FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W166595800> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W166595800 abstract "This article tests the credibility of the 1982 internal CBS News investigation known as the Benjamin Report, which concluded that the CBS Reports documentary Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Deception violated network standards. This report has yet to be critiqued as an historical artifact or tested against primary documents. Historical analysis reveals the Benjamin Report exhibited many of the deficiencies attributed to the documentary. This analysis begins with the confluence of journalism and military intelligence leading up to the documentary, and this is followed by interpretations of the importance of the documentary, the relationship between journalism and American intelligence issues, and the association between the Benjamin Report and the history of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. This article analyzes a critical document emerging from the controversy that enveloped a 1982 CBS Reports documentary, Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Deception. The document was the product of an internal investigation at CBS News conducted by Burton Bud Benjamin and known as the Benjamin Report. CBS was praised .for its investigation, and the Benjamin Report was cited as one tactic a media organization could employ to foil costly libel suits stemming from controversial news reports.' An historical examination, though, shows the Benjamin Report was flawed and its author committed many of the same errors in judgment and execution attributed to the documentary's producer, George Crue, III. The Benjamin Report contributed to a media frenzy that eclipsed a significant revelation about American military intelligence. Despite support within journalism for the CBS investigation, in retrospect the Benjamin Report warranted more careful scrutiny of its credibility and consideration about how it might affect journalism. Examining the past, though, also informs the present. Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Deception chronicled the manipulation of intelligence in the mid-1960s for political reasons. It was not the first such national disclosure. Two infamous reports, The Pentagon Papers, published in 1971,2 and the 1976 leak to The Village Voice of the House Select Committee on Intelligence's Pike Report,3 also disclosed alarming patterns of intelligence oversights and abuses, including failures to anticipate security threats in foreign lands and plots to interfere with foreign governments. In light of findings thirty years later by the 9/11 Commission about the failure of intelligence officials to forewarn the public about the September 11 attack, as well as questions about the quality and politicization of foreign intelligence before the 2003 war in Iraq, it is logical to consider why revelations in the 1970s and 1980s did not spur changes sufficient to prevent 9/11 or improve the quality of intelligence before the Iraq war. This history is explained, in part, by the nexus of two diametrically opposed entities-the fields of intelligence and journalism. Intelligence agencies, controlled by powerful political figures, are by nature clandestine. Media organizations are visible in their efforts to check power. As long as citizens feel safe, they can reasonably assume intelligence and defense agencies are working, and they can logically trust their political leaders. When national security is threatened, though, or when journalists disclose chinks in the intelligence armor, the tenures of political and public officials are put at risk. The choice for these officials is to rectify the failing, which can be costly, complicated, and public, or discredit the revelation to retain power while rectifying the problem internally. When the integrity of a news report is called into question, journalism also faces a choice. Its investigators can illuminate reporting flaws and work to correct them while simultaneously vetting the report's original premise. Or they can shift attention away from the substance of the report and the problem it revealed toward the reporter and his or her process, which may or may not lead to corrections. …" @default.
• W166595800 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W166595800 creator A5022105608 @default.
• W166595800 date "2005-07-01" @default.
• W166595800 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W166595800 title "Flaws in the Benjamin Report" @default.
• W166595800 cites W2042187716 @default.
• W166595800 doi "https://doi.org/10.1080/00947679.2005.12062674" @default.
• W166595800 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W166595800 type Work @default.
• W166595800 sameAs 166595800 @default.
• W166595800 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W166595800 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W166595800 hasAuthorship W166595800A5022105608 @default.
• W166595800 hasConcept C119513131 @default.
• W166595800 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W166595800 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W166595800 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W166595800 hasConcept C2779267917 @default.
• W166595800 hasConcept C2780224610 @default.
• W166595800 hasConcept C29595303 @default.
• W166595800 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W166595800 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W166595800 hasConcept C95480931 @default.
• W166595800 hasConceptScore W166595800C119513131 @default.
• W166595800 hasConceptScore W166595800C144024400 @default.
• W166595800 hasConceptScore W166595800C17744445 @default.
• W166595800 hasConceptScore W166595800C199539241 @default.
• W166595800 hasConceptScore W166595800C2779267917 @default.
• W166595800 hasConceptScore W166595800C2780224610 @default.
• W166595800 hasConceptScore W166595800C29595303 @default.
• W166595800 hasConceptScore W166595800C94625758 @default.
• W166595800 hasConceptScore W166595800C95457728 @default.
• W166595800 hasConceptScore W166595800C95480931 @default.
• W166595800 hasLocation W1665958001 @default.
• W166595800 hasOpenAccess W166595800 @default.
• W166595800 hasPrimaryLocation W1665958001 @default.
• W166595800 hasRelatedWork W1976698646 @default.
• W166595800 hasRelatedWork W1992755390 @default.
• W166595800 hasRelatedWork W2007349130 @default.
• W166595800 hasRelatedWork W20252701 @default.
• W166595800 hasRelatedWork W2027464267 @default.
• W166595800 hasRelatedWork W2316692767 @default.
• W166595800 hasRelatedWork W2769403915 @default.
• W166595800 hasRelatedWork W3126495318 @default.
• W166595800 hasRelatedWork W4220982448 @default.
• W166595800 hasRelatedWork W2035128429 @default.
• W166595800 isParatext "false" @default.
• W166595800 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W166595800 magId "166595800" @default.
• W166595800 workType "article" @default.