"60 Minutes" issued a brief on-air apology and correction on Sunday for its botched and mishandled report on the Benghazi attacks, but gave few details about the failures that led to its retraction of a piece it had staunchly defended.
Speaking about Dylan Davies, the discredited man at the heart of her piece, correspondent Lara Logan told viewers, "We realized we had been misled, and it was a mistake to include him in our report. For that, we are very sorry."
The venerable program was forced into an embarrassing retreat after it had defended itself for a week about the reliability of Davies, a British security officer. On Thursday night, it emerged that Davies—who had already admitted to lying to a superior about his whereabouts on the night of the attack—had also told the FBI he had been nowhere near the American compound when it took place, a statement completely at odds with the detailed, harrowing tale he told "60 Minutes."
It was the second on-air apology delivered by Logan. On Friday, she went on television to say that she was "wrong" to have put Davies on air.
Predictably, her Sunday mea culpa offered little insight into why Davies was chosen as the key source for the report, and why "60 Minutes" had so fervently defended him, even amid mounting evidence of his unreliability. Also unmentioned was what role, if any, corporate ties played in placing Davies at the heart of the piece. A conservative imprint of Simon and Schuster, which is also owned by CBS, had published a book about Benghazi by Davies. That book has since been recalled.
Many media observers pronounced themselves to be less than impressed:
Media Matters, which led the charge against the report, issued a statement from its founder David Brock, who called the apology "wholly inadequate and entirely self-serving."