Editing Operation Tailwind (section)

=== Aftermath ===
CNN and ''Time'' magazine undertook an internal investigation. New York attorney [[Floyd Abrams]], a constitutional lawyer, was hired to conduct the investigation for them. They jointly concluded that the journalism of the report was "flawed," and the report should be publicly retracted, with apologies made to persons and institutions cited in it. The two key CNN producers of the report, April Oliver and Jack Smith, were fired outright when they refused to resign. Senior producer Pam Hill of CNN resigned. Reporter [[Peter Arnett]] was reprimanded and soon resigned, going to work for [[HDNet]] and then [[NBC]].

Abrams later said that he had urged CNN/Time Warner to retract the report, but to acknowledge that it may have had truth to it. He said, retraction "doesn't necessarily mean that the story isn't true. … Who knows? Someday we might find other information. And, you know, maybe someday I'll be back here again, having done another report saying that, 'You know what? It was all true.'"<ref>Phillips, Peter M, editor. ''Censored 1999: The News That Didn't Make the News'' (Seven Stories Press, 1999), p. 28.</ref>

In early July 1998, [[Tom Johnson (journalist)|Tom Johnson]], CNN News Group Chairman, President and CEO, issued a statement about the findings of the internal investigation. He pledged acceptance of the findings and reiterated that the allegations in ''Valley of Death'' and related reports "cannot be supported." He said there was insufficient evidence that sarin or any other deadly gas was used, nor could CNN confirm that American deserters were targeted, or whether they were at the camp in Laos.

As a supplement to CNN's retraction, on July 2 and July 5, 1998, the company aired retraction broadcasts that sought to portray some of the sources for the Tailwind reports as unreliable.<ref>CNN ''Talkback Live'' on July 2, 1998 and ''Newstand: CNN & Time'' on July 5, 1998.</ref>

Oliver and Smith were chastised but unrepentant. They put together a 77-page document supporting their side of the story; it included testimony from military personnel apparently confirming the use of sarin.<ref name="Rebuttal to the Abrams/Kohler Report">[http://www.freedomforum.org/publications/tailwind/tailwind.pdf “TAILWIND” Rebuttal to the Abrams/Kohler Report Oliver, Smith (July 22, 1998).]</ref> Active and retired military personnel consulted by the media, including CNN's own military analyst, [[USAF]] Major General [[Perry Smith (Major General)|Perry Smith]] (ret), noted that a particularly strong, non-lethal formulation of "CS" [[CS gas|teargas]] was used during ''Tailwind.'' But they said that it should not be confused with sarin, which is categorized as a [[weapon of mass destruction]] by the [[United Nations]].<ref>Smith, Perry. [http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3344 "The Lessons of Tailwind: CNN’s former military adviser sifts through the wreckage of the ill-fated 'Valley of Death' report"], ''[[American Journalism Review]]'' (Dec. 1998).</ref>

Several individuals who were sources for the reports, whose images were shown in the reports, or who were otherwise identified with the reports, brought other legal actions against CNN and Time Warner.  These actions were combined by the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation and were assigned to the United States District Court in the Northern District of California. They became collectively known as the "Operation Tailwind" litigation.<ref>In re Cable News Network and Time Magazine "Operation Tailwind" Litigation, 106 F. Supp. 2d 1000 (2000) http://www.leagle.com/decision?q=20001106106FSupp2d1000_1999.xml/IN%20RE%20CABLE%20NEWS%20NETWORK retrieved November 16, 2013.</ref>

CNN and Time Warner defended its reports from claims of [[defamation]], and most of these actions were dismissed by the court.<ref>''In re Cable News Network and Time Magazine "Operation Tailwind" Litigation,'' 106 F. Supp. 2d 1000 (2000) http://www.leagle.com/decision?q=20001106106FSupp2d1000_1999.xml/IN%20RE%20CABLE%20NEWS%20NETWORK, retrieved November 16, 2013; September 21, 2006 Judgment of the United District Court for the Northern District of California San Jose Division, in Case No. C 99-20137 JF (RS), Lead Case No. C 98-20946 JF RS MDL Case No. 1257.</ref> In none of these cases did the court find that the original Tailwind reports had defamed anyone.

A decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in one of the cases states that the Tailwind reports did not defame the plaintiff who was a source for the reports. It noted that the plaintiff, in his interviews with CNN, "admitted the truth of each of the three facts he now challenges."<ref name=":0">284 F.3d 977, page 4571-4572.</ref>  The Ninth Circuit said that CNN may have subsequently defamed this source in its retraction broadcast's statement seeking to portray the source as "unreliable". The court concluded that the question of whether the source was defamed by CNN in that retraction broadcast "merits further development", and the appeals court remanded "this issue to the district court for further proceedings."<ref>284 F.3d 977, page 4575-4578.</ref>