Dear FRONTLINE,

To understand why the press has lost its credibility and respect, you only have to consider why that the BALCO case is even mentioned in this story. The justification for reporters to seek access to insiders and uncover "secret" information is that the American people have a 'right to know'. Why do we have a right to know? Because we need information that is necessary keep our freedom. In the cases of violations of the US Constitution, manipulating military intelligence, lying to the American people and secret prisons, yes, I think we need to know. Who can claim that we need to know about secret grand jury testimony regarding an athlete taking steroids and whether he lied about it? The press is as much to blame for their loss of credibility as anyone.

Plymouth, MA

Dear FRONTLINE,

I found your News War program most interesting. The segment about the grand jury testimony in the steroids investigation points out the need for either enforcement of existing laws or the need for new laws to clarify to the press what is and is not legal activity. If information in a grand jury investigation is strictly confidential, than anyone revealing information from that proceeding is breaking the law and should be punished appropriately. Further, the recipient of that information should also be breaking the law if they further disseminate that information in any way. The topic is unimportant. It is the principle of the grand jury that is at stake here.

Newpapers have no more rights than any other citizen to violate the secrecy and confidentiality of legal proceedings, classified documents or top secret government meetings. They should be prosecuted, from the reporter to the editor to the newspaper owner to the full extent of the law when this information is repeated or published, just as should the person who leaks the information.

Pat Stone
Yuma, AZ

Dear FRONTLINE,

Nice job, interesting topic, could have been deeper. Too much time spent letting administration supporters repeatedly sell the idea that it is treasonous to report about wiretapping and secret prisons. I wish more emphasis could have been made on this point: Wiretapping and interrogations to save American lives can be done legally, but this administration has chosen to move beyond what is legal. That is newsworthy. It is treasonous to NOT report the illegal activity of our elected officials. By this administration pursuing illegal means, lying about it, and attempting to intimidate the media, they are only undermining their own credibility, and undermining the ability of America to function as a member of the world community deserving respect. Because this administration has shown that they cannot be trusted, it is difficult to believe any warning they may now make, even if real. They have cried wolf and lied too many times. This is endangering America. We need a new, trustworthy, open, honest government, and soon. Independent media is the "reality check" for Democracy, vital and necessary to help citizens weed out lies and liars from government.

I shudder to imagine what hidden agenda has been at the heart of this administration's actions. Frontline, we are counting on you to find out.

Smalltown, NY

Dear FRONTLINE,

One issue neglected so far in the News War program is the power that media has to shape public opinion with the basic language it uses.

For instance, in part two of the series, when giving background on the protest videotaped by jailed journalist Josh Wolf, the Frontline commentator said in passing, "...the protesters turned violent..."

Did they? Whether or not the protesters were violent was clearly not the issue under discussion, yet describing them as such sets the tone for the audience's impression of the Josh Wolf case, the anarchist movement, and even totally unrelated protests from the radical left.

The American public is dependent on media sources for even our most basic understanding of our society. Thus the background information presented as uncontroversial fact in news programs like Frontline can often be far more powerful and important than the issue at hand, about which reporters are hyper-sensitive to be objective.

Thus, you should be mindful of describing protesters damaging corporate and public property, but never harming actual people, as "violent".

Alex Stonehill
Seattle, WA

Dear FRONTLINE,

After viewing part II of your series, I'm left with an uncomfortable sway towards the support of responsable journalism (a rare thing these days). Government's have drawn this problem unto themselves. Poor judgement and small mistakes that become known to the voting public are embarasing for a governing power and certainly affect their sustainability, but that's why the system works. However, when the Government decides that providing the public with mis-information and out-right lies is the nessesary course........you know that the system is broken beyond repair.

It's the responsability of jounalists to expose this b.s..-and not worry about their EGOS.......which seems unlikely these days.

Air time, how the hair looks and knifing their colleuges in the back for the MOST sensational story (whether it's factual or not) seems to be the order of the day for these miscreants. They're almost as disgracefull as the political twits they cover. Pathetic.

Vancouver, B.C.

Dear FRONTLINE,

By not asking two very critical questions, by being soft on the squirming editors of the Post and the NY Times, "Frontline" has become part of the problem.

The two questions you must ask of these editors are:

1. "How much did sales increase in the week after the story about the CIA was published?"

2. "How many of your staff are registered democrats? How about registered republicans?"

The for-profit press is first and foremost a business, and most of its decisions will derive from the need to make a profit.

For example, the Plame incident was leaked by one individual to one reporter, and the leaker was motivated by politics. The reporter, in turn, leaked the story to millions of other poeple around the world, and his motivation was personal gain and profit. Who committed the greater crime? What Americans benefitted from this story?

The press tries to lay claim to some moral mirage by saying that 'the people have a right to know', but that veil is laughably thin, and senior journalists know it. They will trot out that old joke to defend their decisions to publish, but they know the truth. The truth is, they print the most sensationalist stories that they dare, to highlight dissent, to sell papers, to make a profit, to keep their jobs.

How has Frontline become part of the problem? You are not examining the whole truth, which includes the fact that these are big-buisness, for-profit companies, run by democrats and republicans.

Please please please make a greater effort to tell the whole story - badger the man behind the curtain, interview the elephant in the room: get the truth about media profits and personal biases, and THEN we'll have a more complete picture.

Peter Lawton
Monterey, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

I do wish that Frontline would give some historical background and precedences on how wartime presidents have dealt with the media.

Wilson imprisoned those who "harmed morale"; this completely crippled any public health efforts to contain the horrendous influenza pandemic at the time. Wilson even imprisoned members of Congress, something much forgotten today.

Franklin Roosevelt's government was very strict with the press. Stories on such incidents as the middle of the night disappearances of American Japanese communities all over the West were never seen. Other items were also heavily censored; in fact, entire books have been written about this by scholars.

Johnson also was careful to assure that the media did not print stories that could endanger American troops, or even much offend the White House.

And Lincoln was incredibly draconian, including sedition trials for journalists.

Given the absence of any context in the Frontline stories, which seem to imply that anger with the press from the executive branch is some spectacle arising de novo from the current administration, it is impossible for the viewer to determine what is, and is not, new in the behavior of this administration. This leads to inevitable charges and perceptions of political bias which are well deserved, unless the Frontline staff truly is as historically ignorant as their items suggest.

Nadja Adolf
Newark, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

I saw parts One and Two, (looking forward to Three) and I am left wondering if there was a difference then referring to the Vietnam era, and Now. I was too little to remember the Pentagon Papers, or Watergate. But I remember Kenneth Starr and his investigation team during the Clinton Impeachment scandal and how they leaked to the press. What I see with this press nowadays is it is neither free nor responsible, it only caters to its advertisers and what the CEOs of the big conglomerates (Disney, Viacom, NewsCorp, and GE) want. This White House Press Corps has been reduced to a lap-dog for the Bush Administration and is told to consistently heel, and speak when they tell them to. I hope you do more reports like this in the future. Thanks Frontline

Chris Reichl
Appleton, Wisconsin

Dear FRONTLINE,

Neither the New York Times nor its reporters' sources are authorized or elected to decide what matters are entitled to be kept confidential by the government. Nor are they entitled to ignore the laws that make Grand Jury proceedings secret. They publish such information at their own peril. Let them go to prison. How can national security be protected if every bureaucrat, editor or reporter is entitled to decide what the law should be?

I find it arrogant and hypocritical to the extreme to claim that the sources of various releases of national security information are leaking information as a matter of conscience. Once anyone decides to violate the law or exploit the violation of law by others,

Jame Risen, Dana Priest and other reporters who claim to be representing the public interest never seem to ponder who elected them or appointed them to decide what that interest is, or whether matters which are classified should be.

This is especially galling when the press goes ballistic over the disclosure of Joe Wilson's wife, demands prosecution and then refuses to disclose where that information came from.

Reporters are not judges nor government officials. They take their chances like the rest of us when they break the law, and the casual publishing of leaked information makes them accomplices to whatever crimes are involved. The hypocrisy of these people in lecturing the rest of us about their special position in democratic government beats anything I've ever heard from the sleaziest politician, including Richard Nixon, whose bad acts, after all, were exposed to the world, not merely by reporters, but by courts and congressional hearings in which witnesses were subpoenaed and testified.

Allen Thorpe
Orangeville, Utah

Dear FRONTLINE,

The media has long been hated and revered. Your program has in both parts 1 and 2 been very pro-media and has not examined or informed the long lost public of what is really behind media hot-button issues.

How about reminding the american public that if they want change they need to start demanding it from all their media sources. Does the public understand that mass media is actually theirs and that the FCC leases the public airways to those who apply for licences? Does the public know how to really communicate with the media? The media is not the altruistic defender of the public, but rather circulators, purveyors and exploiters for profit. Thus, we get fed commercials, shows that shock, and "news" that entertains.

I believe the news media needs to remember they exist to serve the greater good of society by diseminating complete information with multiple views of this issues which are so critical today. Unfortunately, real life issues are considered "unsexy" for most news programs and publications. How about covering what your legislators are about to vote on and what the possible outcomes could be. I almost never see more than one opinion about anything in the news! Scary! What happened to explaining issues and educating the public?!

Oklahoma City, OK

Dear FRONTLINE,

I love the way you always make the Bush administration out to be evil. Why no expose on Sandy Berger (Burgler). What was he trying to hide or destroy? Oh, I forgot, he worked for the beloved Clintons. He gets a slap on the wrist. You self-righteous, arrogant guardians of truth are very selective in the people you target.

If you printed the same top secret information during WWII, you would have been locked up for 50 years. It's no wonder The Times and Post are failing. The dribble you call journalism has for a very long time gone unchallenged, but thank G-d for the internet and talk radio. Otherwise, I'd have to still see Dan Rather-Partial give his twisted version of the truth.

Garry Haralambou
Jacksonville, FL

Dear FRONTLINE,

Our nation's effectiveness in resolving international conflicts by dealing decisively with our enemies was greatly enhanced by a supportive press as evidenced in the second World War. The emergence of an inherently adversarial news media in the past 40 years parallels the decline of our ability to preserve our freedoms so many have fought and died for.

These Frontline episodes do much to frame this important debate, albeit with an inherent pro status quo bias.

A free press is functional in a democracy so long as it has a shared interest in the success of our present form of goverment. Regardless of which party is in power, time and time again the press has demonstrated an aversion to a functioning democracy by it's endless harping against ANY leadership's policy initiatives.

We have, among other factors, our news media to thank for increased voter apathy and the present polarazation of our populace. Given this trend, government censorship may be in order when such a reckless disregard for wartime government activities is evidenced by organizations like the New York Times.

Brent Watkins
Cedar Rapids, IA

Dear FRONTLINE,

I have found your programming on the relationship between press and government sad and fascinating. I am a Canadian, living in Canada and have watched the United States for many, many years and visited often. Never before, I think, in the history of the world, has a country been so blessed with the opportunity to change the world in a positive way and never has such promise been so sadly squandered.

You are a country of contradictions. You so mistrust your government that you insist on bearing arms, on the pretext of constitutionally ensuring that the government shall never succeed in suppressing its people under force of arms. The price you have paid for this is murder in your homes and in your streets and a culture that thinks the gun is the best means for deciding differences.

You have cheered, in the majority, your government's entry into every war it has pursued with a naiveté that astounds and with each sad, useless engagement, have come to mistrust your government more and more ... until the next call to arms.You have criticized your press for their new brand of entertainment "news" which you watch relentlessly, faithfully buying all the products advertised on these news "shows" and have paid the price of losing your trust in your press.

You are a country who treats itself like a whore, using her, needing her and hating her in the morning but always returning. You are your government. You are your press. You are your wars. When will you be great?

M. Powell
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Dear FRONTLINE,

I just watched Part II of your media series and found it very informative and very frightening.

The comment was made about how the majority of younger people now get their news from the internet,not the print media. I am over 60 and a Vietnam Era veteran and I have not used the print media as a serious source of news for more than 4 years. I find, like the current administration, it lacks credibility. I believe very strongly in the notion that the media should be the watchdog of the public and that it should be protected from government assault. The attack we have suffered on our civil liberties should have been heralded in the press in a way that would have brought citizens into the streets, and on those occasions when real patriots did take to the street, they should have given those patriots the press coverage they needed to promote their concerns.

Kelley Johnson
Hampden, MA

Dear FRONTLINE,

In my view, your discussion of the role of the media vs. the government cannot be conducted without delving into the role of the "military industrial complex" and its monetary extortion of the media to bury unpopular or unprofitable news stories. I feel it is an absolute travesty for the major news organizations, and our so called governmental representatives, to patently ignore or actively bury any story critical of a major defense contractor.It is obvious that the recent underplayed coverage of the Trophy Active Protection anti RPG device currently in operation by Israeli forces, and which is over 90% effective in saving soldiers lives in armored vehicles, is a disgrace for the president, congress but most of all, the "news" media in this country. I can only surmise it is because of Raytheon's massive iron grip on the pocketbooks of the media and the government. So much for the "free" press to have any balls in this country, especially where money can impede advertising, defense contracts and government funding of "public" radio and television.Shame on the fourth estate, but maybe if the Trophy device could have been secreted in the brasierre of Anna Nicole Smith, soldiers lives would be safer because nobody would have heard the end of it.

Painesville, Ohio