ГУЛаг Палестины

self-determination by the Ukrainian people wa such a new and fresh event

that not only the average Jewish citizen, but also the intellectuals,

with few exceptions, did not digest or understand all that had happened.

But the fact remains, Jews were represented by a very considerable number

in the ranks both of the Bolsheviks and, at the beginning, of Denikin's

army. The Ukrainian movement was joined only by a few Jews.

The representatives of Russian and Jewish capital and heavy industry were

marching hand-in-hand with the Volunteer Armies of Denikin, Yudenitch,

and Koltchak. And even after all those pogroms committed by Denikin's

army, the Jewish capitalists and industrialists followed the call of his

successor Wrangel, and joined him

Finally, one more feature out of many others that distinguish the

Ukrainian Movement from that of Denikin: An anti-Jewish pogrom was openly

carried on in Kiev in the presence of Denikin's generals, Drahomirov and

Bredov. Never did happen anything like that, wherever the Directorate

set up headquarters, neither in Kiev, nor in Vynnytsia, nor in

Kamanets-Pololsk. The Kiev population knows from bitter experience the

difference between those two regimes.

Nevertheless, in spite of all these quite essential differences, here

abroad the pogroms of the followers of Petlura are much more known than

those perpetrated by Denikin's army, although the latter numerically and

qualitatively surpassed considerably the former. This is to be explained

not only by the propaganda of the Russian groups which have old

connections and larger means in Europe and America, but also by the

incontestable fact that the first series of pogroms attracted the

greatest attention and brought forth the strongest expression of

dissatisfaction on the part of the public.

(In F. Pigido (ed.), Material Concerning Ukrainian-Jewish Relations

during the Years of the Revolution (1917-1921): Collection of Documents

and Testimonies by Prominent Jewish Political Workers, The Ukrainian

Information Bureau, Munich, 1956, pp. 48-51)

HOME DISINFORMATION 60 MINUTES 989 hits since 12Aug98

Ginsburg U.S. Court of Appeals 11Aug98 Serafyn vs. Federal Communications Commission

Serafyn also submitted evidence that "60 Minutes" had no policy against

news distortion and indeed that management considered some distortion

acceptable. For example, according to the Washington Post, Mike

Wallace, a longtime reporter for "60 Minutes," told an interviewer: "You

don't like to baldly lie, but I have."

An introduction to the United States Court of Appeals decision below can

be found in an Associated Press article by Jeannine Aversa which is on

the Ukrainian Archive.

The original of the Court of Appeals decision below can be found on the

United States Court of Appeals web site whose home page is at

www.cadc.uscourts.gov and where the decision can either be accessed by

following links from the Court of Appeals home page, or else accessed

directly at www.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199808/95-1385a.txt.

As page numbering was not indicated in the Court of Appeals web site

version, it could not be inserted below, although page boundaries could

be inferred and are indicated below by means of horizontal lines.

The version below inserts clickable yellow CONTENTS boxes to remedy the

general problem of a reader's losing track of where he is within a large

document when reading it on screen, and to facilitate moving effortlessly

from one part of the document to another.

CONTENTS:

Title Page

I. Background

II. News Distortion

A. Evidentiary standard

B. Licensee's policy on distortion

C. Nature of particular evidence

1. Extrinsic evidence

(a) Outtakes of the interview with Rabbi Bleich

(b) The viewer letters

(c) The refusal to consult Professor Luciuk

2. Evidence of factual inaccuracies

D. Misrepresentation

III. Conclusion

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued January 23, 1998 Decided August 11, 1998

No. 95-1385

Alexander J. Serafyn, et al.,

Appellants

v.

Federal Communications Commission,

Appellee

CBS Inc., et al.,

Intervenors

Consolidated with

Nos. 95-1440, 95-1608

Appeal of Orders of the

Federal Communications Commission

Arthur V. Belendiuk argued the cause and filed the briefs

for appellants. Shaun A. Maher and Donna T. Pochoday

entered appearances.

C. Grey Pash, Jr., Counsel, Federal Communications Com

mission, argued the cause for appellee, with whom Christo

pher J. Wright, General Counsel, and Daniel M. Armstrong,

Associate General Counsel, were on the brief.

Richard E. Wiley, Lawrence W. Secrest, III, James R.

Bayes, and Daniel E. Troy were on the brief for intervenors

CBS Inc. and Westinghouse Electric Corporation. John

Lane Jr., Ramsey L. Woodworth, and Robert M. Gurss

entered appearances.

Before: Ginsburg, Henderson, and Randolph, Circuit

Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Ginsburg.

Ginsburg, Circuit Judge: Alexander Serafyn petitioned the

Federal Communications Commission to deny or to set for

hearing the application of CBS for a new station license.

Serafyn objected that CBS was not fit to receive a license