- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
Feature
They Shoot Cats, Don't They?
(Page 2 of 3)
I reiterated our terms. Live and unedited, or no dice. Wallace wasn’t happy. He said he never agreed to terms like that, “not even for Henry Kissinger.” He demanded that Livingston call him.
Long story short, Livingston did call back. But only after I was set up to record the phone call, secretly. (It was perfectly legal in D.C. to record one’s own phone calls.) If 60 Minutes could do some of the ambush jobs it was known for, we darn well would ensure that we were protected.
On the phone with Wallace, Livingston repeated his terms, including, quite explicitly, his offer to go on camera if his conditions were met; he also outlined his concerns about the tenor of the show’s investigation. Wallace tried repeatedly to change Livingston’s mind. He reiterated his line about Kissinger—and said he wouldn’t agree to those terms for the pope or the president either. Livingston wouldn’t budge, and encouraged Wallace to read the report I had written. Wallace was furious.
A MONTH OR SO LATER, after we sent a certified letter repeating our concerns about the story’s directions and Livingston’s offer to go on camera live or unedited, the segment on the cat-shooting finally aired. As expected, it was a hit job. It made the scientist sound like a saintly Albert Schweitzer. It made the protesters, none of whom amounted to any political threat to Livingston’s safe seat, sound more extreme than Greenpeace. Worse, it used footage of animal rights activists in high lather who were protesting some other subject at some other place—but with a voice-over making it seem like these were the protesters against the cat project. The deliberate impression was to make Livingston sound like a scared congressman pandering, fearfully, to those protesters.
Oh—and Wallace said, on air, that he had repeatedly offered Livingston a chance to discuss the situation, but that Livingston refused.
Not, mind you, that Livingston had offered to be interviewed live or unedited, but instead as if Livingston had totally ducked all questions. The next day, Livingston called Wallace and chewed him out. Again, my tape was running, again secretly.
Said Wallace: “One way in which you’re dead right, and I apologize to you for it and I don’t know how the hell it got through, and that’s the business of, ah, not saying ‘live and unedited’—in other words, that you didn’t want to go on camera to tell us….My friend, I apologize to you, I really do. I’m ashamed of myself because you told it to me. …It’s unfair. Because you were perfectly willing to go on….That was just dishonest of me, and that was stupid of me.”
Livingston told Wallace that if he had to choose again what to do about the cat-shooting research, he “would have done it exactly the same way.”
Responded Wallace: “I don’t disagree with you.”
I went to work. I produced a 27-page, footnoted, single-spaced refutation of the entire 60 Minutes report. Fact after fact, citation after citation (including the misleading protester footage), I laid out the blatant dishonesty. I sent it to 60 Minutes demanding a retraction. I sent it out to a bunch of reporters. And I noted (without mentioning our audiotapes) that Wallace had lied when he said we had refused to cooperate. But no public apology came to match the apology in the private phone call.
Amazingly enough, 60 Minutes re-ran the segment in July. With no corrections. Not one.
THIS TIME, we called the president of CBS News. Bob played our audiotape for him. And then played it again. There was Wallace apologizing and admitting to having been “dishonest” and “stupid.” And yet the show had run again, without correction. It was clear we had a slam-dunk legal case if we wanted to press it.
The CBS president was irate at his own team. He made that clear. The tape did the trick. Apparently the news president then came down hard on Wallace. Really hard. Wallace soon called back. His voice was shaky. “Well, um, you know something? You’re a better man than I am, Congressman.” He promised to go on the air and apologize to the entire country. Then, after more of what can only be described as groveling, Wallace said this:
“You can get this on your tape recorder—I wish you told me you had a tape recorder going; that would have been the gentlemanly thing to do, the first time….”
Livingston interrupted, lowering the boom: “It would have been, but then I didn’t think that I was necessarily dealing with a gentleman.”
Comments
Leave a Comment
Pingback| 5.19.09 @ 7:29AM
All About Cats » Post Topic links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Merlin | 5.19.09 @ 8:27AM
Quin,
Great article as usual.
Now, while were one the subject of Mike Wallace:
I recall that in about 1970, 60 Minutes did several reports on labor unions, each time, the union boss came off looking like a thug, and Wallace and his cameraman generally got shoved out of the office. After a few segments like this over a two or three months period, they stopped completely with anything on unions. Is my memory correct?
It seems that Mike Wallace did more to discredit unions than anything businesses or conservatives have done.
Aaron| 5.19.09 @ 9:06AM
Great article Quin.
Merlin,
I believe I remember the same thing about 60 min and the unions, no doubt they got a visit from cousin Vinnie. That was the wrong time in history to be messing around with the Teamsters.
Mattled| 5.19.09 @ 12:35PM
Mr. Hillyer,
What are we going to do about the media? Mr. Steele seems incapable of handling these snakes. The agenda is clearly laid out and they are going to cover, mislead and NOT report for years to come.
My spouse works for a news organization and I am constantly asking/stating that if the media wanted some credibility back, now would be the time. There is so much material on this guy and his flip-flopping is amazing.
But they continue to report at HIS word.
Take the so-called abuse photos for example; they report hook, line and sinker that he "bravely" did an about face and that releasing those photos would harm our image (LOL).
What they don't report is that he didn't issue an executive order. He wants those photos released and they will be. What a bunch of suckers he takes his supporters for. And they are. Just watch the Sunday morning shows and see for yourself.
Oldefarte| 5.19.09 @ 12:58PM
Great story, Quin! There is an old joke concerning prostitution, that ends with "...we all know what you ARE---- we're just not sure WHAT PRICE YOU CHARGE". This, to me, describes the MSM [ie 60 Minutes] to a T. The most blatant case in recent history was the NYT's front page story concerning McCain's alleged affair with a female lobbyist 10 years prior; that was nothing more than an attempt to smear his reputation and discredit his presidential election possibilities [a HIT JOB in Quin's terminology]. When I read that, the excrement was coming out both crevices of my body. Instead of running daily investigative articles concerning Obama's relationships with Wright, Ayers, Jackson, his upbringing inside Chicago style politics, and other truthful/factual information; these partisan idiots were attempting to place McCain's feet in political concrete and dump him into the Hudson River. Why McCain did not sue the NYT for slander, etc; I'll never understand [but if you've ever seen the movie ABSENCE OF MALISE you may begin to understand why not]. This unfortionately is just a drop in the bucket of what the MSM is capable of doing; and it's astonishing to me that normal, intelligent people can daily read these biased rags and not have the common sense to see/understand the partisan slant on every line of every [so-called] news article. When liberals [ie bloggers] comment/argue their point, it is almost a Dowd plagerism moment, since they almost quote word-for-word what they have just observed in their respective newspapers. It's not by accident that, when a dictator takes over a country/region, the first course of action is to confiscate the local newspaper[s] in order to effectuate the brainwashing of the populace. In my entire lifetime, liberals have migrated from this country's [university] journalism schools into the news rooms of our nation's papers; and of course, for 4+ prior years, they have been brainwashed by liberal college professors. Now, the movement is afoot to re-introduce the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, which in effect, would surpress any conservative thought and opinion. Folks, all this IS NOT BY ACCIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frank Marschino| 5.19.09 @ 1:52PM
The mainstream media lie in almost every political story they do...they can't help themselves, since they are liberals who scream intolerance by the Right when they are the ones who are intolerant. I play a game occasionally when watching TV...I switch over to PMSNBC and count how many seconds until they say something negative about conservatives or Republicans. The longest I have waited is 1 minute 18 seconds...several times it has been less than 10 seconds....if anyone wants to bet on it, the over/under is 14 seconds.
Pingback| 5.20.09 @ 12:58AM
Ed Driscoll » They Shoot Cats, Don’t They? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
P. Smith | 5.20.09 @ 11:55AM
I have really come to the point where I can't even look at these so called newsmen anymore. I feel that at every turn these people are attempting to manipulate the American people in a way that is foreign to us.
When you read of these bizarre stories of Keith Olbermann’s behavior, you have to conclude that we may be dealing with people who are psychopaths or at least have severe psychological imbalance’s. My conclusion is that our media is only portraying on a larger than life scale the direction of most American. Where have the real men gone; have they left the room?
Oldefarte| 5.20.09 @ 12:29PM
P.Smith: As another who is disgusted with this lunatic Olbermann and his nightly rantings on MSNBC, could you tell me where I might find the stories concerning him that you just referred to? Thanks.
LeChat| 5.20.09 @ 1:02PM
60 Minutes and the MSM lost any credibility many years ago. It simply doesn't matter what they say anymore. Nobody takes them seriously.
P.Smith| 5.20.09 @ 2:23PM
OldefarteHere are some links about Olbermann. There is evidence that he may be a sexual predator type.
www.olbermannwatch.com
http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1291114
Enjoy,... I guess
Lingerie| 9.12.09 @ 11:07PM
href='http://www.charmingirl-china.com'>wholesale lingerie