to be her lot if she remained at 60 Minutes? And so, in turn, might this readiness
to lose the brightest women not be symptomatic of a readiness of the 60 Minutes
administration to place extraneous goals - in this case, personal sexual
gratification - above program quality? And might this same policy of demoting
program quality to less than top priority have ultimately resulted in a severe
degradation of the quality of some 60 Minutes broadcasts, as for example your story
The Ugly Face of Freedom?
(3) Does male hiring demonstrate any similar willingness to sacrifice program quality?
One cannot help contemplating that if 60 Minutes is willing to promote goals other
than program quality in its hiring of female employees, that it might be willing to
promote goals other than program quality in its hiring of male employees as well.
Might it be the case, for example, that male employees are sometimes hired not for
competence, but for adherence to a 60 Minutes ideology? Or might it be the case that
men of high professional quality left 60 Minutes, or refused to join 60 Minutes, upon
witnessing the ideological claptrap that they might be asked to read over the air in
violation of journalistic ethics and in violation of rules of evidence? This too
could help explain the low quality of The Ugly Face of Freedom.
(4) Do some 60 Minutes employees feel that malfeasance is their right? Referring to the
harassment and assaulting of female employees, reporter Mark Hertsgaard is quoted as
saying that "One producer said that basically Mike Wallace and Don Hewitt felt this
was their right." This observation leads me to wonder whether there is not on the
part of certain 60 Minutes staff some similar attitude to the effect that
broadcasting their prejudices against Ukraine as facts is their right, and that
enjoying freedom from accountability concerning what they have broadcast about
Ukraine is also their right?
Lubomyr Prytulak
cc: Ed Bradley, Jeffrey Fager, Don Hewitt, Steve Kroft, Andy Rooney, Lesley Stahl,
Mike Wallace.
HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE SAFER 965 hits since 21Apr99
Morley Safer Letter 7 21Apr99 Does drinking wine promote longevity?
At bottom, then, I see little difference between your French Paradox story of 5Nov95 and
your Ugly Face of Freedom story of 23Oct94 - in each case, you ventured beyond your
depth, giving superficial judgments on topics that you were unqualified to speak on,
discussing questions that your education had given you no grounding in, and causing
damage because your conclusions proved to be false.
April 21, 1999
Morley Safer
60 Minutes, CBS Television
51 W 52nd Street
New York, NY
USA 10019
Morley Safer:
I find your photograph. Recently, I was searching the internet looking for a photograph
of you that I could use on the Ukrainian Archive (UKAR), and I did manage to find an
attractive one, and I did put it on UKAR, as you can see at:
http://www.ukar.org/safer.shtml
I attach to it a caption. Underneath this photograph I selected from the many
ill-considered things that you said in your 23Oct94 60 Minutes broadcast, The Ugly Face
of Freedom, your statement "Western Ukraine also has a long, dark history of blaming its
poverty, its troubles, on others." A moment's reflection upon this statement must
convince any objective observer that it is unlikely to be the case that some historian
that you consulted had recommended to you the conclusion that Western Ukrainians were
more predisposed than other people to blaming their troubles on others. Rather, a
moment's reflection must convince any objective observer that it is likely that this
statement came off the top of your head without the least evidence to support it, and
that you then had the temerity to pass it along to tens of millions of viewers as if it
were a fact. In making this statement, and in making the scores of other erroneous or
unsupported statements that you also made on that broadcast, you were inflicting harm
upon Ukraine, you were lowering the credibility of 60 Minutes, and you were undermining
your standing as a journalist of competence and integrity.
What you are most famous for. The reason that I am writing to you today, however,
concerns The Ugly Face of Freedom only indirectly. What concerns me today is a
surprising discovery that I made while searching for your name on the Internet. The
discovery is that your name seems to be most closely connected to the conclusion that
drinking three to five glasses of wine per day increases longevity, which conclusion you
proposed on a 60 Minutes story broadcast on 5Nov95, apparently under the title The
French Paradox. It seems that you have become famous for this story, and that it may
constitute the pinnacle of your career.
For example, a representative Internet article that is found upon an InfoSeek search for
"Morley Safer, 60 Minutes" is written by Kim Marcus and appears on the Home Wine
Spectator web site. The article's headline announces that 60 Minutes Examines Stronger
Evidence Linking Wine and Good Health, with the comparative "stronger" signifying that
the evidence presented in the 5Nov95 broadcast was better than the evidence presented in
a similar 60 Minutes broadcast four years earlier. This Home Wine Spectator article
viewed your broadcast as demonstrating the existence of a causal connection between
(what some might judge a high volume of) wine consumption and longevity, underlined your
own high credibility and the high authority of your sources, pointed out the vast
audience to which your conclusions had been beamed, and suggested that wine consumption
shot up as a result of at least the first French Paradox broadcast:
The study also found that the benefits of wine drinking extended to
people who drank from three to five glasses of wine per day. "What
surprised us most was that wine intake signified much lower mortality
rates," Safer said to the television show's audience.
Overall, the segment should prove a big boost to the argument that wine
drinking in moderation can be a boon to one's health. The segment was
seen by more than 20 million people. "It isn't just information," said
John De Luca, president of California's Wine Institute, "it's the
credibility that comes with Morley Safer interviewing the scientists."
After the first French Paradox episode aired in November 1991 the
consumption of red wine shot up in the United States, and it has yet to
dip.
The Kim Marcus article underlined your failure to question the conclusion that wine
consumption increases life expectancy:
Throughout the episode, Safer didn't challenge the fact that wine is
linked to longer life; rather, he was interested in what it was about
wine that made it unique. "The central question is what is it about
wine, especially red wine, that promotes coronary health," he said.
Safer came to the conclusion that it is not only alcohol but other
unnamed compounds in wine that contributed to higher levels of
beneficial high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol.
I had already seen that French Paradox broadcast. As a matter of fact, I had watched your
French Paradox story when it was first broadcast on 5Nov95, and even while watching it I
had immediately recognized that your conclusion attributing longer life to wine drinking
was unjustified, and that you were causing harm in passing this conclusion along to a
large audience almost all of whom would accept it as true. At bottom, then, I see
little difference between your French Paradox story of 5Nov95 and your Ugly Face of
Freedom story of 23Oct94 - in each case, you ventured beyond your depth, giving
superficial judgments on topics that you were unqualified to speak on, discussing
questions that your education had given you no grounding in, and causing damage because
your conclusions proved to be false.
In the case of the Ugly Face of Freedom, the number of your errors was large, and the
amount of data that needed to be examined to demonstrate your errors was large as well,
as can be seen by the length of my rebuttal The Ugly Face of 60 Minutes. In the case of
the French Paradox, however, you make only one fundamental error which is to fail to
grasp the difference between experimental and correlational data - and my demonstration
of your error can compactly be contained within the present letter.
The reason that I am able to assert with some confidence that your conclusion that wine
drinking increases longevity is unjustified is as follows. I have a Ph.D. in
experimental psychology from Stanford, I taught in the Department of Psychology at the
University of Western Ontario for eleven years, and my teaching and my interests fell
largely into the areas of statistics, research methodology, and data interpretation.
Everyone with expertise in scientific method will agree with me that your conclusion in
The French Paradox was unwarranted. It is not necessary to read the original research
papers on which you rely to arrive at this same judgment - even the brief review of the
research data in your broadcast, even the briefer review of your broadcast in the Kim
Marcus quotations above - is enough for someone who has studied scientific method to see
that you were wrong. Below is my explanation.
The French Paradox Research
Cannot Have Been Experimental
There are two ways in which data relating wine consumption to longevity could have been
gathered - either in an experiment, or in a correlational study. If the data had been
gathered in an experiment, then it would have been done something like this. A number
of subjects (by which I mean human experimental subjects) would have been randomly
assigned to groups, let us say 11 different groups. The benefit of random assignment is
that it guarantees that the subjects in each group are initially equivalent in every
conceivable respect - equivalent in male-female ratio, in age, in health, in income, in
diet, in smoking, in drug use, and so on. That is the magic of random assignment, and
we cannot pause to discuss it - you will have to take my word for it.
To groups that enjoy pre-treatment equality, the experimenter administers his treatment.