U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Washington, D. C. 20535 August 14, 2018 MuckRock DEPT MR 43087 411A Highland Ave. Somerville. MA 02144-2516 FOIPA Request No.: 1386235?000 Subject: Accuracy in Media Dear Ms. Best: The enclosed documents were reviewed under the Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA), Title 5, United States Code, 552. Below you will ?nd check boxes under the appropriate statute headings which indicate the types of exemptions asserted to protect information which is exempt from disclosure. The appropriate exemptions are noted on the enclosed pages next to redacted information. In addition. a deleted page information sheet was inserted to indicate where pages were withheld entirely and identify which exemptions were applied. The checked exemptions boxes used to withhold information are further explained in the enclosed Explanation of Exemptions. Section 552 Section 552a 0., 3024 pages were reviewed and pages are being released. Below you will also ?nd additional informational paragraphs about your request. Where applicable, check boxes are used to provide you with more information about the processing of your request. Please read each item carefully. A document was located which originated with, or contained information concerning, another Government Agency - This information has been referred to the OGA for review and direct response to you. i- We are consulting with another agency. The FBI will correspond with you regarding this information when the consultation is completed. In accordance with standard FBI practice and pursuant to FOIA exemption and Privacy Act exemption [5 U.S.C. 552/552a this response neither con?rms nor denies the existence of your subject's name on any watch lists. For your information, Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records from the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 5 U.S.C. 552(c) (2006 Supp. IV (2010). This response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA. This is a standard noti?cation given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the Explanation of Exemptions. For questions regarding our determinations, visit the website under ?Contact Us.? The FOIPA Request Number listed above has been assigned to your request. Please use this number in all correspondence concerning your request. You may ?le an appeal by writing to the Director, Of?ce of information Policy United States Department of Justice, Suite 11050, 1425 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. 20530-0001, or you may submit an appeal through OlP?s FOIA online portal by creating an account on the following website: Your appeal must be postmarked or electronically transmitted within ninety (90) days from the date of this letter in order to be considered timely. If you submit your appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked ?Freedom of Information Act Appeal.? Please cite the FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so it may be easily identi?ed. You may seek dispute resolution services by contacting the Of?ce of Government Information Services (OGIS) at 877?684-6448, or by emailing ogis@nara.gov. Alternatively, you may contact the FBI's FOIA Public Liaison by emailing foipaquestions@fbi.qov. If you submit your dispute resolution correspondence by email, the subject heading should clearly state ?Dispute Resolution Services." Please also cite the FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so it may be easily identi?ed. The enclosed material is from the main investigative meaning the subject(s) of your request was the focus of the investigation. Our search located additionai references, in ?les relating to other individuals, or matters, which may or may not be about your subject(s). Our experience has shown such additional references, if identi?ed to the same subject of the main investigative ?le, usually contain information similar to the information processed in the main As such, we have given priority to processing only the main investigative file(s) given our signi?cant backlog. If you would like to receive any references to the subject(s) of your request. please submit a separate request for the reference material in writing. The references will be reviewed at a later date, as time and resources permit. See additional information which follows. Sincereiy, David M. Hardy Section Chief Record/Information Dissemination Section Information Management Division Enclosures (2) This letter is in response to your request for records responsive to your subject listed above. Enclosed are 1_4 pages of excised information responsive to your subject. The enclosed documents represent the ?nal release of information responsive to this FOIA request. For your additional information, a record that may be responsive to your Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request has been transferred to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). You may desire to direct a request to NARA, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. Please reference ?le number 94-HQ-69138. Records which may have been responsive to your request were destroyed. Since this material could not be reviewed, it is not known if it was responsive to your request. Record retention and disposal is carried out under supervision of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), Title 44, United States Code, Section 3301 as implemented by Title 36, Code of Federal Reguiations, Part 1228; Title 44, United States Code, Section 3310 as implemented by Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1229.10. Additionally, a search of the indices to our Central Records System re?ected there were additional records potentially responsive to your Freedom of Information [Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request. We have attempted to obtain this material so it could be reviewed to determine whether it was responsive to your request. We were advised that the potentially responsive records were not in their expected location and could not be located after a reasonable search. Following a reasonable waiting period, another attempt was made to obtain this material. This search for the missing records also met with unsuccessful results. Please be advised that a document that is the property of another government agency was discovered during processing of this request. This document has been referred to this agency for consultation and direct response to you. Should you wish to contact the agency in question concerning this document, you may do so at the following address: Of?ce of Freedom of Information 1155 Defense Pentagon (OSD Mailroom - Room 30843) Washington, DC. 20301-1155 For your further information, additional records responsive to your request will be processed in FOIPA request: 1386240-000; subject, Reed Irvine. There is no charge for this release. (W0) (M0) (M8) (10(1) (10(2) (10(3) (10(4) (10(5) (10(6) (10(7) EXPLANATION OF EXEMPTIONS SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552 (A) speci?cally authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classi?ed to such Executive order; related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency; speci?cally exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; trade secrets and commercial or ?nancial information obtained from a person and privileged or con?dential; inter-agency or intra?agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency; personnel and medical ?les and similar ?les the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of con?dential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a con?dential basis, and, in the case of record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a con?dential source, would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosme could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual; contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf ofagency responsible for the regulation or supervision of ?nancial institutions; or geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells. SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552a information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action proceeding; material reporting investigative efforts pertaining to the enforcement of criminal law including efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime or apprehend criminals; information which is currently and properly classi?ed pursuant to an Executive order in the interest of the national defense or foreign policy, for example, information involving intelligence sources or methods; investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than criminal, which did not result in loss of a right, bene?t or privilege under Federal programs, or which would identify a source who furnished information pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in con?dence; material maintained in connection with providing protective services to the President of the United States or any other individual pursuant to the authority of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3056; required by statute to be maintained and used solely as statistical records; investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or quali?cations for Federal civilian employment or for access to classi?ed information, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person who furnished information pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in con?dence; testing or examination material used to determine individual quali?cations for appointment or promotion in Federal Government service the release of which would compromise the testing or examination process; material used to determine potential for promotion in the armed services, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person who furnished the material pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in con?dence. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION DELETED PAGE INFORMATION SHEET 1386235-0 Total Deleted Page(s) 1 Page 1 Referral/Direct; Deleted Page(s) No Duplication Fee For this Page FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION DELETED PAGE INFORMATION SHEET 1386235-0 Total Deleted Page(s) 3 Page 1 b3; b6; b7C; b7D; b7E; Page 2 b6; b7C; b7D; b7E; Page 3 b6; b7C; b7D; b7E; Deleted Page(s) No Duplication Fee For this Page Reed J. Irvine Chairman of thee?Board 5* 1341 Street, N.W., Suite 312 0 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 783-4406 or 783-6483 ML January 15, 1982 32:11 3:22: 2:31;: Mr. Stephen F- Seweu ours- - .. a Assistant Chief .13.. mum-[Lawn Complaints and Compliance Division Mullen General Counsel Bro ad cas Bureau m- Federal Communications Commission Drretlorand haired Chairman, WaShington, D- CO 20554 Champion International Corp The Honorable Shelby Cullorn Davis Former Ambassador Dear MI. 3610811: The Honorable flbridgv Durbrow Former Ambassador a) lawrencel?erlrg On November 17, 1981, CBS aired a profile of the late Jean Seberg. The program included numerous statements which charged or Author suggested that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was responsible 0' Hawc?dm" for publication by newspapers and magazines of a story about Ellen Camood Chancellor Emeritus. NewSchoolofSocialResearc :J?g?m in 1970 which caused her such mental anguish that she Dr ha a miscarriage and subsequently became mentally unbalanced- orb]? The program strongly suggested that the Federal Bureau of InvestigatiP?1 lwas in some degree responsible for the death of Seberg's baby and to .for her own suicide in 19379. Marx towns UnionO cul ell) Davldlichtenslein We believe this to be a controversial issue of great PUblj-c TheHonorableClare Booth "0 importance. There is strong evidence indicating (1) that the FBI ?"2:fo was?! was not responsible for the publication of the 1970 story about Eugenelyons v? . . Seberg, and (2) that the publication of the story was not th cause .F ?0:me 50.3.2? of her miscarriage or her subsequent mental problems. David Marlin 2 erter an Arab/sh Adm mm," Moomu .1 CBS did not present any of this evidence. What is ev or . ?5:31 ""1232 4.0133 actually played on the program a portion of a recordin a telephone conversation between Seberg and Raymond Hewitt which Dr Charles A Maser 95?" CBS edited to make it conform to the CBS version of what the conversa- eorgt- Washinglo hurry a Adm oi) tion was about. This tampering with the evidence strongly indicates A .- that the CBS effort to portray the FBI in an unfavorable light was n. Robertson . not only deliberate but contrived; . Former VrcoCharrman. ?g_iiFederal Reserve Board Seller! The overall controve 5 a1 issue involved in this complaint is Professor of lournallsm. . omoSme whether or not the Federal Bureau of Investigation was responsible Dr-FredetidSeiw in any significant degree for the miscarriage that Jean Seberg suffered Rockerenrusmgm in 1970, for the mental problems that plagued her for-ghijlext decade, a my and for her suicide. We need not dwell on the seriousness of ??518 9 . . olthelreasulv ?charge, which is highly damaging to the reputation offaheFE?d 58%989 Ahm?amo?wd Bureau of Investigation and its officers and staff. - 5% Elsa: Producer ..fmkm?m' The only question is whether or not there is doubt-2'" ., [that the charge is true and whether CBS in its November 17, 1981 pr?gram cm provided its viewers with a reasonable exposure to the other side of ScienceAssocralos the story, or has done 50 on any other CBS program. Dr bugeno Wigner Nobel Laureate in Physics (fa GEM FILE- A Jan-7.! wev.3, 1 can?t 9. . ran-tr ?4 .- 1 . I The charge that AFBI had planted the story in th ress back in 1970 that Seberg was carrying a baby fathered by a Black Panther leader first surfahed in the news media"1 a in the fall of 1979 when Seberg committed suicide in Paris. It was repeated by some .elements of the media again in December 1980 when her former husband, Romain Gary, committed suicide. CBS gave extensive publicity to these charges on these occasions, airing the charge or references to it no less than five times. On none of these occasions did CBS News indicate that there was evidence that the charge of FBI responsibility was false. On August 22, 1980, Accuracy in Media held a press conference in Washington at which we released documents and a tape recording from the FBI's file on Jean Seberg which AIM had obtained in response to a Freedom of Information request. These documents demonstrated that (1) the FBI headquarters in Washington had never approved a suggestion made by the Los Angeles office of the FBI that the story abOut seberg's baby be given to a gossip columnist; (2) approval by the headquarters in washington was required before such action could be taken by any FBI office; (3) washington instructed Los Angeles not to act on the suggestion for about two months in order to protect the sensitive source of the information; and (4) Los Angeles withdrew its request for approval of the operation. The file further showed that an investigation by the FBI failed to find any evidence that any FBI agent or official had given the information about Seberg's baby to the press in contravention of the instructions from washington headquarters. The media reports about this matter had further alleged in some cases that the FBI had simply invented the story about Seberg's baby being fathered by a Black Panther and that it was false. This was a significant part of the effort to defame the FBI, because it suggested that the FBI had created a false smear, and this strengthened the claim that the FBI was responsible for dissemination of the story, since it was supposed to have been an invention of the Bureau. The documents and tape released by AIM at its August 22, 1980 press conference showed that the FBI did not invent the story about Seberg's baby's parentage. It concluded that Raymond Hewitt, then Minister of Education of the Black Panther Party, was the father on the basis of a telephone conversation which the FBI had intercepted and recorded. The conversation.was between Seberg and Hewitt, and it indicated that Seberg considered Hewitt to have fathered her child. It was also alleged in the media reports that publication of the story about Hewitt being the father of the baby by Newsweek magazine so upset Jean Seberg that she had a miscarriage, which resulted in the death of the premature baby. It was further alleged that this unhappy experience was responsible for Sebergfs subsequent mental instability, which ultimately led to her suicide. Documents released by AIM at the August 22 press conference cast strong doubt on this. Transcripts of two conversations between Seberg and persons at Black Panther headquarters in California showed that Seberg had been in bad health and that her doctors had warned her that she might not be able to carry her baby to term. These transcripts indicated that Seberg's reaction to the publication of the Newsweek item about her baby did not cause her to react hysterically or in an unbalanced way.? She advised her Black Panther friends to be sure to read the item because they would find it amusing. She also indicated that she planned to sue Newsweek and hoped to win a large judgment, some of which she would give to her Black Panther friends. The transcripts indicated that Seberg was far more worried about a book that was being written by a former lover, also a black, which she feared would damage her reputation and her image among her friends in the radical b1ack.movement. All of these documents and the tape were made available to CBS News. NBC, ABC, The New York Times, The washington Post, Associated Press and United Press International all carried reports which mentioned this evidence and cast doubt upon the accuracy 0?1! .rs?v?ri?v?u'n. v'L' - 1? the charges that had b?reported by the media. CBS New?fused to do so.. ?Ins?tead it produced the November 17, 1981 profile of Jean Seberg which repeated all the charges against the FBI and ignored all the evidence which exculpated the FBI. . In the CBS profile there were repeated references to the FBI's alleged responsi- bility for Seberg's fate, stemming from the alleged role the Bureau played in planting the allegedly false story about Seberg?s baby in the press. Here are the references. 1. Mike Wallace opened the program saying, woman of beauty and pluck and compassion, Jean was victimized and eventually she was defeated by an FBI'probe before she took her life." 2. Former Black Panther leader David Hilliard was shown saying, "When the FBI couldn't discredit us in any other way?~they had already considered us terrorists, that we were all about killing whites and all their young babies and just totally-without any virtue. Since that didn?t go very well with our supporters, then certainly they reverted to the old taboo about sex between black women and white men, and since this woman was an actress with media popularity bigger than life, they scandalized and this was just another, as Bobby says, attempt out of their bag of dirty tricks." 3. Mike'Wallace followed this saying, "Hilliard's words are more than just rhetoric believing that Jean was pregnant by Fanther Raymond Hewitt, the Los Angeles office requested permission from washington to plant an item which would publicize the pregnancy of Jean Seberg, cause her embarrassment, and serve to cheapen her image with the general public. Headquarters approved the plan but said it would be better to wait approximately two additional months until Seberg's pregnancy would be obvious to everyone. In the meantime, gossip columnist Joyce Haber of the Los Angeles Times had been fed the story and printed it. Haber called Seberg 'Miss A few months later in.August 1970, Newsweek'carried the same story. It named Seberg, writing that Jean and French author Romain Gary, 56, are reportedly about to remarry even though the baby that Jean expects in October is by another man, a black activist that she met in California. Although its still unclear from whom Haber and Newsweek got the story, it is clear that without FBI involvement the story would almost certainly have not surfaced." 4. Former Black Panther Elaine Brown is shown saying, "What the FBI did was it put it out there for any takers, and there were takers, and that's what's significant." 5. A friend of S?berg?s named Logan is shown saying, "Prominent magazines were putting out this unbelievable story, this incredible lie." Mike Wallace immediately said: "She must have thought, 'Where did they get this?'" This exchange tends to strengthen the charge that the FBI was responsible in .the minds of the viewers, since they are told that the story was an incredible lie and CBS had tried to establish that the FBI was the source of this story on the basis of its misinterpretation of the Seberngewitt phone conversation. CBS does not point out that the story was neither incredible nor clearly a lie, since there was no obvious reason why the Seberg-Hewitt relationship could not have resulted in a pregnancy. 6. Finally, another exchange was aired between Mike wallace and a friend of Seberg?s in which wallace asked what Seberg had told the friend about the dead baby, Nina. The friend replied, "It was because of the and so on. Wallace asked, "What did she say about the The friend replied, "She said the FBI killed the baby." .. .. n- or.raur~ '7 VI Adh- . . I {git 14.13;! at?? l- .5 1L5 of'l' I While Wallace himself carefully refrained from.making the direct charge that the FBI had planted the story, he himself pinnted responsibility on the FBI indirectly at least, and two former Black Panthers and one friend of Seberg's were~employed to make the charge directly. CBS made no effort to.see that the FBI's side of this story was adequately told. 'Although CBS knew that the FBI did not ever give*the Los Angeles office of the Bureau approval to plant the story about Seberg's baby with the press, its account of the exchange between Washington and Los Angeles on this matter was incomplete and therefore misleading. The response'FBI headquarters in washington sent to the Los Angeles office on May 6,1970 was an unambiguous order not to take the action proposed at that time. The instruction read: To protect the sensitive source of information from possible compromise and to insure the success of your plan, Bureau feels it would be better to ?wait approximately two additional months until Seberg's*pregnancy would be obvious to everyone. 'If deemed warranted, submit your recommendation at that time. The Los Angeles office kept the idea on the back burner for two months, notifying Washington on June 10 and-July 10 that it was still under consideration. On July 28, Los Angeles notified Washington that they were dropping the proposal. J. Edgar Hoover had given instructions that actions such as the one Los Angeles had proposed were not to be undertaken without his personal approval or the approval of his aide, Clyde Tolson. There is no evidence in the Seberg FBI file that Hoover and Tolson were even informed of the proposed action against Seberg, much less that they approved it. It is clear that there was no officially approved FBI effort to spread the story about Seberg's baby. CBS never made this fact clear, but it aired the charge of people such as Hilliard and Brown that gave the impression that the FBI did officially put out the story. Mike Wallace himself gave credence to Hilliard?s charge, saying it was more than just rhetoric. It may be that the information about Seberg's baby leaked from the Los Angeles office of the FBI, but there is also reason to doubt this. Washington had ordered that the action not be taken to protect the wiretap on Panther headquarters, and it seems unlikely that the well disciplined agents of the FBI would have deliberately disregarded such an instruction. In any case, the assumption that there was an unapproved leak is nothing more than speculation. Speculation does not seem an adequate basis for Wallace's statement that "without FBI involvement the story almost certainly would not have surfaced." The fact is that Seberg' 3 pregnancy was known to many people, and her affair with Raymond Hewitt was known to many people. The intervention of the FBI was not at all necessary for those who know cf the pregnancy and of the Hewitt affair to conclude that Hewitt was the father. As John J. 0' Connor said in The Times, "One thing is certain: it couldn't have been very difficult for anyone to plant rumors about Miss Seberg. She doesn't seem to have been overly discreet." It seems clear that CBS sought to convey the impression that the FBI must have been the source of the story about Seberg' 3 baby because the story was without founda? tion and thereforeccould not have come from any other source. . 7' - a '3 I'u's'u 51"? a?l'v r" F, .. I adf?ff?? f?ff' 'n v'u?r? r?r c" I The CBS staff had the tape of the conversation between Seberg and Hewitt that . . '1ed the FBI to conclude that Seberg considered Hewitt to be the father of the child. -They aired a small portion of that tape-on the air. to make it conform to the charge that the FBI had misinterpreted the tape. editing was obviously deliberate. ?The tape had been edited by CBS (This Had the words omitted been included, CBS could not have so facilely have made the case that the FBI had misinterpreted the conversation. Here is the relevant portion of the conversation. The important words that CBS omitted are underlined. It took you a while though. Seberg: What was that? Hewitt: That four-month decision. Seberg: Oh, yeah, well I ran into a thing_that scared me legally about my other son. I was afraid I was going to lose custody, you know, if my former hhsband got wind of.it and*he got upset about it. And I talked to him about it, and he' was really very civilized and very nice about it. So I guess it's really good. So, (laughts) everybody you know sooner or later, I guess, is going to have a big'tummy. Hewitt: (Laughs) Oh well, I'm going to try not to have anything to do with it. Seberg: (Laughs) Listen, I'm afraid of_you. 'You're a liar. Hewitt: I really didn't know. Seberg: But I'm really happy. That's the best kind of surprise you could have. That's terrific. Hewitt: (Laughs) Seberg: She told you what I called you, didn't she? Hewitt: Yeah, but I can't remember. Seberg: Johnny Appleseed? Hewitt: Oh, no, she didn't tell me that. Seberg: Planting your little seeds around? The sentences that CBS edited out of this conversation made nonsense of the . explanation of the conversation that CBS.presented through the wordSrof former Panther? ?h-Elaine Brown. Brown said that Seberg was referring to the pregnancies of Elaine Brown and Shirley Hewitt in talking about everyone Hewitt knew ending up with a big tummy. -Seberg's discussion of her own pregnancy. That clearly is not true, since the statement immediately followed with It was followed by Hewitt's statement that . . "wry he?was?going to try not to have anything to do with it (Seberg's pregnancy). Whereupon Seberg said that he was a liar, words that CBS edited out. Seberg was clearly ?b?r's n?u73 6 . . .. telling Hewitt that he did have something to do with her pregnancy, and the fact CBS found it necessary to edit the tape as it did reveals they recognized that fact 'and decided to alter the evidence to fit the story they wanted to tell. The editing of the Seberg?Hewitt tape was dishonest and resulted in a distortion that was unfair to the FBI and to the viewing audience. The tape does not prove that Hewitt was the father of Seberg?s child. It merely shows that this was what Seberg was telling Hewitt. Given Seberg's promiscuity, she may not have known herself who the father was. CBS asserts with great confidence that the father was Carlos Navarre, the young Hexican with whom Seberg had sexual relations during the period in which the child was conceived: It is assumed_that since she was working in Mexico, she had no contact with Hewitt during that period. What CBS overlooked was that Seberg may have met Hewitt during her trip back to the U.S. at Christmas in 1969. She went to Marshalltown, Iowa, but there is nothing in the record that would indicate that she did not stop off in Los Angeles to see her good friend, Raymond Hewitt. ?The taped cdnversation would seem to indicate that there was a reunion at that time. Seberg told Hewitt she was in about her fourth month, which would have placed conception around the end'of December. It should also be noted nthat another intercepted phone conversation indicated that Seberg might have returned to Los Angeles in late February. She could have conceivable made other quick trips that were not recorded. Contrary to what Hr. Logan said on the profile, there was nothing inherently incredible about the story that Hewitt was the father. If he was not, it was not for lack of opportunity. That was known to many people, and that is why the assumption ?that the story would have surfaced in the absence of the involvement of the FBI is itself incredible. It is clear that there is no proof that the FBI was in any way responsible for the story about Seberg's child appearing in the press. But even if it were, there is solid evidence to show that those stories were not responsible for the premature birth and death of the baby. Nor is it at all clear that the death of the baby was responsible for Jean S?berg's erratic behavior and eventual suicide. CBS failed to mention any of this evidence, preferring to work the theme that the whole tragedy was the fault of the FBI. Mike wallace ended up saying: "At bottom, the death of the baby seems to have been the event that drove her to despair. Her second husband, Romain Gary, who was himself to commit suicide in late 1980, said publicly that every year on the anniversary of her baby's death, Jean would try to take her own life." The truth is that Sebarg was mentally unstable and was having serious difficulty carrying the baby prior to the publication of the story about the baby in Newsweek. 'David Richards in his biography of Seberg, Played_ Out, says of her in this period: "Actually her life was seriously splintered, and the pieces didn seem to fit. Jean was relying on liquor and tranquilizers to maintain her apparent composure and quell the unsettled mental state was making a difficult pregnancy even more difficult. Diego had been delivered by Caesarean, and her doctors repeatedly told her that she would need all her strength for a similar operation. If she could make it successfully through the - mid-August - the child would stand a decent chance of surviving, but tranquility was mandatory. She tried to relax in Majorca, but slowly sank into despondency instead. 'The reconciliation with Romain, she realized, . prov-e hofr-rl-t? v. - .?Ii.i .V 't'h I II?tel nf". - . . . . 7 . a. .. was a reconciliation in name only, a legal nicety to protect her unborn child and -w vGary's reputation as a member of the French in the evening of .Angust 7, Jean swallowed an overdose of sleeping pills, slipped out of the villa and headed in a daze for the beach. At the water's edge, she slumped on?the sand, ounconscious was rushed in an ambulance to the Janeda Clinic in Palma, and doctors hastily pumped out her stomach, barely saving her." In the phone canversation with her Black Panther friends that the FBI taped on .August 19, 1970, Seberg said that the doctors had told her that she would probably give birth prematurely and that it could be at any time. She said: "If it's before the 27th of this month, it'll die." Mike wallace said nothing of any of this evidence of Seberg?s unsettled emotional state and bad physical condition prior to the publication of the Newsweek story. In his account, all her troubles were blamed on Newsweek and the FBI. He said, "Just hours after reading that Newsweek item, Gary said later, Seberg began having severe contractions. She was rushed to?a Geneva clinic and gave birth to a premature infant." Wallace did not mention that after reading the Newsweek item, Seberg placed a call to her Black Panther friends in the U.S., telling them to go out and get a copy of that issue of Newsweek, saying, "cause you'll get a big kick out of it." Seberg was anything but hysterical at this time. She was more interested in discussing the prospect of suing Newsweek and collecting a large sum of money than anything else. She was also deeply worried about a book that her former lover, Hakim Jamal, was said to be publishing. She was afraid he was going to say things about her that would injure her position with the black movement. According to David Richards' account, her concerns in the hours before the birth of the baby were more about the Black Panthers than about Newsweek. He says, "In her feverish and depressed state, it appears she became convinced that her bodyguard was a traitor, part of the nebulous conspiracy aimed at eliminating Huey Newton (a Black Panther leader) if he ever set foot on European soil. Jean would tell people how the bodyguard amused himself by running a over her stomach until she had to beg him to stop. Then, minutes later, he would start the torture all over again. Gripped by a fear of betrayal, she began to think that there was a plan afoot to link her with Angela Davis, who, only weeks before, had been placed on the FBI's most-wanted list for allegedly smuggling guns into a California courtroom." Alluding to her failed suicide attempt on August 7, Richards said, "Although she and Gary had a public scapegoat in Newsweek, Jean would wonder until the end of her life just what role the sleeping pills had played in her child's death." A French court rejected the claim that Newsweek had been responsible for the premature birth and death. Rather than inform its viewers of all this evidence, CBS chose to repeat Romain Gary's dramatic charge that the death of the baby so upset Seberg that she tried to commit suicide every year on the anniversary of the death. Richards, her biographer, provides no evidence that would substantiate such a claim. Rather than simply repeat Gary's wild statements, CBS might better have pointed_gut_that his credibility was badly damaged by the statements he made after Seberg's death. For one thing, he strongly claimed that he was the father of the child. That was manifestly untrue. In summary, the November 17, 1981 profile of Jean Seberg adds up to a collection of damning accusations against the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It ignored the evidence that Would have shown the FBI was not responsible for the publication [cow lulu: n. 'F?iv't 5 l: ad'u?o' f? 56.11: I I #315 h) . - a I . -- .- . .. . a. . - - stories in the press abo Seberg and ignored the evidence .at shows those stories . ?did not'have the dire-consequences CBS attributed to them. . 4w CBS obviouhly aired only one side of the controversial story. All that CBS ?aired on this subject prior to the profile has also ignored the evidence exculpating the FBI. The one-sidedness of the CBS profile of Saberg was noted by John J. O'Connor, Atelevision critic of the New York Times, in his review of the program. After noting the-evidence-that Accuracy In Media had provided to CBS News and others in the media on this case, O'Connor said that CBS producer Harry Mbses told him he was aware of this evidence, but "he concluded that the stories about FBI involvement were true." O'Connor comments: "Fair enough, but in failing even to mention the existence of other theories?-which have never been conclusively refuted?-the program itself becomes questionable. Without an acceptance and endorsement of the reputed FBI role, the likelihood is that there would be nonean Seberg profile." (N.Y. Times, November 15, 1981) Accuracy In Media has written to CBS asking that the other side of the Seberg-FBI ?story be told by CBS. A copy of this letter is attached. . Mr. Bill Leonard, president of CBS News, replied by letter dated December 9, 1981. Mr. Leonard's reply responds lamely to some of our specific criticisms of the CBS profile of Seberg. Mr. Leonard does not address the issue of the omission of all the contrary evidence. He does not claim that this has been aired by CBS in any other program. he gives no indication that the other side of the story will ever be told by CBS. We believe that CBS is in flagrant violation of the Fairness Doctrine and its treatment of the FBI and Jean Seberg. We request that the Commission order CBS to tell the other side of this controversial issue. Sincerely yours, Mam Reed Irvine Chairman 1 cc: Mr. William S. Paley Mr. Thomas H. Nyman Mr. William Leonard Hon. William Webster Hon. Hark Fowler Mr. John J. O'Connor . t?r ?rgl Ifhfl'J - . 2/0 25%? ?1411: Waiter dying/w m_ Dear Mr. Mueller: On March 17, President Bush paid tribute to the brave passengers on Flight 93, the airliner that crashed in on September ll. He said that they had forced the plane to dive into the ground, thereby keeping the hijackers from crashing it into whatever building it was supposed to destroy in Washington. Since the only source for evidencethat the passengers were able to get into the cockpit and force the hijackers to crash the plane into an abandoned strip mine is the cockpit voice recorder; you must have informed the president . that this is what the CVR reveals. ?If that is the case, please tell me why the FBI has rejected FOIA requests for release of the CVR tape and transcript. If the tape and transcript do not con?rm what the president said, I suggest that you so inform him. Revised 2/ 11/102 Of?ce of Public and Congressional Affairs :36 Correspondence Unit a 2002 7176 Director 7240 Mr. li Hood 7176 Chief of Staff 7240 7176 Special Assistant . 7176 Special Counsel to the 7240 CAO Director 7230 7128 Chief Technology Officer 7142 EAD-Adninistration 14-956 7116 EAD-CT/Counterintel ligence 7654 7142 EAD-Criminal Investigations 7350 7110 Enforcement Services 6236 7972 7901 Office of EEO Affairs 7262 7443 international Operations - Language Services Branch 6248 Reading Room 7129 Office of Professional Responsibility 6248 10143 Office of Records Management OPCA - c-3w cus 13327 Ouant Training 6012 Administrative Services 9939 Information Resources 4012 Counterintelligence 5012 Criminal Investigative 3090 Laboratory 7427 Office of General Counsel 7825 Inspection 7128 Security 6032 Finance 5447 Counterterrorism :Ybercrime Wad/M A. I [4432 ?j/?lwm WMTQ MA I a - - Unit Chief Correspondence Unit 79% i I Room 6236 WWI/egg 6/ No iff- WW ?eag or ?gm to AlM's Latest Media Monitor; How The Media Color The News May 13, 2002 To order TWA 800: The Search for the Truth call 1-866-4-TWA-800 or We. (to team more about this award winning documentary read the President Bush's recent characterization of Ariel Sharon as a ?man of peace' stirred skeptical reporters to bombard ofliclals and members of Congress with questions. asking If they agreed with Bush. leaving the impression that they didn't. . ?ay 10, 2002 Eoreign Aid Elia-Flop President Bush has apparently bought into the argument that by spending more money on foreign aid. we can reduce the conditions that breed terrorism. But does that idea stand up to scrutiny? Cliff Kincaid examines that notion in the context of history and of recent flip-?ops by President Bush. And on a separate issue. Kincaid locks at the FBI's difficulty In Identifying any culprits responsible for mailing out anthrax to various targets. In what appears to be one more bungled operation. they seem to be ruling out the wrong people. April 23, 2002 Autopsy And Police Reports On Cliff Eager. former Enron Vice Chairman (In PDF format). Welfare Reform: Liberals Chicken Little; The enactment of the welfare reform bill enacted In 1996 brought many dire predictions by liberal Democrats. Bill Clinton was criticized by them for ?nally signing the bill after vetolng It twice. But the results are Inand it proved successful In terms of the number of people living in poverty and hunger. Those who were wrong have not been called to account for their mistakes. Ray 13. 2002 lof2 ban/ein.org/main.php Sign up to receive email updates. click here. TWA 800 comm or! ?ight we will Pat Leah! Eye: 90 the Eight ?ying: There is a real crisis developing In the federal court system. Democrats. who now control the Senate. have been blocking virtually every nominee that Presldent Bush has named. Is this getting even for the Clinton years? Is it a Democratic litmus test? Why do the Republicans always seem to be on the defensive when It comes to the appointing of federal Judges? May 9, 2002 The Post once is getting ready to increase the price of first class mail once again. Perhaps It Is time to take a look at what we're getting for our additional money. Bureaucratic inef?ciency Is often cited as one of the major problems at the Post Of?ce. but what few have considered is how U.S. Postal Service also compromises our privacy. May 7. 2002 Ohm One New NATO Member Makes Sense; Busslg The relationship between Russia and the U.S. changed dramatically following the collapse of the Soviet Union. in the aftermath of 9/11. another reality has set in. There are mutual strategic interests, but there are also separate Interests. Much is at stake as the two countries continue to sort out their relationship. my a, zoohire-i}: sands 5/13/02 2-53 PM Parent Directory 23-Apr-2002 11:21 - 04-Apr-2002 09:30 1k mueller.htm1 04-Apr-2002 09:30 1k oraillx.html 04-Apr-2002 09:12 . 1k Apache/1. 3.20 Server at aim. org Port 80 gag-g:- 3L3, 1 . ?Ma?s-u - 1 $1 9? 51131022511)?: A lot?! p: .. s. . Federal Bureau of Investigation 935 Avenue, NW. Washington. D.C. 20535-0001 Dear Mr. Mueller: On March 17, President Bush paid tribute to the brave? passengers on Flight 93, the airliner that crashed in on September 11. He said that they had forced the plane to dive into the ground, thereby keeping the hijackers ?'om crashing it into whatever building it was supposed to destroy in Washington. Since the only source for evidence that the passengers were able to get into the cockpit and force the hijackers to crash the plane into an abandoned strip mine is the cockpit voice recorder, you must have CVRreveals. Ifthatisthecase, pleasetell has rejected FOIA requests for release of the CVR tape and transcript. Ifthe tape and transcript do not con?rm what the president said, I suggest that you so inform him. It .3 Ma ?a/Mz? 425%: m, d' $.qu 3' in}: . a . {a ??534. 7