Dear FRONTLINE,
As a registered voter, American citizen, PBS viewer, and concerned/undecided voter. APPAULED and OUTRAGED BARELY do justice to the fact yourselves and most of the other major networks have treated Perot and the Reform Party as if they did not exist or were mute. WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE deciding how I or any other American will vote come election day.

You folks think you are so sophisticated and smart with all your forsasken technology and "repeatedly pointless" polls. Who cares how people say they are going to vote other than the candidate camps. Every major network has their politically correct "be responsible and vote" ads yet they attempt to sway the vote by posting these meaningless polls and by NOT PROVIDING EQUAL TIME TO THE INDEPENDENT OR NEWER PARTY CANDIDATES. WHO DIED AND MADE YOU GOD? The only voter voice which counts are the ones on Election day.

Mr. Dole and President Clinton have received free ad time on many national networks, rumors have say yours included, and yet Mr. Perot again has been Rudely MUTED & IGNORED. TO HECK WITH THE FREE SPOTS EVEN, the last time i checked all the networks including yours were accepting money to air programs and yet the Reform party again is exempted.

If your FREEDOM OF SPEECH WAS IN JEOPARDY WATCH OUT! Remember, once "they" have come for all your neighbors, who will stand up for YOU?

Thank you in advance for taking the time to hear my concerns,

SINCERELY,
B.H.

Dear FRONTLINE,
Your show was well-crafted and thought-provoking, but your pundits failed to recognize one crucial point. In this day of relative peace and prosperity, it seems as if the American public wants a president that will execute the people's will. The American People want to set their own agenda. They don't want an agenda imposed on them. Thus, the candidacies of Clinton and Dole -- a pair of facilitators, not visionaries.
B.L.

Dear FRONTLINE,
I frequently watch PBS (channel 34 in the Columbus, Ohio area) because I feel I am getting very informative and factual information from an educational and supposedly unbiased source, unlike the other networks (i.e. NBC, ABC, CBS), and until tonight I have been very satisfied. I watched the "Frontline" program starting at 9:00 pm, entitled, "The Choice" which portrayed Bob Dole and Bill Clinton as candidates for President with the hopes of getting some very clear idea about each candidates background. I consider myself very objective and open minded about all sides of an issue and reserve judgement until I have viewed all the facts. After viewing this program I have come to the conclusion that YOU (Frontline) do not. This article was so slanted in favor of Clinton as to be almost vertical. Based on "Frontlines" idea of impartiality and fairness in reporting, if both candidates were to be weighed equally on a set of scales, with Clinton on one side and Bob Dole on the other; Bob Dole would still be traveling toward the stars at warp speed.

First, the article tried to align Bob Dole with the dishonesty and disgrace assigned to President Richard Nixon, then in almost the same breath gave him the appearance of abondoning ship when President Nixon was accused by the Democrats of stealing their secrets at Watergate. Next, your program tried to show Bob Dole as a depressed, pitiful, crippled soldier who was ashamed of his appearance after he received a terrible wound while proudly fulfilling his duty as a citizen, by putting his life on the line for his country. Yet, instead of portraying Clinton as a cowardly, un-American, draft-dodging, pot-smoking, hippie, concerned only with his political future, you made every effort to show how wrong the Vietnam War was and how noble Clinton was to have gone to Moscow, burn the flag, smoke pot (without inhaling, of course), and then when he realized how much this image would hinder his chances at a successful political future, he then re-enlisted in the draft, only after realizing that the draft was coming to an end anyway.

You then described Bob Dole as a "strategic legislator" (your words) in contrast to Clinton who you described as a "great and effective speaker" (again, your words). In each and EVERY comparison of Bob Dole and Clinton, Clinton was ALWAYS referred to as "great, exceptional, energetic, enthusiastic, tremendous..." etc. (your words), but only referred to Bob Dole in very mundane and almost uncomplimentary terms. When Clinton was seen in a video clip, everything was upbeat; there were lots of bright colors, upbeat background music, lots of bright, cheerful, perky, smiling faces surrounding him and always a positive slant to his accomplishments being commentated by a very cheerful and upbeat Clinton supporter. But in contrast, when Bob Dole was described or shown in a video clip, there were lots of black and white photos/video clips, dirge-like music or no music at all, numerous pictures (often shown repeatedly) of him as a wounded veteran with his wounded hand prominently on display, and always being commentated by either a very morgue-like or uncomplimentary Clinton supporter.

Every effort was made to give Bob Dole the appearance of being untrustworthy, wishy-washy (regarding which side of an issue he stood on), insincere, pitiful, and a crybaby. In actuality, all these characteristics apply directly to Clinton. If you don't believe me, go to some of his political speeches and events; most certainly do not watch the news on television or read what is printed in the editorials that pass for news as they have the same slant and bias that your program contained. In contrast, Bob Dole impresses me as a sincere and genuine person. He gives no false pretenses and tells it like it is. Obviously he is no crybaby, nor is he to be pitied. After receiving severe injuries from a rocket in the war, he pulled himself up by the bootstraps and did not let this war wound slow him down on the road to an extremely successful political career. How many UN-wounded American citizens in this country can do what he has had the courage to do? And yet you aim a rocket of a different sort at this war hero and try to injure him further.

At the conclusion of this 2 hour program I was waiting for the following banner to pop up: "Paid for by the 'Committe to Re-elect Clinton' as President." No joke! It was THAT obvious.

I am really disappointed in you for allowing your program to stoop to this level of editorializing which passes for "objective journalism" in an effort to promote your program. I am even more disappointed in PBS for allowing this type of blatant bias to appear in their "educational" format.

I hope in the future you will refrain from taking sides on either an issue or candidate and return to the high standards many of us viewers expect from journalists and from a Public Broadcasting Service. Remember; you are journalists, not pulp fiction writers.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to my comments.

Sincerely,
D.M.

Dear FRONTLINE,
Beautiful documentary. Miraculous I would term it. That the lives of two men should be rendered with an objectiveness that transmogrifies into poetry is a phenomenon I had yet to experience and relish as I did in watching your program. Frankness is not absolute truth but it is the truth within human reach. How wonderful it would be to have a frank friend who will tell me not what comes from the depth of his soul but the intelligence that will help me find mine. You people have, to my perception, expressed great friendship towards us, the nation, by letting us see what you think in such a marvelous way.

I can't vote. And if I could vote, however I would have cast that vote, your program, I feel would have merely served to affirm or corroborate my impression on the person I was voting for or against. It would still be my duty, however, to express my gratitude for granting me a deeper and more expansive view of the humanity of these two candidates.
Thank you,
P.F.M.
Long Beach, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,
As a teenager I watched liberal Washington-New York jouralists go on a galactic trek to ferrt out the ugly truth about Nixon's Watergate scandal.

Now it's 1996. Americans are forbidden detailed accounts of Clinton's financial and personal scandals, most notably, his flagrant use of illegal drugs up until at least 1986 (London Sunday Telegraph).

The socialist-liberal bias shines no brighter than when you "holier-than-thou" journalists (still wearing your "Remember Watergate !" lapel pins) ignor such calamitious scandals by Clinton, ad nausea.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the Khmer Rouge would have died to have lap-dogs like yourselves to sing their praises -- and cover-up their bloody reigns of terror.

Just have the guts to put this "articulate conservative" on one of your mindless social political commentaries !
D.A.C.
Denton, TX

Dear FRONTLINE,
THE CHOICE '96 is a fantastic program!! While I enjoyed THE CHOICE '92, this year's edition was infinitely better. I appreciated the use of music and images unrelated or only peripherally related to the candidates to add a mood to the analysis of each individual. Because of the use of those images accompanied by haunting music the show seemed almost surrealistic in nature. It moved the piece from being a straightforward doc to one that is highly artistic, imaginative, creative. With the glut of images we have seen of the campaign in the media this year -- and it has been "gluttier" than ever! -- THE CHOICE '96 was quite refreshing.

The photography was excellent. The image that is most lasting for me is the one in Arkansas where the young child is running in a field of sunflowers. Beautiful! Also, the scene of the Arkansas swamp, together with the music and the content of what was being said was a "poignant-perfect" moment. The scenes of Kansas weather (bad weather) together with what was being said was also quite moving.

If I have to make one critique -- sometimes I couldn't understand why a certain person was speaking about one candidate or the other. For example, I love Richard Ben Cramer, but I didn't know (until I looked through the PBS THE CHOICE website) that he had been following Dole's campaign throughout the year (I guess I'm not as well-read as I should be). I didn't understand the value of the journalist from the New Yorker, and, actually, I found him to be very annoying -- full of pessimism for both candidates and jarring to the flow of the piece. On the other hand, the use of unconventional speakers -- Arkansas and Kansas writers, the photographers and caricaturists, etc. -- were instantly relevant and understood and were another aspect of the program that made it refreshing.

Speaking of the website, it is at least as good as the actual program is. It is thorough, user-friendly and very entertaining.

I applaud the efforts of this entire project and if anything changes in the media in the future in terms of coverage, whether by the networks or PBS, I hope this part of each campaign year remains unchanged. I also encourage PBS to sign up this wonderful filmmaker for the year 2000!

Congratulations -- and I hope you win an Emmy!
Merrick Wolfe
Studio City, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,
Frontline has failed again. After serving as an attack dog on Republican administrations with loosely sourced allegations of scandal (the Secret Team helping the Contras sell drugs, the October Surprise, the American role in the La Penca bombing), Fronltine has done nothing to investigate any of the alphabet of scandals in the Clinton administration. You've buried any real investigation of Clinton under artsy psychobiography that says nothing new. I can't believe you take our tax dollars and then screw the Republicans like this. Newt should been serious about zeroing your appropriations out. As Jefferson said, your broadcasts requiring Republican taxpayers to subsidize hostile propoaganda is "sinful and tyrannical."
T.G.
Falls Church, VA

Dear FRONTLINE,
Just a quick note of thanks for the incredible content on your site.

After reading all of your material, I have clarified my opingion of who to vote for, as well as getting a better feeling for the other candidate. It is fascinating to get glimpses of these two men from so many diverse sources.

Keep up the good work!
L.S.
> Vancouver, WA

Dear FRONTLINE,
So far, PBS has not lived up to my expectations by providing EDUCATIONAL and ENLIGHTENING looks at the '96 elections BEYOND THE MAIN PARTIES. I am interested in the THIRD PARTY candidates, especially Harry Browne and Jo Jorgensen.

Clinton, Dole and to a limited extent Perot have had plenty of coverage. There are other voices that need to be heard.

The main party focus of your Senate and House "free time" also skipped all the third party alternatives! (WTTW ch-11).

My complaints (with their obvious solutions) are only limited to the election topic. Your other programming is TOP NOTCH visual and interesting.

Sorry you missed the popular public dissatisfaction issues and alternative choices for the voters. You could have had some real interest, spirited debates, and encouraged more of the public to think, discuss, and turn out to vote 11/5/96.

I have recently turned from Republican to Libertarian after reading Browne's book, "Why Gov Doesn't Work". WOW!

I see a voters revolution comming and PBS may need to consider taking sides to protect their future (good will with the people providing all future funding).
Good Luck,
K.J.

Dear FRONTLINE,
A wonderfully refreshing approach at offering insight into what it is that makes these two individuals click. One cannot help but come away with a clearer understanding of their character, who they really are and what is of core importance in their lives. Those who miss the opportunity to watch this program in my estimation are very much handicapped in making an informed and educated choice in who they might choose to be our next president.

The program needs wider exposure and hopefully will be aired on several more occassions. Nice for a change to see something which has not been scripted by a biased campaign, pundit, or other vested interest.
J.B.
Los Gatos, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,
I recently viewed you latest FRONTLINE program and I must tell you how appaulled (sp?) I was at it's content. This program was more like a commercial for the re-election of Clinton, than it was "journalism".

The whole show portraited Dole in B & W, attempting to link him "to the past" and here is Mr. Clinton, from beautiful Arkansas, back to "heal our pain".

Come on, give me a break. I am HUGE supporter of Public TV, and find it is the only decent programming in the TV market today. I am also a libertarian/moderate republican who anomysisly (sp?) contributes to my local PBS Station. I even support some tax money for the system.

But I can see why others gripe about your bias.
This program is a disgrace to Public TV's credibility.
J. G.
Alpharetta, GA

Dear FRONTLINE,
I was surprised and disappointed in your October 8 program that was replayed on Sunday October 13 titled "The Choice" because instead of learning anything objective about either candidate all that occured was two hours of a bunch of people that I neither know nor regard expressing their selective analysis of the life histories of these men. I would have liked to have had this material presented in an objective format so that I might have been able to draw my own conclusions with reference to their pasts. I also think this presentation was seriously flawed by ignoring the most most important part of their lives - the partnership they share with their wives.
K.B.
San Carlos, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,
Unlike some of the professional critics, my favorite part was the interviews with the regional writers! And the landscape perspective was interesting, also.

Another first-class job. Even my apolitical husband watched the whole thing, well past his bedtime.
Thanks. M.P.
Auburn, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,
I was thoroughly absorbed in your program about Senator Dole and President Clinton. These two very complex individuals are the stuff of legend, and deserve this type of documentary coverage. I've really tired of the typical political analysis available in the papers and on TV. Thank you for getting to the hearts of these gentleman with grace, dignity, and even razor-sharp commentary. Keep up the good work.
L.M.W.
Silver Spring, MD

Read more viewer responses to The Choice '96