frontline: once upon a time in arkansas: viewer discussion

Dear FRONTLINE,

I've been waiting 3 1/2 years for "Frontline's investigation into the Whitewater matter. I'm not partial. I enjoyed the "October Surprise" investigation aired by "Frontline" during the Bush years. Tonight's hour was nothing short of a masterpiece. Your program is superb every time, as far as I'm concerned. I've never yet come away from a "Frontline" episode without feeling more enlightened. "The Gulf War" was the last truly great one I remember. "Frontline" is the only television journalism which can stun me. I can only say Thank You. I followed the Senate Whitewater Hearings, read all of the James Ring Adams articles in the American Spectator, and yet really needed tonight's hour to complete my understanding. I've maintained to anyone interested since March 1994 that this President is under a cloud which will envelop him. I certainly don't feel good about it, but "Frontline" has the power at least "cleanse" a viewer in truth. I don't look forward to seeing the nation's time taken up in this matter in coming months, but I don't see any way out of it. Thanks again for a consummate effort.

Dear FRONTLINE,

Your promotions for the season's premier promised a look at the real story and startling new information about President and Mrs. Clinton's relationships with their unsavory Arkansas buddies. You inferred that Frontline would reveal dark secrets that tied the Clintons to their convict pals and the tragic death of Vince Foster. Though this all sounded like the all-too-common Republican/Rush Limbaugh pap, I watched anyway, hoping that Frontline's usual striving for quality would lead to a balanced and quality report. Boy, was I disappointed! Except for the last five minutes, the script could have been written by Ken Starr!

What a desperate, purile attempt at journalism! The parade of unsubstantiated accusations by self-serving people, the silly posing by the reporter, the repetitive television shot of Ms. Flowers (who was described as Clinton's lover, rather than the woman who claimed to be his lover!) and the carefully selected still photos of the Clintons that always made them look either sinister or immature, were the quality of reporting that might be expected from a Pat Robertson broadcast.

I know that you need to be careful to not overly annoy the conservative congressional majority who are already slicing support for Public Television. And we all know that Frontline, with its history of hard-hitting, sensible reporting has occasionally been a particular irritant for conservatives. But how far are you willing to go to curry the favor of people who don't like you much anyway? Blatant and pointless Clinton-bashing is tiresome and beneath you, and frankly will neither help your ratings among your traditional audience nor win you friends among the conservatives who don't care about quality reporting of historical, social, scientific, environmental and political issues--the issues that have made your program one of television's finest. Please, don't become yet another tabloid -type news/entertainment show. C'mon Frontline, have some pride!

Sincerely,
John Luppert

Dear FRONTLINE,

As a thinking and concerned American, I find my cynicism and frustration with news coverage slightly relieved tonight. Your investigation lets in a glimmer of light to the darkness of most news organizations and broadcasting companies. They do not do their job. I thank you for doing yours.

As time goes on, the truth "The love of money is the root of all evil" becomes more and more formidable. News and entertainment companies, whose contents have become mixed and stirred together, have been told by money that conflict must reign. If none is there, create a controversy. Rather than settle the issue with irrefutable evidence, proudly proclaim your fairness by "showing both sides of every issue."

Looking backward, little fundamentally has changed. People will do incredible things for what's important to them, at incredible expenses to many, many of their fellow citizens. Please search for the truth; don't say you're searching for the truth, just search for the truth.

Very truly yours,
Sol Cranfill

Dear FRONTLINE,

The program tonight was excellent. I am sorry only that the entire nation did not see it; curiously, much of the country seems disinterested in the heinous crimes of this administration. As a Democrat, and student of American history, I am sickened by the moral and ethical vacuity of the Clintons. They are, I am can say with the certainty of a dedicated scholar-in-the-making, the least decent people ever to inhabit the White House. I can only hope that the damage they have done to the nation is repairable. Frontline episodes on the arrogant and illegal excesses of "travelgate", the use of FBI files, the transformation of the Commerce Dept. into a branch of the DNC, on campaign finance--selling access to foreign governments, and perhaps most important, on the Clintons' singularly shameful habit of avoiding the truth and ignoring the law, etc. are all in order. What is known/proven is so insidious it is truly shocking that the man is still in office, that Janet Reno has not been displaced, and that half of the Senate still defends the man. Again, I am grateful, as always, for your program.

Patricia McCarthy

Dear FRONTLINE,

Thank you for airing the program on the Whitewater scandal. I have listened to the news over the years, and to some of the testimony, but I have always felt unclear re: the what I should believe as the truth. It seemed that you had done very thorough research and reported the story objectively.

This does not look good for the Clintons. I cannot believe they would not be forthright about the situation. They obviously knew they were involved in unethical (and apparently illegal) business deals. They should not be trying to cover up, and make the taxpayers paid so much to have the independent investigations, which have dragged on for so long.

If they had told the truth, perhaps voters would have been a little more prudent in their choice for President last election. Then, again, maybe they wouldn't have. Apparently Americans no long place importance on the old virtues that made America (and many former American Presidents great) great, such as basic honesty, morality and decency. I really worry about our nation's ultimate welfare. I, for one, am trying to uphold these ideals. Thank you Frontline for helping me to understand the issues and facts.

Steve Spencer
Salt Lake City, Utah

Dear FRONTLINE,

The moral bankruptcy of Susan McDougal is revealed most tellingly at the end of the program because her only concern is not how their corrupt practices hurt their clients or the public but only how Mr. McDougal's 'ratting' hurt himself, herself and their friends and co-conspirators. She still does not understand who the real victims are.

Bruce Damon
Seattle WA
bld1@WebTV.net

Dear FRONTLINE,

At the end of your Frontline show entitled "Once Upon a Time in Arkansas" you asked for viewers to address comments to this e-mail address.

I cannot believe that during that entire show you neglected to mention that Jim McDougal has been diagnosed with and treated for bipolar manic depression. You showed his testimony as fact and unfortunately there will be people who will believe it because you neglected to tell them the truth about his condition.

I watched all of the Whitewater hearings in the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the reason that the President and Mrs. Clinton have not been charged with the crimes stated in your show is that there is no evidence supporting the charges. The information put forth in your show is based on a sick Jim McDougal's yearning for revenge. His life has not turned out as he thought it would, and you neglected to tell the public that people suffering from manic depression will say and/or do anything to support their misguided version of reality.

I think you should be ashamed of your unwillingness to present a full and complete picture of the facts and the individuals involved. Frankly, I am sick of the time and money that have been wasted on this example of "one mans desire for revenge" and I hope when it is all over you will devote equal time for your apologies to the Clintons and the American public!

Sincerely,
Margie Baker

Dear FRONTLINE,

I really liked Frontline tonight about the Clintons and Whitewater but I felt you could and should dig deeper into this mess we have here in Arkansas. Everything from unsolved murders, drug running ,payoffs and more. Anyway with your show might let the light of day into Arkansas and clean up some of the evil doing down here.

David Petty
Hot Springs Arkansas
goatman@hsnp.com

Dear FRONTLINE,

Thank you for your excellent program on Whitewater. Whitewater was very difficult to follow in Newspapers, and I finally understand it much better. I believe your program was fair and professionally done. It was intriguing. This was the first time I watched Frontline and was impressed. I very much look forward to other Frontline programs Keep up the great work!

Scott Farrell
Falls Church, VA
sfarrell@fallschurch.esys.com

Dear FRONTLINE,

Come on ---
Not one mention of Jim McDougal's CONTRARY STORIES over the years?

Not one mention that on "60 Minutes" Jim McDougal said that Bill Clinton was NOT at the meeting with David Hale, and that if he ever subsequently said otherwise we would know he was lying because of pressure from the Independent Counsel.

Not one mention of the LESSENED SENTENCE promised to McDougal by the Independent Counsel for CHANGING HIS STORY?

Not one mention of the Susan McDougal's allegations that the Independent Counsel's office pressured her to give PERJURED TESTIMONY?

Perhaps Frontline now deems context to be irrelevant to serious journalism.

Certainly Frontline is on the way of making itself irrelevant, presenting a "documentary" that could be deconstructed in its faults by any good first-year journalism student.

Considering the myriad of issues crying out for serious investigation, what an abuse of time this program was.

Chip Matthews

p.s. If you ever re-discover an enthusiasm for investigative journalism, I suggest you consider investigating the conduct of the Independent Counsel's office, beginning with the curious dismissal of Kenneth Starr's predecessor, and including Kenneth Starr's frequent and open association with the most rabid of the Clinton-haters.

Dear FRONTLINE,

Although I am often discouraged by the "liberal" slant I see in PBS programming, I watched your program last night and thought it was excellent. I commend you for the courage to present the information in an apparently unbiased fashion.

The frightening question that begins to come from such a disclosure concerns less the level of dishonesty of the Clintons as it does the issue of the integrity of anyone who serves in political capacities. Are there truly selfless politicians, or is everyone really out to feather their own nests? Everyone puts on his or her best face to get into office--the power to seduce as one person commented last night.

Sadly, Clintonites will find ways to dismiss what was revealed, not so much because it may not be true, but because they don't want it to be true.

Dear FRONTLINE,

Sincere thanks for the excellent program on Bill Clinton's involvement in shady dealings in Arkansas. The perspective you created was clear and helpful in better understanding the tangled web created and covered up by Clinton and friends.

Let's hope, sincerely, that the program moves public opinion in a direction that results in the removal of Clinton and his sleazy associates from positions of influence.

My thanks and respect.

Bud Good

Dear FRONTLINE,

Regarding your recent story on Arkansas, the Clintons, and Whitewater:

In all fairness, to accurately portray the amount of work Hillary Clinton did for Madison, a broader portrait needs to be drawn. A typical attorney bills anywhere from 1800 to 2500 hours in a given year. On top of that is additional non-billable work time. Assuming Ms. Clinton's workload was like that of a typical attorney, it is not stunning in the least that 60 hours in total, and 12 minute phone calls in particular are deemed "insignificant involvement." I find it hard to believe that we have what McDougal calls another "Watergate" when Ms. Clinton's involvement is no more that a grain of sand on a beach.

Dear FRONTLINE,

Brilliant journalism, slightly over dramatized in presentation, but gripping in interest, very informative and enlightening. Whatever one may believe or feel politically, no one can argue against accountability; which only investigative journalism makes possible. I feel indebted to "Frontline". Who are the hard working people that conceive and execute "Frontline"? How can I be of help to them? With gratitude/ Edward T. DiCorcia, Houston, Texas.

Dear FRONTLINE,

I applaud this program for its pure and unique educational value of where the Clintons came from, and who they came with. Where else would there be such an unbiased, clear cut, detailed lengthy report of the history and current situation of Mr. Clinton and his wife Hillary? Outstanding job; Bravo. America was taught in a most excellent manner and it was timed perfectly. I wish I could see this quality and detail in every major issue, but rest assured you have given us the truth on the most important issue facing the country today; that honesty, integrity, moral maturity are non existent at the White House today.

Fred Kesler
Redmond, WA
fredke@gte.net

Dear FRONTLINE,

I must admit I was disappointed in tonight's presentation. I have never known Frontline to air such a biased report. Hopefully, this is not the start of a trend.

You, like so much of the media, seemed to base much of your report on this subject on innuendo and rumor. I can see innocent explanations for all of the so called "facts" you listed in your report, and I'm sure your intelligent reporters could have, at least, listed some of them.

I'm not a huge fan of Bill Clinton's because I feel he has backed down on some issues which were important to me. It is also important to me, however, that a person be considered innocent until proven guilty. I saw no such proof in your program tonight.

Sincerely,
Jim Cranna

Dear FRONTLINE,

It was a fun and interesting show, as far as it went. Could have done w/o all the shots of the car and silly camera tricks. Needed more depth in both questioning of interviewees and in research.

Most Clinton defenders are still saying that this is all boring and incomprehensible. Your show did a good job of explaining it was a simple case of corruption, money laundering , and bank fraud.

The story must be pursued.

K George
Denver, CO
kevgeo@aol.com

Dear FRONTLINE,

Good program. Seemed to be a fair analysis. I was anti-Clinton before and still am -- not because of these incidents, but because of his tendency to point to almost everyone else an expression of innocence and a finger cover- ed with excrement.

This article has been the first I have read that did such an excellent job of making the whole issue simpler and, more important, understandable. The program was excellent but made even better with this article.

Congratulations.

James B. Bruff
Ogden, UT 84403
JBBRUFF@AOL.COM

Dear FRONTLINE,

All politics aside, I am outraged that any elected official or their spouses could get away with these types of dirty dealings (the attempted cover-ups are worse than the actual transgressions as far as I'm concerned). I only wonder how these folks can watch one after another of their friends/co-conspirators go under and still manage to stand up there as if they are worthy of the office they swore to uphold. Makes me sad and ashamed as an American. Harry Truman must be spinning in his grave.

G. Jordan
Houston, TX
Mgbt@aol.dom

Dear FRONTLINE,

Regarding the program on McDougal and Clinton that aired tonight. First of all it was very well done --and shows how responsible journalism is not THAT difficult. WHERE HAVE YOU GUYS BEEN THE LAST FEW YEARS???

A pattern I noticed was/is that Clinton would/will do anything to win.....even use Madison Guarantee money to help finance his campaign.

I believe Clinton will go down in history as one of the most corrupt politicians in history due to one overwhelming factor -- he chooses his friends and acquaintances very poorly. They will NOT remain silent forever.

Great report, though. It's is very comforting to know unbiased journalism is still alive in America.

Ron Walker
Dana Point, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

Thank-you! I thought tonight's program was excellent! I know many people who like myself, were looking forward to this program. Three different sets of parents at my daughters "Back to School Nite", were either rushing to home to see it or had their VCR's set for taping. The American public do care about these issues. I deeply resent the Clinton's and their administration for the terrible shame they have brought to the White House. As an American I have the right to trust and be proud of our nations leaders and our elected officials have the moral duty of making sure this is also one of their goals. I have no trust or respect for these people and that makes me very angry...and very sad too. Thank you again!

Maureen Cox
Long Beach, CA
rjsvan@aol.com

Dear FRONTLINE,

Finally, the Clinton portrait pieces are put together.
My mother told me "anyone can become president". Now I believe her!
Given the choice of a good mouth or a good head, voters go for the mouth every time.

Tom Reno

Dear FRONTLINE,

EXCELLENT! Nice piece of objective work, interviews, camera technique, etc, -- you "guys" are PROFESSIONAL through & through.
Learned more in 1 hour than all of four years of bad, spotty, and biased media coverage!
(generally, I felt media tacitly supported the president - I felt you were reasonably neutral)

SUPPORT PROVIDED BY