CBS News aired a short “correction” at the tail end of its Sunday-night broadcast of “60 Minutes” in the hopes the remarks would end a bout of intense scrutiny put on the newsmagazine since it aired a false account from a security officer who made claims about his involvement in last year’s attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
In brief remarks delivered at the end of the program, correspondent Lara Logan, who was the on-air anchor for the controversial segment that aired Oct. 27, said “60 Minutes” came to realize it “has been misled, and that it was a mistake to include him in our report” after a discovery that Dylan Davies, the security operative, had given a different account of his time in Benghazi to the F.B.I. She made little mention of reporting from The Washington Post and The New York Times that brought that information to light.
“The most important thing to every person at ’60 Minutes’ is the truth,” said Logan, “and the truth is, we made a mistake.”
During her remarks, which lasted approximately 90 seconds and aired just before the show wrapped at about 8:45 p.m. Eastern time, Logan made no mention of any ramifications for those people involved in the report, including herself and the segment’s producer, Max McLellan, whose name appeared in graphics that accompanied her appearance.
She also did not mention whether CBS News would review the reporting that went into the segment or whether the CBS unit determined any incorrect procedures stemming from the fact that Davies’ account was also published in a book released by Simon & Schuster, another part of CBS Corp., which was not disclosed by “60 Minutes.”
Some people posting reactions on Twitter Sunday night thought Logan’s comments did not go far enough:
If CBS News is reviewing the incident further, it is not talking about it in public. In remarks made to Variety Friday afternoon, CBS News Chairman Jeff Fager, also executive producer of the venerable news show, said CBS News would “own” making a mistake, but declined to discuss any potential repercussions for staffers or changes that might be made to policy as a result of the error.
The error marks a rare misstep for the hard-hitting newsmagazine, which has long burnished an image of taking on difficult investigations and setting a high bar for checking facts.