joining me now is david brock, founder of media matters for america. his newly released e-book is called "the benghazi hoax." david, what was your reaction to the apology that they issued on "60 minutes" on sunday night? >> well, you know, about ten days ago now, i asked for a retraction of the story but also an independent review, and i felt more strongly about that over the next week because of how they reacted. they stonewalled, they covered up during that period when they knew there was a problem. lara logan attacked her critics as partisans, as if liberal organizations can't have the facts, when we did and they didn't. so, last night, i mean, i thought the broadcast was called "60 minutes," not "60 seconds," and these are folks who rightly demand accountability of others. i think they should practice what they preach. and so, it was not nearly satisfying. now, my own view on this is this is now "60 minutes'" and cbs's problem, it's a problem for their brand and they're going to make the decision they're going to make. mission accomplished as far as

david brock, founder of media matters. and co-author of "the benghazi hoax." ou so much for joining me. >> thanks for having me on. >> i want to start with sort of how things unfolded this week. as i noted, you guys, media matters, was on this story from the beginning. and yet it wasn't until "the new york times" reported that people started to take a look and say, hmm, maybe there's something here. >> sure. yeah. well, the day after the "60 minutes" report aired, we monitored the fox news channel. one of the hosts there disclosed they had been working with this source on a number of stories. but that they stopped when he demanded money. and so that was -- that was the first flag. then, of course, you have the issue of a right wing publisher. the author does a deal with the publisher. this is a publisher that publishes the likes of glenn beck. and then starts to work with "60 minutes" on the story. so that was the second flag. then, of course, "the washington post" broke the story that showed that "60 minutes" put a liar on the air. >> you know, david, here's o

they're not officially with her like david brock.ou take a shot at hillary clinton and you are nailed. how does a republican candidate do that facing that fuse laud of attack? >> i think she is a formidable candidate. i don't think it's that hard to attack her. she's pretty vulnerable. she's going to be associated with the obama administration. and the argument will be do you want a third term of the bawl administration. and i think she also will be attacked a little bit on the idea of does she have real executive experience? can she really take over and lead this country to a right place? i think bob is right in a sense of what is her vision. and that was her biggest challenge in the last election. she's going to be challenged from the left by elizabeth warren or somebody like that. and then you're going to attack her on being liberal. this time, if she's pushed far to the left you can attack her on those grounds. >> i did hear benghazi. not a word on benghazi. before i go past you here. benghazi, do you want to say anything? >> i t

. >> one of the things david brock said on the night of that reporting, he said this is a guy who fox news turned down his source because he wanted to be paid. >> and cbs didn't explain to viewers that we're publishing his book. it was a train wreck from beginning to end. the question is did they learn anything and that's what media matters is going to continue to watch. >> i want to sort of make a reference to allan ginsberg -- i saw the reporters of my generation sucked into the benghazi vortex. some people's work i respect, some peoples work i don't respect. it gets pulled into this kind of quick sand of right wing spin and lies. there's an actual thing that happened, there's an actual adark, there's actually americans that are dead. from's a whole set of actual concerns and they're ones that i think a lot of people care about. any time you start to creep towards it, you get sucked into the world of the crazy right wing obsession. >> they want to tell a certain story on the other side. it's talked about in the national guard controversy. the reason cbs got in trouble was that cbs t

joining me now is david brock founder of media matters. his new e-book, "the benghazi hoax."nks for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> what are republicans saying now that have been discredited? >> well, first, fox aired 13 segments the day after this discredited "60 minutes" story ran. as you noted in your piece, senator graham has used this as an excuse to block president obama appointees, to open up investigation. senator cruz has said the state department should offer $5 million for more information on benghazi. and why was "60 minutes" important to the right? it was validation for their view that we still don't know the truth here and this is some kind of watergate level scandal when it's a hoax. "60 minutes" aided and abetted the right wing hoax. she said they did this knowingly. they knew this source was a liar. they put the liar on the air. the big story here is not that the source was a liar. i imagine people come into "60 minutes" all the time with false reports. rei rely on them to get the truth. they didn't do that. they wanted to believe this story and why?

david brock on our show that night disclosed that even fox news itself was weary of using the other source. >> and the other witness appears to be some type of british mercenary who apparently in conversations with fox news, asked for money to talk and so, you know, fox news even drew a line there, but it was good enough for cbs. >> turns out, cbs was also publishing davies book. the connection did not disclose during that original report. while fox news may have shied away from him because he asked for money, it didn't stop the same fox news from running over 13 segments. mainstream validation was even comically evident at a rally for the now defeated virginia candidate, ken cuccinelli, a week before tuesday's election. his warm-up acts stalking the crowd with -- including congressman frank wolf. >> the man who was going to get to the bottom of what's going to happen in benghazi. >> i appreciate that introduction and we are going to get to the bottom and if anyone watched "60 minutes" last night, you can see why -- >> then thursday, "the washington post" report thaging that the account in

confirmed discrepancies in the stories to fbi and cbs and in tampa, kelly mcbride and here in d.c., david brockounder of media matters for america. bill, i'm going start with you. the key problem here seems to be that cbs trusted davies when he said his account to the fbi matched an account in his book and that also in their reporting but you guys at "the new york times" were able to discover that that wasn't necessarily true so what happened here? where did cbs go wrong? >> looks like they didn't actually vet the guy thoroughly clearly because they didn't have this information from the fbi and he was telling them that would corroborate the story he told them but the fbi when it was willing to reveal this undermine the story. they should have been able to find out through their own sources it seems to me in advance this was not going to be the case. they went ahead with this because he was the key to the story. they didn't have a lot else that was new and he was telling something exciting and dramatic like hitting someone in the head with a rifle. >> you called for "60 minutes" to retract this