The CBS newsmagazine and Logan herself had been staunchly defending the segment for days against critics who argued that a key source -- British security expert Dylan Davies, a.k.a. "Morgan Jones" -- may not have been telling the truth. But late Thursday, the network acknowledged problems with Davies' story.
"'60 Minutes' has learned of new information that undercuts the account told to us by Morgan Jones of his actions on the night of the attack on the Benghazi compound," CBS said in a statement. "We are currently looking into this serious matter to determine if he misled us, and if so, we will make a correction."
A "60 Minutes" spokesman declined to elaborate. But reports elsewhere said that Davies had told the
The CBS report has become wrapped up in a larger political fight over Benghazi. Conservative critics have accused the Obama administration of dragging its feet in calling the attack an act of terror and covering up the real story. These critics hailed the "60 Minutes" report as a rare attempt in the mainstream media to hold the Obama administration's feet to the fire.
The Benghazi report summons up memories of another CBS News scandal that attracted heavy political fire. In 2004, then-anchor Dan Rather introduced a report that contained documents allegedly casting light on President
What do you think of "60 Minutes" and its Benghazi report?
[For the Record, 11:52 p.m. PST Nov. 7: An earlier version of this post stated that the attack on the U.S. mission in Libya occurred on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. It happened on the 11th anniversary.]