I think that television to some degree is responsible for the growth of libel actions for the reason that television coverage stirs the emotions more than print does. It a man sees himself called to account in print. It is somehow not as unsettling as that same calling to account on a television screen.

If we could take a look at some of the particulars in the Westmoreland trial, in out-takes from your taped interview with (former U.S. National Security Adviser Walter) Rostow. Rostow appeared to refute the hypothesis of "The Uncounted Enemy." Why weren't those comments included in the broadcast?

Dr. Rostow did not refuse the basic theis of the documentary. Dr. Rostow confessed that he knew nothing whatsoever about the nub of the discussion. He knew that there was a dispute between CIA and MACV about the uncounted enemy, about enemy strength.

He did not know, however, and confessed that he did not know on tape, that there had been a conspiracy to cook the books. All he knew was that there was a dispute between CIA and MACV. He knew nothing, he said, of the allegation about cooking of the books, it calculated deception. I think you're the captive of a Wall Street Journal editorial.

I understand that Dr. Rostow did say that President Johnson was aware of this dispute, and that if he was aware of conflicting troop estimates, then there could not be a deception.

It's quite apparent to me that when Westmoreland pulled out, after his chief of intelligence. Gen Joseph McChristian, and the chief of the order of battle branch responsible for putting together enemy strength figures, one called what the general had done "improper," the other called what he was asked to do by MACA command "dishonest," it seems to me that these two men who had specific and discreet knowledge of the charges leveled in the documentary, and each of them appeared is witnesses for us, it would seem to indicate that the basis of our story was accurate.

According to [Westmoreland's attorney Dan] Burt's evidence, you repeatedly told your producer that you were too busy to devote your full attention to this project, and further, that during the production of the documentary, you didn't understand what Westmoreland's motive would have been.

Given those reservations, given those doubts, why did you proceed?

I have doubt about every story that I do along the way, and I surely would not have proceeded not permitted the broadcast to go the air unless those doubts had been resolved. I don't know that Burt said all of the things that you suggest that he said. If he did, he was off-base on that as well as most other things in the course of the litigation.

I believe I quote accurately when I say that in an internal CBS memorandum, producer George Crile wrote about "breaking Westmoreland." Do you think his choice of words reveals a certain malice or lack of objectivity?

Really, no. That's newsroom talk. You hear it all the time.

Crile doesn't publish by himself. Crile has me to deal with. He has his associate producer to deal with. He has his superior editors to deal with. He's got to prove every fact that's in that broadcast. The fact of the matter is, that when push came to prove in that courtroom under oath, it turned out that every fact in that broadcast was accurate.

I think the memo was, "Now all we have to do is break Westmoreland and we have the whole thing aced." Well, the moral of that story is, don't send memos.

You stand by the broadcast in its entirely?

Completely.