Frontline edits criticism out of press reviews of "Did Daddy Do It?"

Only a few newspapers reviewed "Did Daddy Do It?"

Two of those reviews were extremely critical. Both reviewers raised serious questions about the accuracy and integrity of the program. Frontline posted excerpts from those reviews but edited them so as to remove the strongest criticisms and leave a far more favorable impression than one would get from the review as a whole. See how Frontline edited its critics:

Here is the full-text of Irv Letofsky's April 24 review in the San Diego Tribune, also distributed through the Copley News Service and reprinted here by permission of the author.

See how Frontline removed the most biting criticisms from Letofsky's review

Here is the full-text of "Frontline Child Abuse Expose Fails Accuracy Test," Jan Hollingsworth's April 25 review in the Tampa Tribune (reprinted here with permission).

Frontline removed the most biting criticisms from this review, leaving visitors to its Web site with the misimpression that this review was far more favorable than it was in fact. (Several days later, Frontline removed even the whitewashed version from its Web site.)

See how Frontline removed the most biting criticisms from Hollingsworth's review

 

Frontline removes dissent from viewer comments

The Web page for "Did Daddy Do It?" invites viewers to "join the discussion" and "share your thoughts."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/fuster/talk/

Someone from Miami posted a comment the day after the program was aired, imploring people to withhold judgment on the program until they considered all of the documentation contained at this site. This comment was not posted by a member of DebunkingFrontline.org.

To its credit, Frontline included the comment on its Web page, allowing viewers to read criticisms of its program and decide for themselves. Frontline added an editorial comment on April 30. (The editorial comment does not respond to any of the facts on this Web site. It also contains the incorrect statement that this Web site deals with cases other than Frank Fuster's.)

Frontline's willingness to tolerate opposing views lasted five days.

The critical message and the editorial note were deleted from the comment page on May 1st, shortly after a page was added to this site documenting five factual errors made by director/producer Michael Kirk on a Web chat at WashingtonPost.com

No other viewer comments have been removed by Frontline.

Here is the message Frontline does not want its viewers to see, along with the Frontline editorial comment (which has also been removed):

Dear FRONTLINE,

I suggest that before everybody jumps to conclusions, they consider ALL the facts -- for more information, go to www.debunkingfrontline.org -- there's full documentation

also, if frontline doesn't post this, let me make it clear that you're avoiding your duty to the public as a publically funded show to tell the whole truth, and i personally would find that repulsive.

miami, fl

FRONTLINE's editors respond:
FRONTLINE is aware of this web site. In the controversy over the Fuster case and others like it, the authors articulate their view that Fuster is guilty, and the case should not be reopened. Although the authors have amassed a great deal of material which FRONTLINE has reviewed, we are satisfied with our own reporting on the matter and stand by the broadcast.