I have always held CBS’s Sixty Minutes in high esteem, that is until a few days ago when I learned that their eye-witness informant’s claim that he was there the night of the Benghazi attack, heroically scaling the 12 foot wall and encountering al Qaeda, was false. He claimed the Obama administration could have sent help.

All was a lie. The NY Times learned that Dylan Davies had told the FBI a different story, something that CBS should have learned well before they aired the episode on October 27, 2013.

In fact, it took CBS until November 10, 2013 on Sixty Minutes to air its mistake through a Laura Logan eighty-five second apology that came at the very end of their program, suggesting the report was OK but “it was a mistake to include Dylan Davies in the report.”  One wonders if the timing of the apology was calculated.  Little more than four minutes before the hour ended, I would guess most veteran viewers turn the program off, thinking the rest is commercials. I know I do. This time I didn’t stop my DVR recording because I knew the apology was coming.

This is quite a contrast to the firings and soul searching that took place after CBS reporter, Dan Rather used bad data to report about George W. Bush’s no-show national guard service record almost 10 years ago, though most likely a good part of what he reported was true, but not Rather’s sources. Mary Mapes, Dan Rather’s producer, and 3 of her supervisors were forced to resign, as was Rather later. Even a CBS investigation was launched.

This time it appears to involve a simple 85 second apology with no explanation of who was behind the bungled story.

David Brock, Media Matters founder, who was interviewed on the MSNBC Chris Hayes’ show, said that he met with stonewalling and cover-up when he initially called for a retraction by CBS on the bungled story, this only a few days after it aired. He said it was quite easy to uncover the truth through Dylan Davies’ testimony to the FBI, testimony which admitted he was not at Benghazi right after the attack, a false claim that Sixty Minutes nevertheless heralded.

Added to this easily-learned truth from Davies FBI testimony is the curious fact that Laura Logan had been working on this story for over a year. It’s inconceivable that Davies wasn’t vetted better than that in a whole year. Also troubling was Logan’s statement a year ago to the Better Government Association, a statement which expressed outrage about a contentious debate led by Republicans whether the Benghazi Attack was stated by the Obama administration to be terrorist or just protest-based.

You can expect Fox News to display animosity and vitriol toward the Obama camp, but you don’t expect a reputable mainstream journalist to take biased or critical stands. In the midst of the presidential campaign when Romney was vociferously sarcastic – and critical – about Benghazi, Logan went on to passionately say [rhetorically, one guesses – to Obama], “I hope to God you’re sending your best clandestine warriors [one guesses she meant the CIA or FBI] to exact revenge and let the world know we can’t be attacked on our own soil.”  This kind of partiality might lead one to believe objectivity is lost in a journalist for a Sixty Minutes which once deserved praise.

Even the mainstream media suffers under the pressure of a headline-grabbing, GOP-slanted, right-wing network of news, led by the umbrella of Fox News (often called Faux News or Fake News by progressive sources), sporting Fox-ferreted personalities like Hannity, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and O’Reilly. Then there is the waning influence of Rush Limbaugh.  All, but perhaps MSNBC, are guilty of airing Fox fake stories, or even website blogs like World Net Daily (WND), which fabricates fear-mongering conspiracies freely, especially about Benghazi.

So any fake story about Benghazi is disturbing, especially by a once respected source like Sixty Minutes. Republicans have based much of their relentless attacks against Obama on Benghazi, a kind of “two-fer,” looking ahead to former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, whom they expect to run for president in 2016. For CBS to join the mudslinging fray, perhaps influencing elections, is quite troubling for the future of truth and fairness. Then to slough it off, as if it was not their fault, but the fault of a security contractor.

The question might be, “Is there going to be a small island of fair, albeit progressive reporting, from sources like MSNBC, Media Matters and independent blogs, the rest right-wing echo chambers led by the likes of Fox (Faux) News and its offshoots?

Walter Cronkite, past pillar of the truth for CBS news, would turn in his grave, saying, “that’s not the way it is – or should be!”