Dear FRONTLINE,

Thank you Frontline. At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a woman asked Ben Franklin if "we got a republic or a monarchy". He replied: "A republic, Madam, if you can keep it." Holding to the law is not a matter of political expediency. We keep the law by holding citizenry, rich and poor, to it, (and corporations) otherwise it is nothing but a hollow sham. And all our houses built on sand.

The fact is that the free press is the surrogate for the American public. The concern that the current trend to measure hard news divisions by entertainment standards (ratings and cost pressures) is real and seriously compromises the media's fundamental role in this democracy and its vitality.

The persistent canard propagated by the right that the press is 'liberal' is perposterous and dangerous to rational fact-based debate (as opposed to emotional bumper-sticker posturing). I have noticed a tendency among the political talkshows to set up debates between a "right-wing" advocate(s) and a moderate, rather than an a articulate progressive spokesperson. A practical suggestion, wouldn't it be feasible to do some pre-air fact checking, the topic is set, the opposing positions known, why not fact check prior to 'debate'.

For example, consider the pre-invasion 'debate' about the justification and/or wisdom of war, there were strong articulate opponents to invasion (Brent Scowcroft (a Republican and Zbigniew Brzezinski come to mind) who received only a fraction of the airtime the war proponents enjoyed. Was the public was well-served by the self-edited anemic debate offered by the media in this country? And it looks like all those crazy 'lefty' (and unpatriotic!) opponents of the invasion were correct in their cautionary assessments. Not a proud hour.

Why is this important? The current demonization of Iran is beginning to sound eerily like that we heard in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. Do we really want to go down this road again?

Since the major networks and newspapers have largely succumbed to commercial, neo-con, and corporate bias, I continue to look to PBS/NPR for objective, principled and courageous reporting. Please do not kowtow to the Neo-con wing of the Republican party.

Eric CATO
New York, NY

Dear FRONTLINE,

Nice attempt at whitewash but it does not work.

The time wasted on the "right" of confidentiality shows that the press still does not get it. Aside from the fact that there is no right and never has been, the spin by lawyers is just the press deceiving itself. (1) If there were a right, what is the concomitant duty? (2) In American justice, a person has, or at least had, a right to face his accuser. What has the press done to justify abandoning this principle? Obviously, the press only alleges principle when it suits them.

Showcasing Judy Miller was pathetic. She was a ditz who relied on an expatriate Iraqi of doubtful reputation. She went to jail to distract attention from her incompetence. Nowhere did you question her sources on WMD. There is no mention of U.N. weapons inspectors and their findings or lack of findings. There is no mention of the CIA thwarting the inspectors. You do not mention that the State of the Union message had the critical sentence removed, then replaced -- a very different situation from the one described in the broadcast. You do not mention that there was no follow-up on the matter by the press or explain why not.

The press, including Frontline, is grossly incompetent and saying "Oh, we made a mistake" does make anyone suddenly competent or change the situation. Oh, mea culpa, we followed the New York Times and we should not have. Yuch. The press does not question anything and is incapable of doing so. Current example: Defense Secretary Gates alleges that weapons are clearly coming from Iran because they have "Iranian serial numbers." What the heck is an Iranian serial number? Why did no one question him?

The press is unable to cross-examine, does not understand cause and effect, does not understand relevance, does not recognize logical fallacies, cannot separate fact from opinion, editorializes rather than reports, expands pieces with extraneous and repetitious information, cannot separate fact from conclusion, does not seek underlying facts, and, worst of all, panders to emotion. Coupled with the incompetence is an unwillingness to correct the problem. An attempted whitewash by Frontline is not a cure or even a first step to a cure. It does not recognize the problems.

Scottsdale, Arizona

Dear FRONTLINE,

I was disappointed by this first instillation of "News Wars". There doesn't seem to be an independent press anymore but only professional public relations men/women.The press has an obligation to inform the public, not to be mouthpeices for the government or corporations. There is a Code of Ethics for Professional Journalists. It states in part "public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to futher those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues." I appreciate the few investigative journalists that publish but it seems to be a profession of the past for the most part. There are too many issues that are not questioned by the media and too much propaganda being published as fact.

Seattle, Washington

Dear FRONTLINE,

I understand that the press is concerned about their ability to maintain access to sources that allow them to do their jobs. HOWEVER, the Plame incident is - by its nature - different. The press became the mechanism through which the "crime"/wrong was committed. It's different than Caldwell refusing to tell what he knew about the Black Panthers - it's a false analogy.

What kills me is that the media seems more conerned about protecting itself, than expressing fury that they were (and have been for years) blantantly used by the administration for an egregious act. I consider the outing of an undercover operative egregious -- and if it had been done by a Democratic administration, there would have been a much bigger uproar.

Yes, have a whistle-blower exception. But this case wouldn't qualify.

Nashville, TN

Dear FRONTLINE,

The static in the background of the modern day evolution of the press/government relationship is the events of 9/11. Those events are the impetus for the propaganda, and for the propaganda to succeed there needs to be control. Enemies appear everywhere. Until the cause of that static is realized, every method will be employed until it is eliminated.

Adam Harju
Kapaa, HI

Dear FRONTLINE,

While I'm generally in favor of the press keeping their sources confidential I believe reporters are not exempt from the duties of citizenship.This was a CRIMINAL investigation of a National Security breach carried out by the FBI at the request of the CIA.It seems to me the reporters had the choice to be an accomplice or a witness.If there was no crime committed and since no one has been idicted for the leak apparently there was not I don't understand why Scooter Libby bothered to lie to the FBI-unless he believed he MIGHT have committed a crime.More likely he probably thought that the favored practice of leaking to the press and then quoting the press when they print your leak that worked so well in lying us into war would make it safe to blame Tim Russert. I have NO sympathy for Scooter or the obstruction of justice charge.That's what he did. Game over.

This was an unusual case and I don't really think it will have much effect on access to legitimate sources though it will probably discourage selective leaks of classified information for political payback.That's a good thing.

Just one more thing. If I were king of the forest I would order Judith Miller to attend every funeral ,visit every military hospital and tell the families of every Iraq war casualty THAT SHE HAS NOTHING TO APOLOGIZE FOR from her pre war reporting.

Ree Van Vleck
La Mesa, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

Your first episode of `News War' was beautifully delivered, weaving in and out of Plamegate and the historical court decisions between protecting journalistic sources and national security created an exciting night of television for me. Thank you.

But what really irritates me about the Plamegate issue is that there was NO crime committed; there was no White House leak. Like Woodward said, the case "really didn't amount to a violation of the law" and "there's no echo of Watergate" here. As it turns out, Fitzgerald knew Armitage was the leak before he started the trial and not some White House official attempting to torpedo Wilson. And what have we found out from this 2 year trial? The whole affair only turned up a bumbling executive official committing perjury in a NON-CASE. The irony is that the press created this Crucible and now they're the ones who've been ultimately hurt by their witch hunt. Beware of what you ask for, you just might get it.

Mike Garcia
Chicago, Illinois

Dear FRONTLINE,

I, too, was greatly disappointed with Part 1. The essential point of Plame-gate is that Valerie Wilson was an undercover agent, working on counter-proliferation in Iran. The White House clearly had a co-ordinated effort to "out" her, and Libby and Rove were two players in this effort. Our country's defenses against Iran have been weakened, thanks to these two and Vice-president Cheney.

The reporters who received the leaks were witnesses to the crime. A witness to a crime, even if s/he is the spouse of the person committing the crime is not privileged to withhold testimony about what he saw. A priest who observes a thief stealing from the collection plate is not priviledged to withhold testimony. If Scooter Libby has said to the royal stenographer, Judith Miller, "Give me your money or your life!" she would not be privileged to withhold that information.

The fact that the crime in the Plame affair is treason is hardly a good reason to expand the privilege beyond the above hypotheticals.

Some states have "whistleblower" statutes. Can anyone say with a straight face that Rove, Libby or Armitage were whistleblowers? No, rather their demand for confidentiality was to prevent someone from blowing the whistle on them.

Mitchel Schapira
Anchorage, AK

Dear FRONTLINE,

As a Canadian,I find that there is some small element of objectivity when I view the U.S. It seems easier to see that an independent press in the U.S.A. is a complete farce. When Bush/Cheney want war, the drums beat loudly and unquestioningly in the media. Bob Woodward's admisssion that he was wrong on WMD is simply not acceptable, especially when so many human lives are at stake. Unless there are some people with backbone and the courage to ask the hard questions, the whole world will suffer the brutality of ignorance and lies.

Camrose, Alberta Canada

Dear FRONTLINE,

The quote that framed the entire program for me came early in the show, from a media critic, I believe. He noted the distinction between government informants working with the press to inform the public versus government spinmeisters using the press to color public opinion. That distinction was certainly lost on Floyd Abrams who seems unable to recognize shades of gray in interpreting the First Amendment. Bill Keller of the Times implicitly acknowledged it; he knows the Times foolishly stood by Judith Miller, even if he can not say it in so many words.

Those of us who value the press do not do so blindly. Media failures in the run-up to the Iraq invasion have damaged the industry along with the nation.

Frederick Lazare
Houston, TX

Dear FRONTLINE,

Your program tonight was the typical nonsense I expect from Frontline. The whole first part of the program was a joke. How can Wilson be presented as a whistle blower? How about a hack political operative. Wilson is a liar, pure and simple. And, of course, Fitzgerald knew who the leaker was a week after he started his investigation and he also knew that no crime had been committed. Now there's a story.

Then you move on to telling a story about the brave reporters protecting their sources for the good of the public. What a joke. The whole reporter/source issue has become nothing but a story about spin meisters using the media for their own purposes. What do the reporters do when then received information from confidential sources that are clearly trying to spin an issue? They promise confidentiality and write their story. Then the editors send it on and it ends up in the paper. I don't call this reporting, do you?

Ed Blythin
Medina, Ohio

Dear FRONTLINE,

While not the total answer part of restoring the role of journalism is to reverse some of the terrible decisions government made years ago. Emasculation of public interest obligations for broadcasters is a case in point. We need to restore the Fairness Doctrine. Further the negative effects of media consolidation should be reversed. One signal to a company in a market should be enough. Finally the Federal Communication Commission and Congress need to assume their watchdog roles.

Jan Hammer
Grand Junction, Colorado

Dear FRONTLINE,

I am pretty disappointed with Frontline. They missed the bigger picture completely. The apparently frivolous granting of anonymity to members of this administration has put the press in a precarious situation to begin with.

No one can reasonably explain why Rove and Libby were given the privelege of anonymity to begin with in order to spread a largely self-serving political attack.

If anonymity would have been used more sparingly and judiciously instead of as an apparently default position, the press and the public would be in a much better situation than we find ourselves in now.

Anonymity of sourcing should be used in order to protect whistle-blowers. Not the establishment. What on Earth does the establishment need protection from? That is what is damaging the media today. And it seems the media don't understand that.

Acworth, GA

Dear FRONTLINE,

Part I of your series was a terrible disappointment. The basis of this story is the ongoing struggle for an independent press. The core of this story should have been the attack against an independent press by an administration which prefers mythology to truth and the failure of the press to tackle the issue. If we can believe neither the government nor the press, where else can we turn ? Opinionated bloggers ? All you did over the hour was to muddle the topic in a meandering storyline from weapons of mass destruction to hubris to Watergate to the First Amendment to the travails of Judith Miller. This administration has dozens of Joe McCarthys but, sadly, PBS has not found its Edward R. Murrow.

Minneapolis, Minnesota

Dear FRONTLINE,

Your first episode of `News War' was beautifully delivered, weaving in and out of Plamegate and the historical court decisions between protecting journalistic sources and national security created an exciting night of television for me. Thank you.

But what really irritates me about the Plamegate issue is that there was NO crime committed; there was no White House leak. Like Woodward said, the case "really didn't amount to a violation of the law" and "there's no echo of Watergate" here. As it turns out, Fitzgerald knew Armitage was the leak before he started the trial and not some White House official attempting to torpedo Wilson. And what have we found out from this 2 year trial? The whole affair only turned up a bumbling executive official committing perjury in a NON-CASE. The irony is that the press created this Crucible and now they're the ones who've been ultimately hurt by their witch hunt. Beware of what you ask for, you just might get it.

Mike Garcia
Chicago, Illinois