns about the report may go deeper than just the discredited interview with security supervisor – but declined to respond to questions about the accuracy and origin of some of the other aspects of the report. “60 Minutes” spokesman Kevin Tedesco said CBS had begun the review “the moment we confirmed there was an issue in our story,” but declined to elaborate or respond to specific issues raised about the segment, including unsourced assertions that al Qaida was behind the Benghazi attacks and claims about the investigation that the FBI and other experts question or deny outright. Why? Does CBS News have an obligation to respond?
  • After The New York Times story was posted online, CBS quickly purged its websites of any mention of the piece and even demanded that a copy of the segment be removed from YouTube. Do you think that is fair—or part of a coverup?

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Journalism Experts Criticize "Severely Lacking" and "Flimsy" 60 minutes correction



Lara Logan's Bogus "Correction"



Lara Logan shares thoughts on Benghazi prior to ’60 Minutes’ apology


We have also curated a number of video materials for your use in the classroom, along with the original 60 Minutes piece, and the subsequent apology which aired the following week. See all of the pieces at this link.