Текст книги "ГУЛаг Палестины"
Автор книги: Лев Гунин
сообщить о нарушении
Текущая страница: 68 (всего у книги 88 страниц)
proceeded with 'reckless disregard' for the facts known to them.
Historically, that has been extremely difficult to prove."
"So Newsline is not liable for damages?"
"No."
"They can say whatever they want, and if they put us out of
business, it's our tough luck?"
"That's correct."
"Is there any restraint at all on what they say?"
"Well." Fuller shifted in his chair. "If they falsely portrayed
the company, they might be liable. But in this instance, we have a
lawsuit brought by an attorney for a passenger on 545. So Newsline
is able to say they're just reporting the facts: that an attorney
made the following accusations about us."
"I understand," Marder said. "But a claim filed in a court has
limited publicity. Newsline is going to present these crazy claims
to forty million viewers. And at the same time, they'll
automatically validate the claims, simply by repeating them on
television. The damage to us comes from their exposure, not from the
original claims."
"I take your point," Fuller said. "But the law doesn't see it
that way. Newsline has the right to report a lawsuit."
"Newsline has no responsibility to independently assess the legal
claims being made, no matter how outrageous? If the lawyers said,
for example, that we employed child molesters, Newsline could still
report that, with no liability to themselves?"
"Correct."
"Let's say we go to trial and win. It's clear that Newsline
presented an erroneous view of our product, based on the attorney's
allegations, which have been thrown out of court. Is Newsline
obligated to retract the statements they made to forty million
viewers?"
"No. They have no such obligation."
"Why not?"
"Newsline can decide what's newsworthy. If they think the
outcome of the trial is not newsworthy, they don't have to report
it. It's their call."
"And meanwhile, the company is bankrupt," Marder said. "Thirty
thousand employees lose their jobs, houses, health benefits, and
start new careers at Burger King. And another fifty thousand lose
their jobs, when our suppliers go belly up in Georgia, Ohio, Texas,
and Connecticut. All those fine people who've devoted their lives
working to design, build, and support the best airframe in the
business get a firm handshake and a swift kick in the butt. Is that
how it works?"
Fuller shrugged. "That's how the system works. Yes."
"I'd say the system sucks."
"The system is the system," Fuller said.
Marder glanced at Casey, then turned back to Fuller. "Now Ed," he
said. "This situation sounds very lopsided. We make a superb
product, and all the objective measures of its performance
demonstrate that it's safe and reliable. We've spent years
developing and testing it. We've got an irrefutable track record.
But you're saying a television crew can come in, hang around a day or
two, and trash our product on national TV. And when they do, they
have no responsibility for their acts, and we have no way to recover
damages."
Fuller nodded.
"Pretty lopsided," Marder said.
Fuller cleared his throat. "Well, it wasn't always that way.
But for the last thirty years, since Sullivan in 1964, the First
Amendment has been invoked in defamation cases. Now the press has a
lot more breathing room."
"Including room for abuse," Marder said.
Fuller shrugged. "Press abuse is an old complaint," he said.
"Just a few years after the First Amendment was passed, Thomas
Jefferson complained about how inaccurate the press was, how unfair
–"
"But Ed," Marder said. "We're not talking about two hundred
years ago. And we're not talking about a few nasty editorials in
colonial newspapers. We're talking about a television show with
compelling images that goes instantaneously to forty, fifty million
people – a sizable percentage of the whole country – and murders our
reputation. Murders it. Unjustifiably. That's the situation we're
talking about here. So," Marder said, "what do you advise us to do,
Ed?"
"Well," Fuller cleared his throat again. "I always advise my
clients to tell the truth."
Of course Michael Crichton's depiction above is fictional, and so may be
exaggerated. However, anyone who is acquainted with 60 Minutes' broadcast The Ugly
Face of Freedom of 23 Oct 1994 – hosted by yourself – cannot help wondering whether
Crichton's depiction might in fact be accurate, at least in occasional instances.
I wonder if you would not at long last care to break your silence and say a word
either of retraction and apology, or if not that, then at least some word in defense
of your broadcast and of your profession?
Yours truly,
Lubomyr Prytulak
cc: Ed Bradley, Jeffrey Fager, Don Hewitt, Steve Kroft, Andy Rooney, Lesley Stahl,
Mike Wallace.
HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE SAFER 820 hits since 9Apr99
Morley Safer Letter 5 9Apr99 Who blew the hands off Maksym Tsarenko?
The sort of powerful story that neither you nor Rabbi Bleich were able to find is one of
a Russian summer-camp councillor who had his hands blown off by Ukrainian
nationalists for using the Russian language within Ukraine; or one of a Jewish
summer-camp councillor having his hands blown off by Ukrainian nationalists for using
Hebrew or Yiddish within Ukraine. Such things do not happen within Ukraine to either
Russians or to Jews – they happen only to Ukrainians.
April 9, 1999
Morley Safer
60 Minutes, CBS Television
51 W 52nd Street
New York, NY
USA 10019
Morley Safer:
Who Blew The Hands Off
Maksym Tsarenko?
The photograph above shows Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma bestowing the Order of
Yaroslaw the Wise on Maksym Tsarenko. My free translation of the text which explains
the photograph is as follows:
Among the first recipients of the Order, awarded on the fourth
anniversary of the national independence of Ukraine, were leading
Ukrainian workers in the fields of culture, art, and law: O.
Basystiuk, A. Mokrenko, and F. Burchak.
On this same day, the president of Ukraine also bestowed this mark
of distinction, "for valor" upon twenty-year-old student at the
Vynnytsia Pedagogical Institute, Maksym Tsarenko.
During the summer holidays, Maksym was working as a councillor at a
summer camp for young girls near Yevpatoria, Crimea.
Haters of Ukraine, who rush to propose the view that Crimea is not a
peninsula attached to Ukraine, but rather is an island unconnected
to Ukraine, reacted with hostility to this summer camp, especially
provoked by the Ukrainian language spoken by the Ukrainian children,
which dared to resound even within Ukrainian Crimea. The hatred
mounted to such an irrepressible degree that it provoked the bandits
to the most egregious crime: they constructed an explosive and threw
it into the window of the children's dormitory. Ten or so children
could have been killed by the explosion. But the young Ukrainian
councillor showed no confusion as to his duty. He picked up the
bomb, shielding it with his own body, and jumped out of the
building. Unfortunately, the bomb went off, seriously wounding
Maksym.
The best local surgeons fought for several days to save the boy's
life. Thanks to them, the youth's life was spared. Unfortunately,
it was not possible to save his hands.
No one can accuse the recipient of not having earned his award.
Ukrainian awards, in contrast to Soviet, are fully deserved.
(Ukrainian-language newspaper, Novyi Shliakh (New Pathway) of
7Oct95, based on the earlier report in Ukrains'ke Slovo, (Ukrainian
Word), Kyiv, No. 37, 14Sep95)
The above story of Maksym Tsarenko compels me to ask – not for the first time – who
is in danger in Ukraine? The Western media urge us to accept that it is Jews and
Russians who are in danger, threatened by Ukrainian nationalists. That, for example,
is the conclusion of your infamous 60 Minutes broadcast The Ugly Face of Freedom of
23Oct94. However, you came back from your brief visit to Ukraine with no data to
substantiate such a claim. Almost a year ago, the Ukrainian Archive has requested
both of you and of Rabbi Bleich the evidence backing your report of violence against
Jews, and neither of you has as yet condescended to reply, strengthening the
suspicion that your story was fabricated.
The sort of powerful story that neither you nor Rabbi Bleich were able to find is one
of a Russian summer-camp councillor who had his hands blown off by Ukrainian
nationalists for using the Russian language within Ukraine; or one of a Jewish
summer-camp councillor having his hands blown off by Ukrainian nationalists for using
Hebrew or Yiddish within Ukraine. Such things do not happen within Ukraine to either
Russians or to Jews – they happen only to Ukrainians. It is the story of Ukrainians
being persecuted within Ukraine that you could have richly documented and broadcast
to the world. The story of Maksym Tsarenko can be found multiplied many times over
the torture-murders of Ukrainian activist Volodymyr Katelnytsky and his mother in
their Kyiv apartment providing a recent example. The contrasting story of Jewish or
Russian victimization within Ukraine is bogus – and yet that is the story that you
unscrupulously chose to broadcast.
Lubomyr Prytulak
cc: Rabbi Bleich, Ed Bradley, Jeffrey Fager, Don Hewitt, Steve Kroft, Andy Rooney,
Lesley Stahl, Mike Wallace.
HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE SAFER 1973 hits since 20Apr99
Morley Safer Letter 6 20Apr99 What kind of people run 60 Minutes?
Women who worked in the "60 Minutes" offices described to Hertsgaard a sexually
charged environment that had more in common with a drunken frat party than a
professional newsroom. – Carol Lloyd
The excerpt quoted in my letter to Morley Safer below is taken from a Carol Lloyd's A
Feel For a Good Story of 17Mar98, published on the web site Mothers Who Think, whose
home page can be accessed by clicking on the link immediately above, or on the logo
immediately below:
60 Minutes Executive Producer,
Don Hewitt.
But the charges against Hewitt make Clinton's alleged behavior look
like clumsy courtship. One woman described to Hertsgaard how
Hewitt slammed her against a wall, pinned her there and forced his
tongue down her throat. – Carol Lloyd
April 20, 1999
Morley Safer
60 Minutes, CBS Television
51 W 52nd Street
New York, NY
USA 10019
Morley Safer:
I call to your attention the following excerpt from Carol Lloyd's A Feel For a Good
Story, published on the web site Mothers Who Think on 17Mar98. I will be asking you
further below whether the information provided by Carol Lloyd might help explain your
23Oct94 60 Minutes broadcast, The Ugly Face of Freedom:
The irony is that Hewitt – the creator of the TV show famous for
unveiling corruption and hypocrisy among the powerful – has been
accused of worse deeds than any of the sexual charges leveled at
Clinton.
In 1991, reporter Mark Hertsgaard, author of "On Bended Knee: The
Press and the Reagan Presidency," wrote an article for Rolling Stone
magazine in which he documented Hewitt's own serious problems with
impulse control. Women who worked in the "60 Minutes" offices
described to Hertsgaard a sexually charged environment that had more
in common with a drunken frat party than a professional newsroom.
Correspondent Mike Wallace was singled out for bottom slapping, lewd
comments and unsnapping co-workers' bras.
While today no one would hesitate to call such behavior sexual
harassment, Wallace's cheerful willingness to do it in public – even
in front of a stranger – made him seem like a good (albeit
unpleasant) old boy. But the charges against Hewitt make Clinton's
alleged behavior look like clumsy courtship. One woman described to
Hertsgaard how Hewitt slammed her against a wall, pinned her there
and forced his tongue down her throat. Hewitt vehemently denied the
story and all other allegations to Hertsgaard, while Wallace
admitted his own antics and promised they would never happen again.
Rolling Stone eventually published Hertsgaard's article in a
drastically reduced form, although Hertsgaard says Hewitt pulled all
the strings he could to get the story killed. In an interview from
his home in Takoma Park, Md., Hertsgaard spoke to Salon about the
allegations of sexual harassment at "60 Minutes" that never made it
into print – and about how the "men's club" within the media exposes
other sexually reckless men, but still protects its own.
Your story has some pretty explosive accusations against Don
Hewitt. How did you come to write the piece?
Sexual harassment was not the point of the investigation. I
literally witnessed sexual harassment on my first day of interviews
at "60 Minutes" and women began to tell me about it, so it gradually
found its way into the story. But that wasn't the point, it just was
so pervasive at the time that you couldn't miss it.
What did you witness when you were there?
The first day I was in the corridor talking with a female staffer
and I saw out of the corner of my eye Mr. Wallace coming down the
hall. He didn't know me yet because I hadn't interviewed him, so he
had no idea that it was a reporter standing there. I'm sure it
would have changed his mind. Anyway, just before he reached her she
pushed both her hands behind her bottom, like a little kid trying to
ward off a mama's spanking, and got up on her toes and leaned away.
But that didn't stop him. As he went by, he swatted her on the butt
with a rolled up magazine or newspaper or something like that.
That's no big deal, one could say, but I must say it did raise my
eyebrows. I said to her, "God, does that happen all the time?" and
she said, "Are you kidding? That is nothing." And that led to
people telling me how he'd also unsnap your bra strap or snap it for
you. So he had a reputation for that.
Then I also heard about this far-more-worrisome incident with Hewitt
and that one did get into the piece, although in a much censored
form, where he lunges at a woman in a deserted place, pins her
against the wall and sticks his tongue in her mouth. There were
other incidents women told me about Hewitt, and, of course, (former)
Washington Post journalist Sally Quinn was already on the record in
her book "We're Going to Make You a Star" accusing Hewitt of making
an aggressive pass at her and sabotaging her work when she refused
him.
Was the sexual harassment at "60 Minutes" pervasive?
It sure seemed that way. There's a woman quoted in my story saying
that Mike would constantly have his hands on your thigh, or
whatnot. One producer said that basically Mike Wallace and Don
Hewitt felt this was their right. And that's how a lot of men in
television felt for many years. Women were basically hired for
their looks. You had to be competent too, but you damn well better
look good.
I understand that you had a difficult time getting the story
published in Rolling Stone.
The entire piece almost never ran because Don Hewitt tried to kill
it and (Rolling Stone editor and publisher) Jann Wenner almost went
along with him. They did emasculate the piece by taking out a lot
of the damaging material. You'll see in there that there is one
basic episode involving Don. There were four that I had reported.
[...]
So what did you think when you saw Hewitt taking a stand for
Kathleen Willey?
It was odd to me, seeing Don quoted in the New York Times on Friday
and Saturday as he was hyping Sunday's broadcast. He's talking
about what happened and I just thought of that old Dylan song:
"You've got a lot of nerve."
I hoped somebody would call him on it. In today's Times, Patricia
Ireland, head of NOW, is quoted as saying if these charges by Ms.
Willey are true, it has crossed a very important line from sexual
harassment to sexual assault. And if that's the case, we have to be
very serious about it. Well, the situation where Hewitt stuck his
tongue down that women's throat – that's assault. That is assault.
She certainly felt like she was assaulted. She freed herself by
kicking him in the balls – which they also cut out. She runs away
and then the next day, there was a fancy gala event where you have
to come in evening dress and she's there and Hewitt, this son of a
gun – he's like a randy old goat – he just could not take no for an
answer. She was wearing a backless gown and suddenly she feels
someone running his fingers up and down her bare back. She turns
around, obviously jumpy from what had happened the day before, and
sees the object of her horror – Hewitt – saying, "Don't be scared, I
just think you're a very attractive girl." They cut that out of the
article too.
There's a lot of huffing and puffing within the media about
Clinton's alleged behavior, with a lot of journalists complaining
about the public's so-called apathy on the subject. But in the case
of men like Hewitt, it seems pretty hypocritical.
It's absolutely unmistakable – and Hewitt is an extremely good
example – how most of the discourse about this issue involves people
who have no more moral standing than this ball-point pen in my
hand. And that goes not just for Hewitt, but for many of these
clowns both in the media here in Washington and in the Congress.
Anybody who has spent any time around Capitol Hill knows that a
large number of congressmen, both in the House and in the Senate,
fool around with either their young staffers or the young female
staffers of their colleagues. To any reporter who had their eyes
open, this is not news.
Carol Lloyd, A Feel For a Good Story, Mothers Who Think, 17Mar98.
With respect to Carol Lloyd's statement above, I wonder if I could have your answers
to just four questions:
(1) Is 60 Minutes infected with a slackness of integrity? What Carol Lloyd appears to be
describing in the upper echelons of the 60 Minutes administration – I am thinking
particularly of executive producer Don Hewitt and co-editor Mike Wallace – is a
deep-rooted slackness of integrity: the 60 Minutes environment has "more in common
with a drunken frat party than a professional newsroom," the top 60 Minutes staff are
"people who have no more moral standing than this ball-point pen in my hand," and
executive producer Don Hewitt comports himself "like a randy old goat." Might it be
the case, then, that the cause of your failing to satisfy minimal journalistic
standards in your 23Oct94 60 Minutes broadcast The Ugly Face of Freedom, and of your
failing also in the years since that broadcast to retract any of its many errors, is
that you yourself became infected by the same slackness of integrity that had already
gripped other of the 60 Minutes leadership?
(2) Does female hiring demonstrate a willingness to sacrifice program quality? If the
top 60 Minutes staff require their female employees to be physically attractive and
sexually accessible, then might the resulting inability of 60 Minutes to retain women
of high professional quality have resulted in a degradation in the average competence
of female employees? One may speak of demanding competence together with beauty, but
what woman of high competence would have hesitated to find alternative employment
upon discovering the harassment and assault and career strangulation that threatened
to be her lot if she remained at 60 Minutes? And so, in turn, might this readiness
to lose the brightest women not be symptomatic of a readiness of the 60 Minutes
administration to place extraneous goals – in this case, personal sexual
gratification – above program quality? And might this same policy of demoting
program quality to less than top priority have ultimately resulted in a severe
degradation of the quality of some 60 Minutes broadcasts, as for example your story
The Ugly Face of Freedom?
(3) Does male hiring demonstrate any similar willingness to sacrifice program quality?
One cannot help contemplating that if 60 Minutes is willing to promote goals other
than program quality in its hiring of female employees, that it might be willing to
promote goals other than program quality in its hiring of male employees as well.
Might it be the case, for example, that male employees are sometimes hired not for
competence, but for adherence to a 60 Minutes ideology? Or might it be the case that
men of high professional quality left 60 Minutes, or refused to join 60 Minutes, upon
witnessing the ideological claptrap that they might be asked to read over the air in
violation of journalistic ethics and in violation of rules of evidence? This too
could help explain the low quality of The Ugly Face of Freedom.
(4) Do some 60 Minutes employees feel that malfeasance is their right? Referring to the
harassment and assaulting of female employees, reporter Mark Hertsgaard is quoted as
saying that "One producer said that basically Mike Wallace and Don Hewitt felt this
was their right." This observation leads me to wonder whether there is not on the
part of certain 60 Minutes staff some similar attitude to the effect that
broadcasting their prejudices against Ukraine as facts is their right, and that
enjoying freedom from accountability concerning what they have broadcast about
Ukraine is also their right?
Lubomyr Prytulak
cc: Ed Bradley, Jeffrey Fager, Don Hewitt, Steve Kroft, Andy Rooney, Lesley Stahl,
Mike Wallace.
HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE SAFER 965 hits since 21Apr99
Morley Safer Letter 7 21Apr99 Does drinking wine promote longevity?
At bottom, then, I see little difference between your French Paradox story of 5Nov95 and
your Ugly Face of Freedom story of 23Oct94 – in each case, you ventured beyond your
depth, giving superficial judgments on topics that you were unqualified to speak on,
discussing questions that your education had given you no grounding in, and causing
damage because your conclusions proved to be false.
April 21, 1999
Morley Safer
60 Minutes, CBS Television
51 W 52nd Street
New York, NY
USA 10019
Morley Safer:
I find your photograph. Recently, I was searching the internet looking for a photograph
of you that I could use on the Ukrainian Archive (UKAR), and I did manage to find an
attractive one, and I did put it on UKAR, as you can see at:
http://www.ukar.org/safer.shtml
I attach to it a caption. Underneath this photograph I selected from the many
ill-considered things that you said in your 23Oct94 60 Minutes broadcast, The Ugly Face
of Freedom, your statement "Western Ukraine also has a long, dark history of blaming its
poverty, its troubles, on others." A moment's reflection upon this statement must
convince any objective observer that it is unlikely to be the case that some historian
that you consulted had recommended to you the conclusion that Western Ukrainians were
more predisposed than other people to blaming their troubles on others. Rather, a
moment's reflection must convince any objective observer that it is likely that this
statement came off the top of your head without the least evidence to support it, and
that you then had the temerity to pass it along to tens of millions of viewers as if it
were a fact. In making this statement, and in making the scores of other erroneous or
unsupported statements that you also made on that broadcast, you were inflicting harm
upon Ukraine, you were lowering the credibility of 60 Minutes, and you were undermining
your standing as a journalist of competence and integrity.
What you are most famous for. The reason that I am writing to you today, however,
concerns The Ugly Face of Freedom only indirectly. What concerns me today is a
surprising discovery that I made while searching for your name on the Internet. The
discovery is that your name seems to be most closely connected to the conclusion that
drinking three to five glasses of wine per day increases longevity, which conclusion you
proposed on a 60 Minutes story broadcast on 5Nov95, apparently under the title The
French Paradox. It seems that you have become famous for this story, and that it may
constitute the pinnacle of your career.
For example, a representative Internet article that is found upon an InfoSeek search for
"Morley Safer, 60 Minutes" is written by Kim Marcus and appears on the Home Wine
Spectator web site. The article's headline announces that 60 Minutes Examines Stronger
Evidence Linking Wine and Good Health, with the comparative "stronger" signifying that
the evidence presented in the 5Nov95 broadcast was better than the evidence presented in
a similar 60 Minutes broadcast four years earlier. This Home Wine Spectator article
viewed your broadcast as demonstrating the existence of a causal connection between
(what some might judge a high volume of) wine consumption and longevity, underlined your
own high credibility and the high authority of your sources, pointed out the vast
audience to which your conclusions had been beamed, and suggested that wine consumption
shot up as a result of at least the first French Paradox broadcast:
The study also found that the benefits of wine drinking extended to
people who drank from three to five glasses of wine per day. "What
surprised us most was that wine intake signified much lower mortality
rates," Safer said to the television show's audience.
Overall, the segment should prove a big boost to the argument that wine
drinking in moderation can be a boon to one's health. The segment was
seen by more than 20 million people. "It isn't just information," said
John De Luca, president of California's Wine Institute, "it's the
credibility that comes with Morley Safer interviewing the scientists."
After the first French Paradox episode aired in November 1991 the
consumption of red wine shot up in the United States, and it has yet to
dip.
The Kim Marcus article underlined your failure to question the conclusion that wine
consumption increases life expectancy:
Throughout the episode, Safer didn't challenge the fact that wine is
linked to longer life; rather, he was interested in what it was about
wine that made it unique. "The central question is what is it about
wine, especially red wine, that promotes coronary health," he said.
Safer came to the conclusion that it is not only alcohol but other
unnamed compounds in wine that contributed to higher levels of
beneficial high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol.
I had already seen that French Paradox broadcast. As a matter of fact, I had watched your
French Paradox story when it was first broadcast on 5Nov95, and even while watching it I
had immediately recognized that your conclusion attributing longer life to wine drinking
was unjustified, and that you were causing harm in passing this conclusion along to a
large audience almost all of whom would accept it as true. At bottom, then, I see
little difference between your French Paradox story of 5Nov95 and your Ugly Face of
Freedom story of 23Oct94 – in each case, you ventured beyond your depth, giving
superficial judgments on topics that you were unqualified to speak on, discussing
questions that your education had given you no grounding in, and causing damage because
your conclusions proved to be false.
In the case of the Ugly Face of Freedom, the number of your errors was large, and the
amount of data that needed to be examined to demonstrate your errors was large as well,
as can be seen by the length of my rebuttal The Ugly Face of 60 Minutes. In the case of
the French Paradox, however, you make only one fundamental error which is to fail to
grasp the difference between experimental and correlational data – and my demonstration
of your error can compactly be contained within the present letter.
The reason that I am able to assert with some confidence that your conclusion that wine
drinking increases longevity is unjustified is as follows. I have a Ph.D. in
experimental psychology from Stanford, I taught in the Department of Psychology at the
University of Western Ontario for eleven years, and my teaching and my interests fell
largely into the areas of statistics, research methodology, and data interpretation.
Everyone with expertise in scientific method will agree with me that your conclusion in
The French Paradox was unwarranted. It is not necessary to read the original research
papers on which you rely to arrive at this same judgment – even the brief review of the
research data in your broadcast, even the briefer review of your broadcast in the Kim
Marcus quotations above – is enough for someone who has studied scientific method to see
that you were wrong. Below is my explanation.
The French Paradox Research
Cannot Have Been Experimental
There are two ways in which data relating wine consumption to longevity could have been
gathered – either in an experiment, or in a correlational study. If the data had been
gathered in an experiment, then it would have been done something like this. A number
of subjects (by which I mean human experimental subjects) would have been randomly
assigned to groups, let us say 11 different groups. The benefit of random assignment is
that it guarantees that the subjects in each group are initially equivalent in every
conceivable respect – equivalent in male-female ratio, in age, in health, in income, in
diet, in smoking, in drug use, and so on. That is the magic of random assignment, and
we cannot pause to discuss it – you will have to take my word for it.
To groups that enjoy pre-treatment equality, the experimenter administers his treatment.
After constituting his random groups, the experimenter would require the subjects in
each group to drink different volumes of wine each day over many years – let us say over
the course of 30 years. Subjects assigned to the zero-glass group would be required to
drink no wine. Subjects assigned to the 1-glass group would be required to drink one
glass of wine each day. Subjects assigned to the 2-glass group would be required to
drink two glasses of wine each day. And so on up to, say, a 10-glass group, which given
that we started with a zero-glass group gives us the 11 groups that I started out
positing that we would need. As the experiment progressed, the number dying in each
group as well as the cause of death, and the health of those still alive, would be
monitored periodically.
There are many ways in which this simplest of all experiments could be refined or
elaborated, but we need not pause to discuss such complications here what I have
