Skip to playerSkip to main contentSkip to footer
TV Hub
  • 2 days ago
A look into the internal corporate and journalistic conflicts news organizations deal with in covering big business, centering on the legal battles surrounding ABC and CBS reports on the tobacco industry.

Category

📺
TV
Transcript
00:00Tonight's program was funded in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
00:15Frontline is made possible by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.
00:21Friday, November 5th.
00:29You go public and 30 million people hear what you've got to say.
00:32Nothing, I mean nothing, will ever be the same again.
00:35The controversial new movie about the media and the tobacco industry opens nationwide.
00:40He's got something to say. He wants to say it. I want it on 60 Minutes.
00:43The inside story of what happened when 60 Minutes tried to take on the tobacco industry.
00:48They have no right to hide behind a corporate agreement.
00:50He can talk, we can air it.
00:54Tonight on Frontline, the real story and the real players.
00:58What are you going to do now? You're going to finesse me? Lawyer me some more?
01:02Try Mr. Wallace.
01:03We learned of a tobacco insider who I know was the whole story.
01:06It was the CBS lawyers who told us that you are to do no more reporting.
01:12Doing this with or without you, Lowell.
01:14Are you a businessman or are you a newsman?
01:16The corporation would not risk its assets on this story.
01:21Dr. Weigand's deposition will be part of this record.
01:24And Jeffrey Weigand, the whistleblower.
01:26People who know me know I'm very ethical. They also know I play pretty hardball.
01:31Does he go on television and tell the truth?
01:33Yes.
01:34Is it newsworthy?
01:36Yes.
01:36Are we going to air it?
01:38Of course not.
01:39Why did CBS spike its own journalists?
01:42I think that we were deceived and lied to.
01:46And is investigative reporting being compromised by media mergers with big business?
01:50More is going on here than we even know now, unfortunately.
01:55Tonight, Daniel Shore looks at how CBS got smoke in its eye.
02:00Just before daybreak in Louisville, Kentucky,
02:29a pair of former Secret Service agents begin what has become a daily routine,
02:35carefully sweeping their client's vehicle for booby traps.
02:44It's a different way of living.
02:46When you have somebody every morning goes out and checks and starts my car,
02:52checks your mail, opens your mail,
02:54make sure that the mail you're getting is safe,
02:57that somebody's not trying to do something violent to you.
03:08Follows me to make sure I'm not followed,
03:10make sure that people can't physically assault me.
03:16Threats just scare me to death.
03:17I mean, they're intimidating.
03:20For the past four months, bodyguards have been escorting him.
03:30The FBI is investigating death threats.
03:36It's the kind of security you might expect for a statesman,
03:40or even for the wealthy business executive he once was.
03:43His name is Dr. Jeffrey Weigary, high school teacher.
03:52He was once the vice president for scientific research
03:55at the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company.
03:58Since he was fired in March 1993,
04:01the company has invoked his confidentiality agreement,
04:04trying to keep him quiet.
04:05People who know me know I'm very ethical.
04:10They also know I play pretty hardball.
04:13I don't stand for much that really goes out
04:16to the side of the boundaries of legality,
04:18and I saw too much of that
04:20to where it bothered my conscience.
04:24In August 1995, he decided to clear his conscience
04:27and tell CBS's 60 Minutes about Brown and Williamson.
04:30I was paid well, it was comfortable.
04:32He spoke of his life as a tobacco executive
04:34with correspondent Mike Wallace.
04:36You were happy to take down the 300,000 bucks a year.
04:40I essentially, yeah, took the money.
04:43I did my job.
04:45For 60 Minutes producer Lowell Bergman,
04:47that interview was the product of 18 months of work,
04:51slowly winning the confidence of Weigand,
04:53the highest-ranking tobacco insider ever to speak out.
04:56The real thing that we were doing here
04:58was presenting a voice from inside the industry
05:02which miraculously had been able to maintain
05:07kind of an almost rigid discipline
05:11amongst its former executives and current executives.
05:15And the voice was saying?
05:17It's addictive.
05:18We know that.
05:19That's how we talk about it.
05:21The voice is saying it's a health problem.
05:24In fact, it's a bigger health problem
05:25than people really realize,
05:27and we've known about it for years.
05:28And that's how we talk about it inside.
05:31Their representation clearly,
05:33at least within Brown and Williamson's representation,
05:36clearly misstated what they commonly knew
05:38as language within the company.
05:41That we're in a nicotine delivery business.
05:43And that's what cigarettes are for.
05:44Most certainly.
05:45It's a delivery device for nicotine.
05:47A delivery device for nicotine.
05:49Put it in your mouth, light it up,
05:51and you're going to get your fix.
05:52You're going to get your fix.
05:54But when the story finally ran,
05:56Dr. Wygand wasn't in it.
05:59We learned of a tobacco insider
06:01who could tell us whether or not
06:02the tobacco industry has been leveling with the public.
06:05But we cannot broadcast what critical information
06:08about tobacco, addiction,
06:09and public health he might be able to offer.
06:13Why?
06:14Because he had to sign a confidentiality agreement
06:17with the tobacco company he worked for.
06:19Mike Wallace was forced to admit
06:21he was gagging his own whistleblower
06:23on orders.
06:24Is your confidentiality agreement with
06:28still in force?
06:29Yes, it is.
06:31So what are they going to do?
06:32Sue you for making this appearance?
06:34I would bet on it.
06:37Wallace would later admit
06:38he had never encountered anything quite like this.
06:41Never before.
06:44Never before.
06:45From time to time,
06:47corporations will make their displeasure known
06:51to the honchos at CBS News,
06:55but we're always protected from it.
06:57In this particular case,
06:59it was the CBS lawyers
07:00who told us that were we to go ahead,
07:03there was a good possibility
07:04that the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation
07:06would sue and sue for
07:08perhaps $10 billion, $15 billion.
07:12It seems to me
07:17that it sent a terrible message
07:20out to all broadcasters
07:22across the nation,
07:24perhaps around the world,
07:25because here is 60 Minutes,
07:27a top 10 program,
07:30the top program CBS has had on the air
07:33for almost 20 years.
07:34The most successful news program ever.
07:35Most successful news program
07:36and the most successful program
07:37I mean of everything.
07:39A huge moneymaker for the company.
07:42And the management of 60 Minutes
07:45has the power there quite clearly
07:47to say, I'm sorry.
07:49We're doing this because we must do it.
07:52This is a journalistic imperative.
07:55We have this story and we're going with it.
07:58We've got to take whatever
07:59the legal chances are on it.
08:01Well, they didn't.
08:02They felt it was necessary
08:04to buckle under the legal pressures.
08:07And that must send a message
08:08to every station across the country
08:11where they might have any ambitions
08:13to do investigative reporting.
08:16Hey, look, if 60 Minutes
08:17can't stand the pressure,
08:19then none of us ought to get
08:21in the kitchen at all.
08:22I mean, it's just a hopeless cause.
08:26Veterans of another era at CBS
08:31see Dr. Jeffrey Wigand's experience
08:33with 60 Minutes
08:34as a cautionary tale
08:35of big media and big business.
08:38The issue is the power
08:39of a beleaguered industry,
08:41in this case cigarettes,
08:42to influence what you see on television
08:45and especially what you don't see.
08:47The issue is also
08:48the freedom of television journalism
08:51operating under pressure
08:52of expanding media conglomerates.
08:54And what happens
08:56when the public interest
08:57runs afoul of a business interest?
09:00In the case of 60 Minutes,
09:02CBS was not the first network
09:04to face the cigarette makers
09:06and run.
09:12Tonight,
09:13a day one investigation
09:15that took the government
09:16by surprise.
09:18There's something tobacco companies
09:20don't want you to know.
09:22The industry manipulates nicotine,
09:24takes it out,
09:24puts it back in,
09:26uses it as if it were
09:27sugar being put in candy.
09:29In February and March 1994,
09:31the ABC news program Day One
09:34accused the tobacco industry
09:36of manipulating nicotine
09:37in cigarettes to cause addiction.
09:39They had their own whistleblower.
09:41They put nicotine
09:43in the form of tobacco extract
09:45into a product
09:47to keep the consumer happy.
09:50They're fortifying the product
09:52with nicotine,
09:53is that correct?
09:54The waste filler,
09:56yes they are.
09:57The reason why
09:58the Day One piece
09:59was important
09:59was because
10:00the FDA at this time
10:02had its own investigation going
10:04and they had turned
10:06and focused on nicotine.
10:08Is this a drug?
10:09Because if it is a drug,
10:10we can regulate it.
10:11The government has a right
10:12to regulate it.
10:12It says so in the law.
10:13For reporters like
10:16Philip Hiltz
10:17of the New York Times,
10:18this was a major break
10:19in the tobacco story,
10:21supporting the new FDA proposal
10:23to regulate nicotine
10:24as a drug.
10:26Then on one weekend,
10:27both of them came out,
10:28a letter from the FDA
10:29saying we could regulate this
10:30and a piece on ABC
10:32saying this is the center
10:34of the tobacco business,
10:35they're manipulating nicotine.
10:36So it was crucial.
10:37It was the first big story
10:40of this two-year run of stories.
10:43The Day One revelations
10:46also caught the eye
10:47of a lawyer
10:48in Charleston, South Carolina.
10:50Ron Motley is working
10:51on five major lawsuits
10:53against the tobacco industry,
10:55all seeking damages
10:56for tobacco-related
10:58health problems.
10:59Day One provided him
11:00with some fresh ammunition.
11:03They brought forth
11:04a lot of information
11:05that was otherwise unavailable
11:07and opened some doors
11:09for the lawyers to pursue.
11:11It was like almost
11:13a cartography
11:15or a mapping
11:16of the information
11:18that we could pursue
11:19and we have pursued.
11:21I'd like you to rise
11:23and those who will be
11:24testifying as well.
11:24Five weeks after
11:25the Day One reports,
11:26seven top tobacco executives
11:28were summoned
11:29before a congressional subcommittee.
11:32If you raise your right hand,
11:33do you swear
11:34that the testimony
11:35you're about to give
11:36is to the whole group?
11:36Each was asked under oath
11:37about a key assertion
11:38of the Day One story.
11:40Please consider yourself
11:41to be under oath.
11:43Yes or no?
11:43Do you believe
11:44nicotine is not addictive?
11:46I believe nicotine
11:47is not addictive, yes.
11:48Mr. Johnston.
11:50Congressman,
11:52cigarettes and nicotine
11:53clearly do not meet
11:55the classic definitions
11:56of addiction.
11:57There is no intoxication.
11:58We'll take that as a no.
11:59I don't believe
12:00that nicotine
12:00or our products
12:02are addictive.
12:03I believe nicotine
12:04is not addictive.
12:06The company officials
12:07swore up and down the line
12:08that nicotine
12:09was not addictive
12:10and under pressure
12:11their denials
12:12became even more emphatic.
12:14The American tobacco company
12:16does not spike
12:17its cigarettes
12:18with nicotine.
12:19Philip Morris
12:20does not add nicotine
12:21to our cigarettes.
12:23But they had seized
12:24on one specific claim
12:25made by Day One.
12:27Why are you artificially
12:29spiking your cigarettes
12:30with nicotine?
12:31We are not
12:31in any way
12:33doing that.
12:34That specific accusation
12:35would be used
12:36against ABC
12:37by the tobacco giant
12:38Philip Morris.
12:39We sent a statement
12:40over to ABC
12:41making it very clear
12:42that we do not
12:43spike our cigarettes.
12:44And it launched
12:45a $10 billion libel suit
12:47against the network.
12:49The suit charges ABC
12:50with willful
12:51and reckless disregard
12:52of the facts
12:53when Day One
12:53and other ABC news...
12:55Even as ABC
12:55prepared to fight
12:56the Philip Morris suit,
12:58its journalists
12:58suddenly found themselves
13:00with a new scoop
13:01about another
13:02tobacco company.
13:03Following the nicotine
13:05manipulation story,
13:08Day One started
13:08receiving other information.
13:12Cliff Douglas,
13:13a lawyer
13:13and anti-tobacco activist,
13:15had been interviewed
13:16in the Day One reports
13:17and he continued
13:18to be a major source
13:20for the ABC journalists.
13:22Well, the reporters
13:22saw this
13:23and they knew
13:23that they had
13:23something special.
13:25They took this information,
13:28which they had obtained
13:29only a couple of weeks
13:30after Philip Morris
13:32had filed suit
13:32against ABC
13:33to their in-house lawyers
13:35to say,
13:36look, we've got
13:37this incredible information.
13:38We want to start
13:39reporting on this.
13:41And to their surprise,
13:43the ABC's in-house lawyers
13:45said,
13:45no can do.
13:48The leaked documents
13:50came from the archives
13:51of the Brown and Williamson
13:52Tobacco Company.
13:54These documents
13:55are historic
13:55in the sense
13:56that they probably
13:57are the single
13:58most important
13:59pieces of paper
14:00in the history
14:00of tobacco
14:02versus public health.
14:05The documents
14:06are things
14:07from their internal files,
14:08memos from one executive
14:10to another,
14:11papers from their research labs,
14:13from labs
14:14that they bought things from,
14:16and altogether
14:17there are thousands
14:19of pages
14:20of these things.
14:21They talk pretty openly
14:23about what they think
14:24about nicotine,
14:25what they think
14:25about addiction,
14:26what they think
14:26about the hazards
14:27of cigarettes
14:27and so on
14:28in a way
14:29that we've never
14:30heard before.
14:31And when this showed up
14:32and was brought
14:33to the attention
14:34of ABC's lawyers,
14:36they freaked out.
14:39They seized
14:40not only the original
14:41but also the copy
14:43of all of these documents
14:44from their reporters.
14:47They seized
14:47the reporters'
14:48hard drives
14:49from their computers
14:49and they prohibited
14:51them from
14:52dealing with the story.
14:54Walt Bogdanich,
14:58a Pulitzer Prize-winning
14:59journalist,
15:00was the first
15:01to get the Brown
15:02and Williamson documents.
15:04A producer for ABC,
15:05he had done
15:06much of the work
15:07on the original
15:07day one tobacco stories.
15:09Is it true
15:10that ABC
15:11had the Brown
15:13and Williamson documents
15:14way ahead
15:15of everybody else
15:16and chose
15:17under some sort
15:18of management
15:19decision
15:19not to run
15:20is that correct?
15:23Well, there's a lot
15:24I'd like to say
15:25about that topic.
15:26Unfortunately,
15:27I can't.
15:29My company
15:30has taken the position
15:31that no one
15:31is to speak
15:32about this
15:33and since I work
15:35for the company,
15:36I've got to respect that.
15:38ABC News
15:39turned down
15:40our request
15:41to explain
15:41why it had
15:42stopped its journalists
15:43from reporting
15:44on the Brown
15:45and Williamson documents.
15:47We've been told
15:48that ABC lawyers
15:49had said
15:49that publication
15:50of the documents
15:51was prohibited
15:52by a Kentucky
15:53court injunction.
15:54Finally,
15:55ABC News
15:55Executive Vice President
15:57Paul Friedman
15:57reluctantly agreed
15:59to talk to us.
16:01You had what,
16:02in retrospect,
16:03was potentially
16:04one of the biggest
16:05scoops of the year,
16:07maybe longer,
16:09of major importance
16:11to the health
16:11of people,
16:12Americans.
16:13Why didn't you use it?
16:16Well,
16:16first,
16:19we knew
16:20that we weren't
16:21the only ones
16:21pursuing these
16:22or possibly
16:24in possession
16:24of this material,
16:25so it wasn't
16:26as if we were
16:27blanking out
16:28the world
16:29from having it.
16:34In all of these cases,
16:36there is a dialogue
16:38between the journalists
16:39and the lawyers.
16:41The lawyers felt
16:42very strongly
16:43that there were
16:44legal liabilities.
16:46We argued
16:47as strongly
16:47as we could
16:48that we wanted
16:49to use the material.
16:51In the final analysis,
16:52they argued
16:54more strongly
16:55and we decided
16:55to take their advice.
16:57The lawyers
16:58were most emphatic.
17:00They reportedly
17:01told the ABC journalists
17:02no news organization
17:04will run
17:04these documents,
17:06none.
17:06But what was it
17:08about this material
17:09that was so sensitive
17:11that it would
17:12invoke
17:13the unusual
17:14measures
17:16where lawyers
17:17tell journalists
17:19to surrender notes,
17:21to surrender
17:21computer disks,
17:23to delete material
17:24from computers,
17:26and just to stay away
17:27from this subject,
17:28stay away from
17:29even alternate sources
17:31of the material.
17:32I don't accept
17:33your question.
17:34I don't accept
17:34the fact that
17:35all those things
17:35happened.
17:35as you state them.
17:37I don't know,
17:37but I don't accept
17:38that they are
17:39the case.
17:40And it wasn't
17:41the nature
17:42of the information
17:43as much as
17:45the source
17:46of the information
17:47and the fact
17:48that there were
17:50court proceedings
17:51underway.
17:53But there was also
17:54journalism underway
17:56in the newsroom
17:57of the New York Times.
17:58In early May,
17:59while ABC News
18:00executives were still
18:01citing illegal taboos,
18:03the Times started
18:04publishing detailed
18:05stories from copies
18:07it had obtained
18:08of some of the
18:08Brown and Williamson
18:09documents.
18:11There were virtually
18:12no legal concerns
18:13at the Times.
18:15When you do a story
18:16like this out of documents,
18:17you do have to give them
18:17to the lawyers.
18:19But, I mean,
18:20go over the story
18:21with the lawyers
18:22and they say,
18:22okay, this is this
18:23and this is that.
18:24But it wasn't a big deal.
18:26I mean,
18:26they said almost nothing.
18:27The story was solid.
18:28It had the documents.
18:29So, in the beginning,
18:31it just wasn't a problem.
18:33In fact,
18:33all the way along,
18:34the lawyers at the Times
18:36were very supportive.
18:37They really wanted to see
18:38the stories in the paper.
18:39The Times owned the story
18:41by the time ABC got around
18:43to reporting it
18:43a week later.
18:45At ABC,
18:45that Kentucky
18:46court injunction
18:47no longer seemed to matter.
18:49And the legal battle
18:50over the papers
18:51was about to move
18:52to a most unlikely arena.
18:54May 12, 1994,
18:564,000 pages
18:58of the Brown
18:58and Williams material
18:59unexpectedly arrived
19:01at the University
19:02of California
19:02in San Francisco.
19:06When these documents
19:07arrived on my doorstep,
19:09the thing that sucked
19:10me into them
19:11was not their potential
19:12political or legal import.
19:14It was the documents
19:15of history,
19:17the documents of science.
19:18I mean,
19:18it was just
19:19an unbelievable find
19:22as a professor.
19:23It would be like
19:23an archaeologist finding
19:24a new tomb
19:26in Egypt or something.
19:30Professor Glantz
19:31began to make his find
19:32available to researchers
19:34through the University Library.
19:36When Brown and Williamson
19:37found out,
19:38it claimed the documents
19:39had been stolen
19:40and sued for their return.
19:42I have to say,
19:43there were periods
19:44when Brown and Williamson
19:46came in and started
19:47threatening the library.
19:49And it was obvious
19:50and threatening
19:51to sue the University.
19:52I figured,
19:53this is when the rubber
19:53hits the road.
19:54And I remember
19:56being called down
19:56to a meeting
19:57with people
20:00from the General
20:01Counsel's office,
20:02Chris Paddy
20:03and others.
20:04And I remember
20:05riding down the elevator
20:06thinking,
20:07this is time
20:09to walk the plank.
20:10You know,
20:11my little adventure
20:12is going to hit a wall.
20:14And that's not at all
20:15what I was told.
20:16What I was told was,
20:17this is what the
20:18University of California
20:19is for.
20:20The University is here
20:21to bring the truth
20:23to people,
20:23to write about things,
20:25to do scholarly research.
20:26And we'll defend you.
20:27And they did.
20:28And they did spectacularly well.
20:32University Attorney
20:33Chris Paddy argued
20:34more boldly than ABC
20:36that the University
20:37had the right
20:38and the obligation
20:39to disseminate the documents.
20:41who claim
20:42that the documents
20:43are privileged
20:43and they simply
20:45haven't demonstrated it.
20:46And I think
20:46that should end
20:48the inquiry
20:48on its own.
20:50We tried to argue
20:52that because
20:53we were publishing
20:54these documents
20:55eventually
20:56over the World Wide Web,
20:58that was our intention,
20:59that we were like
21:00a newspaper
21:01and tried to
21:02analogize
21:03the university's position
21:04to a newspaper's position.
21:05So I would have thought
21:07that a newspaper
21:09or any other media outlet
21:12would have the same arguments
21:14that we would have had
21:14in our case.
21:16The California judge
21:18agreed with the university
21:19and soon the library
21:21was scanning
21:22the 4,000 pages
21:23of Brown and Williamson
21:24documents
21:25onto its worldwide website.
21:28Now they could be downloaded
21:29into computers
21:30around the world.
21:31New York Times,
21:36University of California
21:37and San Francisco,
21:39they both took the position
21:41and I believe
21:41the university argued it
21:43that publication
21:45of this material
21:46was clearly covered
21:48by the First Amendment
21:50of the Constitution,
21:51that this was a matter
21:52of grave public significance.
21:55I have to ask
21:56why ABC News
21:57didn't take that same position.
21:58Lawyers disagree
21:59on all these issues.
22:00We got different advice.
22:02We accepted that advice.
22:04Looking back on it,
22:05can you say
22:05that you fought
22:06those lawyers
22:06with a sufficient amount
22:08of enthusiasm?
22:12Strikes me
22:12as a do-you-beat-your-wife
22:13question.
22:14I think we did
22:15make the case
22:15as strongly as we could.
22:18Meanwhile,
22:19ABC was marshalling
22:20its legal forces
22:21to contest
22:21the $10 billion
22:22libel suit
22:24that Philip Morris
22:24had filed
22:25over the original
22:26day-one reports
22:28about the manipulation
22:29of nicotine content.
22:33In Charleston,
22:34Ron Motley,
22:35veteran of many
22:36legal battles
22:36with the tobacco industry,
22:38felt confident
22:39that ABC was building
22:40a strong defense.
22:42Given the knowledge
22:44I now have
22:45from the various sources
22:46that we've interviewed
22:47and the documents
22:48we have obtained,
22:49there's no basis
22:50for them apologizing
22:51about anything
22:52they've said
22:52about Philip Morris
22:53on that TV program.
22:57But ABC was worried
22:59about trying the case
23:00before a judge
23:01and jury
23:02in Richmond, Virginia,
23:03where tobacco
23:04means jobs.
23:06So they came
23:07to test their case
23:08here in Raleigh,
23:09North Carolina,
23:10a tobacco town
23:11like Richmond.
23:13Two mock juries
23:14were assembled
23:14to hear the arguments
23:15for Philip Morris
23:16and for ABC
23:17and the proceedings
23:19were videotaped.
23:20They don't deny
23:20that it wasn't added.
23:21All they did
23:22was reword it.
23:23And everything
23:25that they said
23:25is all it was
23:26to me.
23:27But what I saw,
23:28it was just turned around
23:29and reworded.
23:30So they did not deny
23:31that this did not
23:32take place.
23:33The results
23:33were encouraging.
23:35Juror Clinton Stroman.
23:37I think
23:37when we had 14 people
23:39and three people
23:41decided for the
23:42tobacco company
23:43and the rest
23:43decided they won.
23:46Why were they
23:47sneaking around
23:48doing this?
23:48Well,
23:49sneaking around
23:49doing that
23:50is what they're
23:51supposed to do.
23:53They're supposed
23:54to do for us.
23:54Juror Carlos Ector.
23:56Most of the people
23:57voted for ABC.
23:58Even some of the people
23:59who were diehard smokers,
24:01they said even though
24:02they smoked,
24:03they still believed
24:04that what the tobacco
24:05industry was doing
24:05was wrong.
24:07They were not going
24:08to stop smoking,
24:08but they still believed
24:09they were wrong.
24:11After 16 months
24:13of preparation,
24:13ABC's lawyers
24:14moved to dismiss
24:15the case,
24:16claiming that documents
24:17in their possession
24:18quote,
24:18eliminated any
24:20factual dispute
24:21as to whether
24:22Philip Morris
24:22adds significant
24:23amounts of extraneous
24:24nicotine during
24:26the production
24:26of reconstituted
24:27tobacco.
24:28It does.
24:31But still preparing
24:32for trial,
24:33ABC attorneys
24:34asked the former
24:34Surgeon General,
24:35Dr. C. Everett Koop,
24:37to be their
24:37lead-off witness.
24:39Their letter said,
24:39we are as confident
24:41of victory as any
24:42prudent trial lawyer
24:43should be.
24:44Then, just six days
24:45later, a bombshell.
24:47The $10 billion
24:48lawsuit filed
24:49against ABC News
24:50by Philip Morris
24:51and R.J. Reynolds
24:52was settled this
24:53evening with a statement.
24:55ABC News agrees
24:56that we should not
24:56have reported
24:57that Philip Morris
24:58and Reynolds
24:58add significant amounts
25:00of nicotine
25:00from outside sources.
25:02That was a mistake
25:03that was not deliberate
25:04on the part of ABC,
25:05but for which we
25:06accept responsibility
25:07and which requires
25:08correction.
25:09We apologize
25:10to our audience,
25:11Philip Morris
25:11and Reynolds.
25:12As apologies
25:13from news divisions
25:14go, this was a stunner.
25:16Today, the tobacco
25:17giant gloated
25:18in ABC's surrender,
25:20gleefully reprinting
25:20the company's apology
25:22in full-page ads
25:23in several major
25:24newspapers.
25:25In view of the fact
25:25that you had
25:26the former Surgeon General
25:27of the United States
25:28in your corner,
25:29there had been
25:30mock jury trials
25:31which upheld
25:33the network position.
25:34How do we account
25:37for the willingness
25:40to sort of back down
25:43at a time
25:45when you seem
25:45to have all the cards
25:46in your hand?
25:48You've used the words
25:49back down.
25:50And I use the words
25:51capitulate.
25:52I don't accept them.
25:53It's the policy
25:54of ABC News
25:55to apologize
25:56when we make a mistake.
25:58We made a mistake.
26:00We also said
26:01that the principal focus
26:02of that piece
26:03was to talk about
26:05whether cigarette companies
26:06control the amount
26:07of nicotine in cigarettes
26:08to keep people smoking
26:09and we have not
26:10backed away
26:11from that central focus
26:13or from the people
26:15who did the work.
26:17But the advertising campaign
26:18by Philip Morris
26:19made ABC's
26:20limited apology
26:21look like
26:22its total victory.
26:25Theodore J. Marco,
26:26the trial judge,
26:27told Frontline
26:28he was surprised
26:29by the unexpected
26:30settlement
26:30of the long
26:32and hard-fought case.
26:33The reason
26:34that he settled
26:35the case
26:35as far as I'm concerned
26:36is very simple.
26:37It's clear
26:37as the big nose
26:39on my face.
26:39They had a concern
26:41about the jury,
26:42had a concern
26:42about the judge,
26:43but they thought
26:44they would prevail
26:45eventually four or five
26:46years down the line
26:47in the U.S.
26:48Supreme Court.
26:49That was a factor,
26:50but the overriding factor
26:52was the immediacy
26:52of the takeover
26:53of ABC by Disney.
26:55From ABC,
26:59this is World News
27:00Tonight with Peter Jennings.
27:01It's a merger
27:02of giants.
27:03Michael Eisner,
27:04head of Disney
27:05on the left,
27:05and Thomas Murphy,
27:06head of Capital City's
27:08ABC.
27:09Just three weeks
27:10before the settlement,
27:11ABC and Disney
27:12had announced
27:13their $19 billion
27:14merger.
27:16Cap City's chairman,
27:17Thomas Murphy,
27:18made $25 million.
27:20That day,
27:21Murphy was asked
27:22if the still-pending
27:23$10 billion lawsuit
27:25would affect the merger.
27:26He reportedly said
27:27it would be
27:28taken care of
27:29and resolved.
27:31Three weeks later,
27:32ABC settled.
27:34There is a clear
27:34public perception
27:35that there was
27:36a connection
27:36between what was happening
27:38in the bigger
27:38corporate ownership picture
27:40and what happened
27:41on the ground
27:41in the decision
27:43on a particular story.
27:44I can't let you
27:45get by with
27:46there is a clear
27:47public perception
27:48that there was
27:48a linkage
27:49between corporate
27:50mergers
27:51and editorial policy.
27:53I see no evidence
27:54of that.
27:55If you have some,
27:55I'd love to see it.
27:58As to the second part
27:59of the question,
28:00which is,
28:01was there,
28:02to my knowledge,
28:02and I was in on
28:03almost every meeting
28:04there was about this
28:05over the course of months,
28:08the answer is no.
28:11ABC's dramatic settlement
28:12resounded from
28:13Wall Street
28:14to 52nd Street,
28:16where CBS
28:16was deeply involved
28:18in its own
28:18investigation
28:19of the tobacco industry.
28:2260 Minutes
28:23producer
28:23Lowell Bergman
28:24and correspondent
28:25Mike Wallace
28:26returned from Louisville
28:27with their
28:28long-sought interview
28:29with the whistleblower
28:30from Brown and Williamson,
28:32Dr. Jeffrey Weigand.
28:34I sent a document
28:34forward to Sandefur.
28:35I was told
28:36that we would continue
28:38working on a substitute
28:39and...
28:40Weigand had devastating
28:41things to say
28:42about his former employer.
28:44In other words,
28:45what you're charging
28:46Sandefur with
28:47and Brown and Williamson
28:49with
28:49is ignoring
28:50health considerations
28:51consciously.
28:54Most certainly.
28:55We were in the middle
28:56of reporting the story
28:58where Mr. Weigand
29:00at that point
29:01was a confidential source
29:02where it wasn't clear
29:03we were going to
29:04broadcast the story,
29:05where we needed
29:06to vet the story.
29:07So we're in a real
29:08preliminary stage
29:09in many ways.
29:12And this happens.
29:14What happened was
29:15just three weeks
29:17after the ABC settlement
29:18while he was still
29:19working on the
29:20Weigand story,
29:21Bergman was summoned
29:22to a meeting
29:23at BlackRock,
29:25CBS corporate headquarters,
29:27the home of the
29:27corporate executives
29:28and the corporate lawyers.
29:30We usually deal
29:31with two attorneys
29:32who have been there
29:32for at least 20 years
29:34who are the kinds
29:36of attorneys
29:36who want to help
29:38you get your story
29:39on the air.
29:40In many cases
29:41they raise questions
29:42both from a reporting
29:43point of view
29:43or a writing point of view
29:45that improves your story.
29:47In this case
29:48they informed me
29:51when I was passing
29:52through New York
29:53that their boss
29:55was concerned
29:58about this story
29:58and I was summoned
29:59to BlackRock
30:01which in 13 years
30:02that was the first time
30:03I'd ever been there.
30:04This would be the first
30:07of several meetings
30:08over the next few weeks
30:09with a group of bosses
30:10and lawyers
30:11about Bergman's interview
30:12with Dr. Weigand.
30:14Serious concerns
30:15were raised
30:16by CBS's
30:17chief corporate counsel
30:18Ellen Caden.
30:19She told Bergman
30:20that he and Wallace
30:22may have illegally
30:23induced Weigand
30:24to break his confidentiality
30:26agreement
30:26with Brown and Williamson
30:28in lawyer language
30:29tortious interference.
30:32Nobody had heard
30:32of tortious interference.
30:34I mean
30:34I had a hard time
30:35spelling it at first.
30:36You know
30:37what's it mean?
30:38What are you talking about?
30:41I'd heard about
30:42confidentiality agreements.
30:44Of course.
30:45And they're fairly common.
30:47Trade secrets
30:48and things of that nature.
30:50You don't fool around
30:50tampering with contracts.
30:52But I'd never heard
30:54of tortious interference
30:55in a press
30:57versus corporation
30:59undertaking.
31:01And the tortious interference
31:02was in effect
31:03going after him
31:05to get him
31:06to tell the story.
31:08Going after Weigand,
31:09Caden said,
31:10could expose CBS
31:11to legal risks
31:12in the billions of dollars.
31:14And even just talking
31:15to him was dangerous.
31:17And the situation
31:18was complicated
31:19by the insistence
31:20of Weigand's lawyer
31:21that CBS
31:22pay for his client's defense
31:24if airing the interview
31:25led to a lawsuit.
31:29Victor Kovner
31:30is a New York media lawyer.
31:31We asked his opinion
31:33about the position
31:33taken by Caden
31:35and CBS
31:35outside counsel.
31:37I think that there is
31:38certainly merit
31:39to the view
31:40that that relatively
31:41unusual circumstance
31:43of asking someone
31:45to indemnify a source
31:47from their commitment
31:48of confidentiality,
31:50relieve them
31:50of their obligations.
31:52That might well
31:53constitute tortious interference
31:55with contractual relations.
31:58But the CBS journalists
31:59believe that Caden's position
32:00would lead
32:01to unprecedented
32:02new restrictions.
32:03Generally speaking,
32:05we know
32:05what the rules are.
32:07And a new rule
32:07had been created.
32:09And a rule that said
32:10that there,
32:11at least appeared to say,
32:12that there was
32:13a whole class of people,
32:14people who potentially
32:15had very important information
32:17from a journalism point of view,
32:18from a public point of view,
32:20who couldn't be talked to.
32:22Even after the first meetings,
32:23we hadn't finished
32:24the reporting
32:25on this story.
32:27Laura Bergman,
32:27the producer,
32:29was going to,
32:32went to Louisville, Kentucky
32:33to spend some time
32:34with Wygand.
32:35And he got a call
32:37from the lawyers
32:38here in New York
32:38saying,
32:40don't get out
32:41of the house.
32:42Get out of Wygand's house.
32:44You are to do
32:45no more reporting
32:47on this.
32:49None.
32:50The message that came
32:52very clearly
32:52from their legal counsel
32:53was,
32:54you've got to
32:54stop this,
32:56cut it off now.
32:57We are on
32:58very thin ice already.
32:59I'd have to say
33:00that was an overreaction.
33:05An extreme overreaction.
33:09What CBS lawyers
33:10did not raise
33:11was the First Amendment standard.
33:13That had been invoked
33:14in 1971
33:15when the New York Times
33:17took the advice
33:17of its general counsel,
33:19James Goodell,
33:20and published
33:21the top secret
33:21Pentagon Papers.
33:23Very important,
33:23obviously.
33:24Well, I think at CBS
33:25it's very much like
33:26the Pentagon Papers case.
33:27You ask yourself,
33:28does the First Amendment
33:30protect the publication
33:32of the information
33:33that's the subject
33:35of our contract?
33:37And you then ask yourself,
33:39well, suppose that information
33:41that's subject
33:42to our contract
33:43is in the public interest.
33:45If it's in the public interest,
33:47then the Constitution
33:48of the United States
33:49says effectively
33:50that type of information
33:52ought to be published.
33:55Now, if the information
33:56is not in the public,
33:57interest,
33:58suppose it's a trade secret
33:59about how I make Coca-Cola
34:02and you're an employee.
34:03Well, that's a different matter.
34:05But if it's information
34:06that informs the public,
34:09the First Amendment
34:10protects the publication
34:11of that type of information.
34:13What I did was
34:14I talked to a number
34:16of other attorneys
34:17who were very knowledgeable
34:19in this area.
34:21One or two of them said,
34:23yeah, there's a very
34:24serious concern here.
34:25The majority of them said
34:27this would never,
34:29never lead to the damages
34:32that you're talking about.
34:33Yeah, they might bring a lawsuit,
34:35but that's never stopped us
34:38from publishing the story
34:39before the threat of a lawsuit.
34:41In 25 years,
34:42and threats of libel suits
34:44and libel suits,
34:46by the dozens,
34:47never lost one.
34:49At a 25th birthday party,
34:5160 Minutes celebrated
34:52its profile in courage
34:54under the aegis
34:55of executive producer
34:56Don Hewitt.
34:58The essential thing
34:59about me and Mike Wallace
35:01that we are convinced
35:02we can lick any kid
35:04in the house.
35:05But in the fall of 1995,
35:07in the case of Dr. Jeffrey Weigand,
35:09Hewitt discovered
35:10that he could not lick
35:11the kids
35:11in his own corporate house.
35:14In October,
35:15at the National Press Club
35:16in Washington,
35:17before anything
35:18had been broadcast,
35:19Hewitt signaled his retreat.
35:21But we've got a gun
35:23pointed at our head
35:23of $15 billion.
35:25So we have a story
35:25that we think is solid.
35:27We don't think anybody
35:28could ever sue us
35:29for libel.
35:30There are some twists
35:31and turns.
35:32And if you get
35:33in front of a jury
35:34in some state
35:35where all the people
35:37in that jury
35:37are related to people
35:38who work in tobacco companies,
35:40look out.
35:41That's a $15 billion gun
35:43pointed at your head.
35:46We may opt
35:47to get out
35:48of the line of fire.
35:50That doesn't make me proud,
35:51but it's not my money.
35:55I don't have $15 billion.
35:57That's Larry Tish.
36:0060 Minutes
36:01would soon find itself
36:02lampooned on its own network.
36:05Now, if he goes on FYI
36:06and reveals
36:07privileged information,
36:08it could be argued
36:08that you induced him
36:09into breaking his contract.
36:11We're going to kill
36:12an accurate story
36:13because we might be soon?
36:15We've never done that before.
36:16Murphy, we can take the risk.
36:18Look at what happened
36:18with ABC and Philip Morris.
36:20Now, our suggestion is
36:22you kill the story.
36:24Oh!
36:24Our suggestion
36:25will allow the network
36:26to avoid
36:27a $15 billion lawsuit
36:29that if tried
36:32in a tobacco-friendly state,
36:34we will very likely
36:35lose.
36:36Murphy,
36:37I'm beginning
36:37to appreciate
36:38their suggestion.
36:40Are you kidding?
36:41I have no choice.
36:42The network
36:42doesn't have
36:43$15 billion.
36:44I don't have
36:45$15 billion.
36:46Does anybody
36:47here have
36:47$15 billion?
36:48At the very first
36:50meeting,
36:51Ms. Caden mentioned
36:52in view of what,
36:55in the view of the fact
36:56that Philip Morris
36:58had brought
36:59a $15 billion suit
37:00against ABC
37:01and that ABC
37:03had indeed
37:04settled
37:05and apologized,
37:06that's going to make
37:07it even more difficult
37:08for us.
37:10It was communicated
37:12to me
37:13by one executive
37:15in the news division
37:16that the corporation
37:18would not risk
37:19its assets
37:19on this story.
37:21I think that's
37:21an accurate quote.
37:22That's Mr. Ober.
37:23Right.
37:27Everyone else
37:28took their guidance
37:30from that
37:30since he was
37:31the president
37:31of the news division.
37:35We learned
37:36of a tobacco insider
37:37who might know
37:38the whole story,
37:39who could tell us
37:40whether or not
37:41the tobacco industry
37:42has been leveling
37:43with the public.
37:44And so,
37:44on November 12th,
37:45Mike Wallace,
37:46the intrepid broadcaster,
37:48broke new ground,
37:50telling 21 million Americans
37:51what he couldn't tell them.
37:54Is your confidentiality
37:55agreement with
37:56still in force?
37:58Yes, it is.
37:59You know,
37:59I'm a veteran
38:01of the 60s
38:02and I remember
38:02one day
38:03I turned to Don Hewitt
38:04and I said,
38:04you know,
38:05it's been a long time
38:06since I've had
38:07a psychedelic experience,
38:09but this might rival
38:10some of the ones
38:11I've had in the past.
38:12Well, how did you
38:13express your frustration?
38:14It's your reputation
38:15involved.
38:16So how did you
38:17carry on
38:17during those awful weeks?
38:20Well,
38:21I was not about
38:24to throw the baby
38:25out with the bathwater,
38:26so to speak.
38:27I wasn't going to,
38:27I finally decided
38:28I wasn't going to quit.
38:30What's the baby
38:30and what's the bathwater?
38:31Well,
38:32I'm going to throw
38:33the peace away
38:35by leaving CBS.
38:38I had no intention
38:39of doing that
38:40because I felt
38:41if I could stay
38:42inside CBS
38:43and little by little
38:45by little
38:45persuade Blackrock
38:49where basically
38:50the decision came from.
38:52You would have gone
38:52except you had
38:53to save the peace.
38:55I would like to say
38:57that I would have gone
38:58if I,
38:59except to save the peace,
39:00but,
39:00but,
39:01it never really came down
39:03to that, Dan,
39:04in my mind.
39:05In other words,
39:05I never said,
39:07Wallace,
39:08this is a quitting.
39:10Either you quit
39:10or you can't respect yourself
39:13ever again
39:14about this peace.
39:15It,
39:16I,
39:16it didn't,
39:17that did not occur to me.
39:19At CBS,
39:21the break was applied
39:22to investigative reporting
39:23as it had been at ABC,
39:25just as the network
39:27itself was changing hands.
39:29Today we announced
39:31the joining together
39:32of two long-standing leaders
39:35in broadcast
39:36and media.
39:38Together...
39:38Four days after
39:39the 60 Minutes fiasco,
39:40CBS Chairman
39:41Lawrence Tischwood learned
39:42that the sale of the company
39:44to Westinghouse Corporation
39:45had been approved.
39:46The deal was in progress
39:48even while CBS lawyers
39:49were acting
39:50to avoid
39:50a multi-billion dollar lawsuit.
39:53It seems reasonable
39:54only to speculate
39:55that if the Westinghouse people
39:58were planning
39:59to buy CBS,
40:01they would not want
40:03to buy
40:04a 10 to 15 billion dollar
40:06lawsuit
40:07along with the rest
40:08of the company.
40:09Makes,
40:10makes sense.
40:12The sale of CBS
40:13was financially beneficial
40:14to the network's
40:15top executives.
40:17Almost a million
40:18and a half dollars
40:19from stock options
40:20for news president
40:21Eric Ober.
40:22And for chief counsel
40:23Ellen Kayden,
40:25more than a million dollars
40:26in stock options
40:27and 3.7 million more
40:29from a salary buyout
40:30and other benefits.
40:32I know her
40:33to be an honorable individual.
40:35Having said that,
40:36if she's running,
40:37and she was running,
40:39the merger negotiations,
40:43I think there was discussion
40:48perhaps among a bunch
40:50of us here
40:50that perhaps
40:51she should recuse herself
40:54from handling
40:55this particular
40:56agenda,
40:58our agenda.
41:00She didn't do that.
41:02No.
41:02I categorically reject
41:04any notion
41:05that there are people here
41:07who are somehow
41:09manipulating
41:10the decisions
41:12of this corporation
41:13for their own
41:14personal gain.
41:15We asked CBS
41:16for interviews
41:17with Ellen Kayden
41:18and the other key
41:19executives involved
41:20in the 60 Minutes
41:21decision,
41:22but we were allowed
41:23to speak only
41:24to Senior Vice President
41:25Martin Franks.
41:27If indeed
41:28the corporation
41:29were regularly
41:30stepping on the news
41:31division,
41:32those are not shy
41:33retiring roses
41:34over there amongst
41:35your former colleagues,
41:36we would have heard
41:37from them
41:38at high volume
41:39in a number
41:40of newspapers
41:41across America.
41:43The fact that we haven't
41:44seems to reinforce
41:45the point I'm trying to make.
41:47Well, it's in fact
41:47because it was
41:48such a rarity.
41:49The fact that it's unique
41:51is why we're going into it.
41:52We don't think
41:53it happens every day.
41:53If I was a baseball player
41:54and I could bat 9.99,
41:58I think I'd be pretty happy.
42:01Right,
42:01but if that last pitch
42:03came over
42:04and nobody understands
42:05why you let it go
42:05past you,
42:07not interest people.
42:07It's not necessarily
42:08our obligation
42:09to make sure
42:10that everybody
42:11understands
42:12why any decision
42:13is made in this company.
42:14I mean,
42:14in the sense
42:15that,
42:16I mean,
42:17some things
42:18by their very nature,
42:20not necessarily
42:21this case,
42:21by their very nature,
42:22you're not at liberty
42:23to disclose everything
42:24that you know.
42:26Remember,
42:27we were number one
42:28for three years
42:29up until
42:30this past season.
42:32In a decade
42:33controlling CBS,
42:34Lawrence Tish
42:35had revealed himself
42:36to be more businessman
42:37than broadcaster.
42:39Mr. Tish,
42:41for all of his other virtues,
42:43obviously came to CBS
42:44and saw it
42:45as simply another
42:47firm,
42:49another company,
42:50another corporation
42:51in which profit
42:55was to be maximized
42:56and value
42:58was to be increased
42:59toward a future sale.
43:02That was his entire
43:03approach
43:04to CBS.
43:06And we saw
43:08the results of that
43:09in a vast
43:11deterioration
43:12of programming
43:12and in the news department.
43:14For Lawrence Tish,
43:17CBS was only
43:18one asset
43:19in a house
43:19of many mansions.
43:21They include
43:22the Boulevard Watch Company,
43:23a subsidiary
43:24of the huge
43:25Lowe's Corporation,
43:27which also controls
43:28hotels
43:28and a tobacco company
43:30called
43:30L'Orealard.
43:34Mr. Chairman,
43:35I'm Andrew H. Tish,
43:37Chairman and Chief
43:37Executive Officer
43:38of L'Orealard Tobacco Company.
43:40His son,
43:41Andrew Tish,
43:41was one of the
43:42tobacco executives
43:43who testified
43:44before Congress.
43:46Like the others,
43:47he denied that
43:47nicotine is addictive
43:49and also said
43:50he didn't believe
43:51cigarettes cause cancer.
43:52We have looked
43:53at the data
43:54and the data
43:54that we have
43:56been able to
43:57see is all
43:58been statistical data
43:59that has not
44:00convinced me
44:01that smoking
44:03causes death.
44:06The Tish family's
44:06tobacco interests,
44:08among them
44:08popular brands
44:09like Newport,
44:10provide most
44:11of their profits,
44:12according to
44:12Wall Street analyst
44:13Gary Black.
44:15I don't think,
44:16you know,
44:16in the grand scheme
44:16of things,
44:17CBS was never
44:18a big investment
44:19for the Tish brothers.
44:20L'Orealard has always
44:20been a big investment.
44:22CNA, their insurance
44:23business,
44:23has always been
44:23a big investment.
44:27Tobacco is,
44:28you know,
44:28probably 60,
44:2970 percent
44:30of the profits.
44:33Last fall,
44:34while the Tish family
44:34was selling CBS,
44:36their tobacco company
44:37was busy buying
44:38six new cigarettes
44:40brands from
44:40a competitor,
44:42the Brown and
44:42Williamson Tobacco
44:43Corporation,
44:45whistleblower
44:45Jeffrey Wigand's
44:46former employer.
44:48None of this
44:48was known at the
44:49time by the
44:50reporters at CBS.
44:51had no idea.
44:53And then a piece
44:54in the Wall Street
44:55Journal,
44:56not much of a piece,
44:58let us know
44:59that obviously
45:00the Lowe's corporation,
45:01Laurel Ard,
45:02had been negotiating
45:03with Brown and
45:04Williamson all
45:04during that time
45:05for the sale
45:07of those brands.
45:10And naturally,
45:12he said,
45:13is it conceivable
45:14that the lawyers
45:15from Brown and
45:15Williamson,
45:16who were talking
45:18about the possibility
45:19of,
45:20although they
45:20hadn't threatened
45:21the suit,
45:22talking about
45:23the possibility
45:23of a suit
45:24against CBS News
45:25or against CBS.
45:27They didn't know
45:28what the lawyers
45:29were doing
45:29with the Lowe's
45:30corporation
45:30and Laurel Ard
45:31tobacco.
45:32It beggars belief.
45:34I think that we
45:36were deceived
45:37and lied to.
45:39I think that
45:40more is going on
45:42here than we
45:43even know now,
45:44unfortunately.
45:46Will we ever
45:47know for sure?
45:49I don't know.
45:50Do you ever know
45:51anything for sure?
45:52January 26, 1996,
45:55the Wall Street
45:56Journal broke
45:57the story that
45:5860 Minutes
45:59had suppressed.
45:59From a Mississippi
46:01court case,
46:02the paper obtained
46:03secret testimony
46:04from Dr. Weigand
46:05that paralleled
46:06his 60 Minutes
46:07interview.
46:09And nine days
46:10later,
46:1060 Minutes
46:11finally ran
46:12that interview.
46:14Which is true.
46:15What the tobacco
46:16men at Brown and
46:16Williamson say
46:17about their
46:17former research
46:18director,
46:19Dr. Jeffrey Weigand?
46:20His life has been
46:21a pattern of lying.
46:22Tonight,
46:23Jeffrey Weigand,
46:24the scientist
46:24whose insistence
46:25on defying
46:26his former employer,
46:27has led him
46:28to tell what he
46:29believes to be
46:29the truth
46:30about cigarettes.
46:31What is it
46:32that he believes
46:32to be the truth
46:33about cigarettes?
46:34And what is it
46:35that Brown and
46:36Williamson believes
46:37to be the truth
46:37about him?
46:39We join Dr. Weigand
46:40in Louisville
46:41to watch the broadcast,
46:43a story about
46:44the tobacco business
46:45and about the campaign
46:47by his former employer
46:48to destroy
46:49his credibility.
46:50Beyond that,
46:50they charged him
46:51with a multitude
46:52of sins,
46:53from fudging his resume
46:54to making a false
46:55claim three years ago
46:56for $95.20
46:58for dry cleaning.
47:00Charges the
47:01Wall Street Journal
47:01had investigated.
47:03Close look
47:03at the file
47:04and independent
47:05research by this
47:06newspaper
47:06into its key claims
47:08indicates that
47:09many of the
47:09serious allegations
47:10against Dr. Weigand
47:12are backed by
47:13scanty or
47:14contradictory evidence.
47:15Well, what do you
47:20think?
47:21Interesting reliving it.
47:24If one looks today
47:25at what aired on
47:2660 Minutes,
47:28I think they probably
47:30took the course
47:30of least resistance
47:31this time.
47:32I have to be honest
47:33with you.
47:34If it wasn't for
47:35the Wall Street Journal
47:38article,
47:39I guess two weeks ago,
47:41I'm not so sure
47:41we would have seen
47:42it aired tonight.
47:43The 60 Minutes
47:45story was not
47:46the end of
47:46Jeffrey Weigand's
47:47story.
47:49His life had been
47:50turned upside down.
47:52He was now
47:52a major witness
47:53in suits against
47:54tobacco companies
47:55across the country.
47:57And he was
47:58followed every day
47:58by bodyguards
48:00paid for,
48:00ironically,
48:01by CBS.
48:05You get set up
48:06to go around.
48:08His marriage
48:10has disintegrated
48:11under the stress.
48:13He now lives
48:16in a few
48:17half-empty rooms
48:18in a secret
48:19location.
48:20Up to now,
48:21I thought I always
48:22had a sanctuary
48:23to go back
48:23and have some
48:25environment
48:25where I could
48:26kind of unwind
48:27or feel safe
48:28or talk about
48:29I don't have
48:30that now.
48:32Once he lived
48:33here,
48:34a $300,000
48:35a year
48:36tobacco executive.
48:37Now the former
48:43head of research
48:44for Brown and
48:45Williamson
48:45spends his evening
48:46grading high school
48:48science students.
48:52It's been tough.
48:54Is it going to continue
48:54to be tough?
48:55Yeah, I think so.
48:58Do I have the mental
49:00resolve to continue?
49:02Yeah, I think I do.
49:10They have
49:11beleaguered him,
49:13slandered him,
49:14and done everything
49:14they can to shut him
49:15up.
49:16He's still standing,
49:16he's still talking,
49:17he's still telling the
49:18truth.
49:19That is a beacon light
49:20for others like him.
49:22And I can only tell you
49:23that we get dozens
49:24of phone calls
49:25every week.
49:26And people are coming
49:27out of the closets
49:27left and right
49:28to tell us
49:29what they know
49:30about the truth
49:31about tobacco.
49:32The whistle blows
49:34again.
49:34New accusations
49:35against the tobacco
49:36industry tonight
49:37from another
49:38former insider
49:39who talked
49:40exclusively
49:41with Mike Wallace.
49:42There was nothing
49:43that I was aware
49:44of that wasn't
49:44known just by
49:46the local
49:46scientific community,
49:48but was known
49:48by management.
49:50Those who have
49:51followed Weigand
49:52have found the network
49:53suddenly a lot
49:54more courageous.
49:56Tonight,
49:56a major new piece
49:57in the tobacco puzzle.
49:59Did Philip Morris
50:00try to hide
50:01what it knew
50:02about nicotine
50:03and addiction?
50:04It's just a cover-up
50:05that's unbelievable.
50:06For ABC News,
50:07it's a chance to show
50:08it is back in the game.
50:10That's exactly
50:10what I'm saying.
50:13Look,
50:13in all of your questions,
50:15there is this assumption
50:16that there's a huge
50:17chill over the
50:19news-gathering industry
50:20that no one
50:22is pursuing
50:23issues of tobacco
50:25and health
50:26or more specifically
50:27if you wish,
50:28that ABC News
50:29is not pursuing
50:30issues of tobacco
50:31and health.
50:32And that is simply
50:33not true.
50:35I cannot allow you
50:37to continue
50:37to kind of base
50:38these questions
50:39on this perception
50:41that you have
50:42that there's a chill.
50:43There's no chill.
50:45As television works
50:46to redeem its reputation,
50:48the original whistleblower
50:49reflects on what he went
50:51through before his whistle
50:52was finally heard.
50:54In the battle
50:54for the public interest,
50:55the victory
50:56doesn't stay won
50:57for long.
50:58And those who've been
50:59through the experience
51:00are not sanguine
51:01about the future.
51:04Corporate America
51:05can be very powerful.
51:07I think if you look back
51:08on the last year's events,
51:09the whole capitulation
51:11of ABC
51:12with the Philip Morrison
51:13is the power
51:14of corporate America.
51:18That, I think,
51:18set the stage
51:19a little bit
51:20of intimidation factor.
51:21I think CBS
51:23had that in the back
51:24of their mind
51:24at the same time, too.
51:26It's a $15 billion
51:27suit that's just been
51:29resolved by an apology
51:31plus some financial
51:34compensation associated
51:36with legal fees.
51:38Is there intimidation?
51:40Yeah.
51:40You know,
51:41the journalistic courage
51:43takes a lot of forms,
51:44a lot of forms.
51:45And one of the important
51:47forms it takes
51:48is in the corporate environment.
51:52And unfortunately,
51:53there are few people
51:55in that corporate environment,
51:57virtually none,
51:58who I can cite
51:59on any network,
52:00that have any background
52:02or journalistic ethics
52:04or journalistic principles
52:05or journalistic responsibility.
52:07And that thing
52:08you call corporate courage,
52:10corporate guts,
52:11I would call it,
52:13do you see it
52:13coming back soon?
52:14And, well,
52:16I know,
52:16quite frankly,
52:17I don't see any hint
52:19of it on the horizon.
52:21Where would you find it?
52:22I don't know
52:23where it might be.
52:25The next generation,
52:26we don't want to get
52:27lost in details.
52:28And now you come
52:29and you say,
52:29okay,
52:30now that you've shown it,
52:31it's been a half-hour show,
52:32a half-hour show,
52:34now let me tell you
52:34what's really involved here,
52:36what you should know about it.
52:38What you should know
52:39is that the press
52:40frequently gets involved
52:42in adversary procedures.
52:44against big business,
52:46against the government,
52:48sometimes against individuals.
52:50And if your reporting
52:51is accurate,
52:53and if your research
52:55is thorough,
52:57then you would hope
52:59that you would have
53:00the management
53:00of a news division.
53:02They may be
53:03in the entertainment business
53:04over here,
53:05and they may be
53:05in another business
53:06over there,
53:07but they would,
53:09the hope would be
53:10that no matter
53:12who owns the network
53:13or who owns the paper,
53:15they'll have the courage
53:18and the sense
53:19of obligation
53:20to let the truth
53:22be told.
53:23You very carefully
53:24said the hope,
53:25the confidence,
53:28the hope.
53:31After this program
53:37was first broadcast,
53:39Jeffrey Wigand's testimony
53:40played a key role
53:41in the lawsuits
53:42filed by 46 states
53:43against the major
53:44tobacco companies,
53:45resulting in a
53:46$246 billion settlement.
53:49Today,
53:50Wigand is the founder
53:51and sole employee
53:52of Smoke Free Kids,
53:54a foundation
53:55to teach children
53:56about the dangers
53:57of tobacco.
53:57The story
53:59of Jeffrey Wigand's
54:00decision to blow
54:01the whistle
54:02on Big Tobacco
54:03is the subject
54:03of a new Hollywood movie,
54:05The Insider,
54:06opening Friday,
54:07November 5th.
54:0860 Minutes correspondent
54:09Mike Wallace says
54:10the movie is a betrayal.
54:12He is reportedly furious
54:13over how he may be
54:15portrayed in the film.
54:16Producer Lowell Bergman
54:17left 60 Minutes
54:18a few months after
54:19the Wigand story.
54:21He served as a consultant
54:22for the script
54:22of The Insider,
54:24and today he is a reporter
54:25for the New York Times
54:26and a correspondent
54:27and producer
54:28for Frontline.
54:38For more of this report,
54:40go to Frontline's website
54:41for our webumentary,
54:43an internet voyage
54:44through three decades
54:45of the tobacco industry
54:46secrets,
54:48the extended interviews
54:49with Walter Cronkite
54:50and media analysts,
54:51and background analyses
54:55and reports
54:55on the CBS and ABC run-ins
54:58with the tobacco companies
54:59at pbs.org.
55:01In three weeks
55:12on Frontline.
55:15As the millennium approaches,
55:17millions of people
55:18expect something to happen.
55:20Forty percent of Americans
55:23say the world will end
55:24at the Battle of Armageddon.
55:26Frontline unravels the origins
55:27of the Book of Revelation
55:28and how these ancient ideas
55:30have shaped our world.
55:32The last days,
55:33the end of time,
55:34the lingering question,
55:35when will it happen?
55:37Watch Frontline
55:38on Monday, November 22nd.
55:40For videocassette information
55:48about this program,
55:49please call this toll-free number
55:511-800-328-PBS1.
55:55Tonight's program
56:20was funded in part
56:22by the Corporation
56:23for Public Broadcasting.
56:25Frontline is made possible
56:26by contributions
56:27to your PBS station
56:28from viewers like you.
56:42This is PBS.
56:44This is PBS.