Dear FRONTLINE,

I have waited now, anxiously, for each Tuesday evening for three weeks in a row. I am saddened, almost, by the fact that this News Wars series comes to an end with only one more installment.

That said, today's (third) installment moved me to write. I was a journalism major before I went to med school. I still have a big appetite for "traditional news." I listen (and belong) to NPR and read the Christian Science Monitor (having given up on my hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, because of some of the tactics highlighted this evening). I think it an affront for two polished and candidly self-serving money managers to tell journalists (and us, their consumers) what the news should be. It would be as if they came to my doctor's office and told me which prescription I should write them.

I became a traditional doctor for the same reasons I like traditional journalism: they both give me what I need, not always what I want. I don't need to be instantly gratified nor satisfied by my journalism...it should occasionally upset me or I might live my life in utter ignorance.

The tragic fate of the LA Times (and so many, many other papers across the country) is shameful. The perversion of news as it is becoming nowdays needs to end, and I refuse to listen to all but a fraction of news on TV or radio or papers or online as my own way of protest. I only hope and wish others will do the same.

Christopher Morache
San Diego, California

Dear FRONTLINE,

I thought the Frontline show about the Los Angeles Times and other mature news media in decline was disingenuous. The Frontline reporting relied on old broadcast tricks by trying to portray the old editorial management staff as paragons of virtue, while trying to make the current editorial management staff look foolish. The parting shot was of the new management during a PR event; an attempt to make them look non-serious. The question is: Did prior L.A. Times management ever do a PR event, or were they above all that?

Also, Frontline and the proponents of newspaper media seemed to make the claim that only newspaper reporters write real, hard news. They only touched on the existence of the wire services (AP, Reuters, etc.) which provide most newspapers, including the big ones, with much of their news content. The wire services are not in jeopardy, and they will serve the new medium of the internet. The wire services will probably grow as the newspapers decline.

The show also portrayed the newspapers as being above the dollars-and-cents mentality of Wall Street, while at the same time bemoaning the loss of their ad dollars to the internet. They can't have it both ways; either you're about the money or you're not.

The real question, it seems, is how the news is being formed by the wire services. Who are the wire service reporters? Why won't the newspapers cop to the fact that they buy x-percentage of their "hard" news from the wire services? Perhaps the newspaper's news staff are really trying to protect their jobs by assuming the mantle of a selfless "priesthood". Perhaps the public knowing the role of the wire services would deflate the perception that the newspapers are trying to build; the one that says that only newspapers report news. It would be a surprise to many Americans to find out that most newspapers buy a lot of their news from these services, and don't do that reporting at all. At best, a newspaper may edit these bought stories for page and space reasons. They are contractually bound to adhere to many wire service restrictions. Why didn't we hear any of this on Frontline?

For a "hard hitting" journalistic probe, the Frontline piece falls back on the old half-of-the-story routine in order to try and sway public opinion, and that is one reason why the "old" media, which includes TV journalism, is held in such distain by many Americans. They think we're idiots, and that only they know what is truth. They'll tell us what we need to know.

Tom Llewellyn
San Jose, California

Dear FRONTLINE,

I found tonight's discussion more than a little bit familiar. You did a show in 2004 called "the way the music died." Although that was a different industry, I'd swear most of the discussions were identical. There was good stuff in the industry. Large corporations took over the industry. The industry had other problems and could not grow at the rate that the stockholders wanted. While attempting to squeeze out every drop of short term profit, the corporations made things even worse.

This seems to be a common thread, not limited to the news or music industries. I'd like to know more about the ways that public corporations can react in this situation. For example, why wouldn't the new owners of the L.A. times offer dividends to their shareholders? Why wouldn't they do a stock buy back program? These both seem like reasonable courses of action for a profitable company that can't grow as quickly as investors would like.

I wish you had spent more time on this particular issue.

Philip Smolen
Encinitas, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

I've watched episode 2 and 3. So, why weren't editors from WSJ and the Washington times interviewd ? I don't recall seeing anyone from foxnews being interviewd? Why is that? why ? Also, have you explored the impact of conservative talk radio on the MSM. When Rush Limbaugh refers to the MSM as the drive-by media and that resonates with 20 million listners, I think that warrants discussion on your program.You know, freedom of the press was not crafted for journalist alone: it is every citizens's right! By only exploring the bad fortune of the liberals and not showing the conservative side, Frontline comes accross as eliist and narcisistic.

Muntain View, CA

FRONTLINE's editors respond:

We had wanted to interview O'Reilly and Limbaugh in person to ask them questions about these topics, but they turned us down. It didn't, however, stop us from doing our best to represent their views.In fact, there are a number of conservative voices, as well as other critics, in Part II of "Secrets, Sources and Spin" that covers the issue of reporting on sensitive secret government programs in a time of war. It includes the president calling such stories "disgraceful;" a former number two at the CIA explaining how they may be harmful; a spokesman for the FBI, himself a former newsman, questioning the decision to publish. You also hear from Pat Buchanan; and there is a steady drumbeat of voices in stock footage clips, including Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and William Kristol, who pillory The New York Times and The Washington Post, the two newspapers who confronted First Amendment showdowns with the administration over publishing state secrets. And one can also check out our "News War" Web site for interviews which include a number of law enforcement and conservative perspectives - and our section on "Media Bias" that explores the main thrust of the conservative critique. And, the full series is available to watch online on this site.

Dear FRONTLINE,

Thanks for the excellent series. I stayed up way too late to watch part 3 and then checked out the web site.

Regarding hyper-localism: Commenters here seem to come in two forms: east coasters who want national news rather than coverage of school board meetings, and those of us in the rest of the country who complain that the east coast-based papers are clueless as to what's going on here.

This to me points to the need for good, solid regional papers whose reporters are available to the national papers.

Bend, OR

Dear FRONTLINE,

Being a long-time L.A. Times reader, I am only sorry I cannot afford to buy the every-day paper, but am glad I can afford 4 out of 7 week-day papers. My sister is a 7-day subscriber and saves the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday papers for me, so in fact I do read the L.A. Times 7 days per week.

As a result, I get 90% of my news from the L.A. Times. I read all of Section A and B, Calendar and Sport section first, then the editorials, mail, obits, etc next. I feel well informed about what's happening locally, as well as nationally. I also do the Jumbles and crossword puzzle, so not only is the paper informative, it is also entertaining. I always look forward to the Sunday paper because there is so much to read!

Don't get the impression I don't have a full life beyond the paper. I do. I have a very busy daily schedule outside my home and believe the reason I have such diverse activities is because I am well-informed and can share that information with others. I rarely watch TV during the day and only listen to radio when in the car.

So, as you can see, the L.A. Times will continue to be my daily news outlet. I hope it reverts to local ownership so this bickering between Chicago and L.A. will stop.

Keep up this in-depth reporting.

A continuing loyal L.A. Times reader.

I think Mr. Broad and/or the Chandlers should buy the L.A. Times so this bickering from Chicago can end.

bert Manos
Hawthorne, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

As a long-tme employee of the Los Angeles Times and a long-time reader ,your segment on the Times was poignent. I was there in the "golden years" of the only Chandler who cared - Otis- and indeed I did feel it was a public service to work there.

Jeanne Karpenko
Glendale,, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

9 years ago I came from Germany to the US and it occurred to me very quickly that it wouldn't be very easy to stay up to date on international news. Watching news on TV was very disappointing as the international section was over in just a few minutes and the rest was national news...forget the local news...I had no interest at all in how many turkeys the neighbors had in their backyard and at what intersection it just had rained (being in California). I'm mostly reading German news magazines and watching their news shows on the internet. And the reason is not that it is in my first language and therefore easier to understand. They are simply more diverse and more in-depth when it comes to international news. The only news/documentary shows I like to watch here are 60 minutes (and I'm not 55 yet) and Frontline. Especially the US, having so many interests abroad, should step up their international news coverage a notch.

Glendale, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

I viewed News Wars 2/27/07 on KCET (Los Angeles). The program was very disturbing, especially the notion of hyperlocalism. If the LA Times were to go to that I would certainly cancel my subscription. I have loves the in-depth reporting of the recent years and the international character of the Times. I hate to think that the Times readers would sink to local news alone.

Sad to say, none of my (5) grown chikdren subscribe to the Times. They claim that the internet (headlines) meet their needs. Was colloge wasted?

Thomas Roe
Los Angeles, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

Wow! So well presented and wonderfully edited. This IS the definition of REAL news. I depend on Frontline and PBS for helping me find what I need to know.

How will we pay for the news? I'll help pay for the news. I'm increasing my contribution. David Hiller was right. It's my money and I can choose what to do with it. I choose reality. I value my soul and the futures of my children and grandchildren. As a society, we better figure it out soon or as John Carroll said, "What will we know?". We all know the answer.

Thank you all for intelligent, pertinent conversations in their various forms. Sometimes, I want to watch and listen to get a broad introduction to an issue. I often need to read the interviews and information on the web to fully understand. Your TV shows and website provide opportunities for both with consideration for my lifestyle and schedule. We're connected for life. I can't wait till my 5 year grandchild needs to research reports. She already uses her link to PBS Kids, so she's just one step away from the NEWS. Please don't stop.

Nancy Padberg
Zigzag, Oregon

Dear FRONTLINE,

I missed the first 2 parts of the series, but was really interested in the third episode. The part about citizen-journalism reminded me of the Insider where Pacino as Bergman says to his wife "Lowell Bergman, 60 Minutes - take the last 2 words away and no one answers your calls." The power of the press is what enables them to get answers that an angry citizen cannot, and I'm not sure the web will ever develop that power.

I try to get my news from several sources, that way I can balance any bias or errors in the news, for Canadian news I use my local paper and CBC, for American and world news I watch the Newshour with Jim Leher, and I also use the internet.

The Newshour is a textbook example of a good news show, they have the summary, and then they spend time on each story, unlike CNN and FoxNews which have 24 hours to fill, but can only talk to a "talking head" for 30 seconds before moving on. I always find it amusing / annoying to hear "Well we would love to hear more but we're out of time" since they're going to replay that same 30 seconds 100 times during the day.

Winnipeg, MB

Dear FRONTLINE,

"Citizen Journalists"? A 15-year-old with a camera phone, who posts her pictures, video and opinion on her myspace.com page is a journalist?? So, using that logic, if I nail two boards together, I'm a carpenter, right? If I add 1 plus 1, I'm a mathematician? Put a bandage on a boo boo and I'm now a doctor? Amazing. Please...

Barney McComas
San Diego, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

To me the "hyper-localism" advocated by the newspaper study groups would be the death of newspapers. To think that I would be interested in buying a newspaper that emphasizes high school sports is ridiculous. I wouldn't read that if it were free. Even more ridiculous is the idea that USA Today is a national newspaper. Of course it's distributed nationally but in general it has the news content of People magazine. That's not reporting, it's fluff and while fluff has its place and it's fun, it shouldn't be the bulk of the newspaper.

I read the paper for national news and international news and the editorials and the business section. I want to know what is going on in the world and what affects my life, the economy and the country. This also includes the local level, but for important issues such as land use and what the state, county and local government is doing, not the high school football team and since I live in the Denver-metro area, would that be all the teams? I'm not interested in buying the New York Times because it is not a paper the cares about the west or covers stories in the west.

With a newly combined Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News I have seen the quality of the newspaper decline. While it's still good, far better than say either paper in the Phoenix area, it is declining. It is declining because of the quality of the stories not because it doesn't cover Conifer High School's girl's volleyball game. The papers cut staff and cover less or cover just the fluff. The less that is covered, the less readers you have, the less reader the less profit, so management forces more cuts that leads to less coverage. A death spiral for newspapers. As the coverage declines it makes me reconsider having a newspaper subscription and because of the poor coverage I look for me news in other forums such as the internet, NPR and PBS's News Hour.

So it's not that the internet is "stealing" the readers, or that people are not interested in these issue, it's that these issues are not covered or are covered poorly by the newspapers. Cutting staff won't solve the problem it will only make it worse. And I agree with part 3 of the show in that news coverage, critical, in-depth and investigative coverage is essential to a democracy.

morrison, colorado

Dear FRONTLINE,

I enjoyed watching the series on the role of the media in the United States and the changes being wrought by the growth of the internet. I, as well as many others, bemoan the commercialization of news coverage and the encroachment on our civil liberties and freedom of the press being made by our current administration. My response to the financial pressures being faced by the public papers (i.e. those run by the Tribune) would be that print media should charge the internet companies more money to use their stories and reporting.

The unending layoff pattern that has afflicted the LA Times is besetting numerous other industries in addition to the publishing industry. I think it is horrendous that shareholders are willing to see CEOs compensated at 100s of percentages higher than the average worker, yet continue to cut staff in order to increase profits. Many well qualified and hard working Americans are losing high paying jobs every day to be replaced with lower wage positions. We seem to be going in the wrong direction. I realize that change is inevitable, but hope that more farsight can be brought to bear on the outcome.

Marie Dobay
Houston, TX

Dear FRONTLINE,

Hello--I just watched part three of the News War series and I thought it was extremely well done and enjoyed watching it very much. I then went to your web site to view the interviews, and I realized that only four of these are interviews with women, and only one, Dana Priest, is a reporter.

This is a little disturbing when I think about it. I realize that there are not as many women as men in positions of power in the news media, but couldn't there have been at least a few more?

Somerset , NJ