Digging The Dirt, Sunday October 22 2000

The forum is now closed.

---

Like most of your viewers of this week's programme, I was very shocked to learn the truth behind this year's election but more importantly, are the American people aware of how they have had their democracy violated in such a way? As someone who is concerned about American foreign policy I feel saddened that the fate of the world rests with advertising agencies and porn kings.... or does that say a lot about the state of our world today? I have always believed that the American electorate are very sophisticated people. But I fear they have fallen for the big money spent particularly by the Bush campaign, and we will all be holding our breath around the world to see how this farce of an election eventually plays out, and the effects it will have around the world, from the Balkans to the Middle East and Africa. No one wants a return to the dark days of Reagan's foreign policy.
Amir
London

I have to say that I really enjoyed the report on Sunday night. I was never fully aware of what some politicians are really like when it comes to getting what they want. Keep up the good work and it will be very interesting to see who wins the final race.
Shaunagh
Dublin

On "Digging the Dirt", the White House published the picture of Mrs. Clinton's rival for New York mayor shaking hands with chairman Yasser Arafat. The White House did so trying to "smear" the man and to gain votes of the Jewish voters in New York. Who will ever believe that USA is an impartial partner in the peace process in the middle east?
Mohammed El-Bayoumi
London

I grew increasingly worried as I watched Panorama on Sunday. It's often said that we follow the U.S.A. here in the U.K. I sincerely hope we find a way to avoid falling to the depths of the American political parties and their supporters.
Tim Covey
Walton-on-Thames

So Larry Flynt dislikes hypocrites, and views them as a threat to democracy? I suppose snooping on politicians, exposing details of their private lives is democracy in action, is it? Is Mr Flynt absolutely sure that he is acting purely in the interests of the American electorate, and not just trying to grab himself some sensationalist headlines? Moreover, how many skeletons must Flynt have in his own cupboard? This man is an absolute joke, and a very sick one at that.
Ross Caldwell
West Lothian, Scotland

It was explained in the commentary to Panorama on 22 October (Digging the Dirt) that Larry Flynt was the publisher of Hustler. Did you need to show us a woman having pictures taken of her naked buttocks in order to illustrate the fact?
Chris Coates
London

The sort of dirt-digging that goes on in politics is a blatant abuse and waste of resources. Think about the hours of manpower and tonnes of other resources that go into researching political opponents' private life and then making sure those bits of information are well publicised. I often wonder what is the point of it all. It makes no difference to me whether a presidential candidate did ask his girlfriend to have an abortion or not thirty years ago. I am more interested in whether he is capable of doing the job. I can't help but feeling what one has done in the distant past has hardly any relevance to the present or future. People grow and people change, and we cannot expect them to answer for something they did in their youth. The programme last night ended on a note questioning the purpose of the democratic process. I also wonder if competitive politics has been brought too far. Perhaps one-party-governments such as that in Singapore are after all not as bad as they may seem. At least nobody wastes their time prying into the private lives of politicians, and instead the focus is on governing the country well. I sincerely hope Britain would not follow the footsteps of America in 'going negative' in dealing with one's opponents. The focus should be on how best to govern and run the affairs of the country rather than to carry out personal attacks on other politicians.
Liang Chua
Oxford

My first though at the end of the programme, which is somewhat reinforced by comments already posted here, is that that was a pretty good description of our own political system. The comment about the populace becoming disillusioned with negative politics, I think, applies just as much in the UK as in the US.
Richard Corfield
Leeds

I thought last night's programme was as thought provoking and insightful as ever, but why did we have to show the bare breasts and buttock's of the porn model being photographed? As adults, we all know what porn means and we know what is happening when a man wielding a camera in this context also means without having to pander to the parts of this society that wouldn't keep watching unless they got their twenty seconds of boy interest!! I noticed you even got her breasts in the part of the show that shows you what is coming up later in the programme!! Come on BBC. It was unnecessary and immature of you. Grow up! Don't drop your standards to that of lesser channels. Please.
Penelope Mennie
Aberdeen, Scotland

Last night's programme was fascinating. However, I thought it somewhat irresponsible and even insensitive of you to represent New York's Jewish voters with images of ultra-Orthodox Jews in, I presume, Washington Heights. They are hardly typical of Jewish voters in New York or, indeed, the rest of the world.
Yehuda Shapiro
London

Other viewers might be interested to hear examples of work being carried out by non-profit organisations in the US to counteract negative attack advertising in the political process. The Institute for Global Ethics' Project on Campaign Conduct, led by Brad Rourke (brourke@globalethics.org) has been encouraging congressional candidates in a number of pilot states to sign up to, and live up to, joint codes of campaign ethics. Visit our website at www.campaignconduct.org for more info.
Sheila Bloom, Director, IGE UK Trust
London

Best moment for me was the Ad guy trying to have us believe that no one had noticed the word RATS when making a negative Ad. Someone should have told him that whilst using a questioner's name when answering can make you look sincere, if you have to ask what it is first, it has the opposite affect.
Peter Glasgow
Bristol

Although I do like Peter Marshall, I was dismayed at the incredible bias shown to George W. Bush throughout the programme. In relation to dirty tricks and mudslinging, both parties in the U.S. are as bad as each other, and the programme adequately showed this. However, in terms of character, Gore was portrayed as little more than a serial exaggerator and liar, while Bush was seen as whiter-than-white, the standard "good ole' Texas boy made good". Marshall neglected to mention many things which showed Bush in stark contrast to Gore: Bush pulling a stint in the Texas National Air Guard to avoid going to Vietnam - Gore volunteered to go; Bush's former life as an oil executive and his shocking record on the environment in Texas - Gore has a fantastic record on the environment; Bush's lack of grasp of the issues in contrast to Gore's comparative mastery of them; Bush has raised far more money than Gore (the programme showed Gore's alleged fundraising in the Buddhist Temple), and many more. Add to that the omission from mention of their running partners (Cheney- another oil executive who made $35,000,000 from selling shares just after he was named VP candidate, and Liebermann - the universally recognised conscience of the Senate), who yet again show Bush in a bad light, and the programme as a whole becomes Republican propaganda.
M. Miley
Dublin

In response to Miss OH Thomas and D Burrgraaff's comments: America has had a crook in power who should have been removed from office long ago, and Al Gore would allow this corruption to continue! There is a lot about President Clinton that the media on both sides of the Atlantic refuse to report, such as Clinton's involvement in the Waco incident, selling Nuclear Arms to Communist China, and even a donation to the IRA! Taxes in most states are now higher than in the UK and we don't even have half the amount of Public Services as here in the UK! Both Clinton and Gore have pandered to all sorts of minorities to gain votes such as pro-IRA Americans, and in particular the African-American community! Bush gets branded a racist simply because he does not support their views, and I think Al Gore is a hypocrite to call the Republicans racist after meeting with racist preachers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who stir up race relations! Lets also not forget that Al Gore's father went against the civil rights movement in the sixties! Bush Jr may not be perfect but at least he doesn't pander to minorities, nor does he believe in unnecessarily high taxes! The corruption in America has to end! Bush is the right man for the job, and he's getting my vote!
Jason
England (from USA)

I thought Peter Marshall's film missed the point when questioning the democracy of the USA tonight. Can a system be called democratic when the people get one vote every 4 years in an election when the 2 main candidates differ so very slightly? The power of the media and the Military/Industrial complex is wholly undemocratic in the US and over here. Yet we are asked to believe that a vote for Bush or Gore is a vote for democracy. Both men come from families that are all but aristocratic in name and rely upon the votes of less than half of the electorate. It is impossible for anyone to stand for president without the backing of the global companies who own the country. It is a self perpetuating self serving abuse similar to any vote rigging by a military regime. It's just a more subtle method of conning the public.
M James
London

What a truly frightening programme. The leadership of the largest country in the world being debated by 2 politicians so lightweight that they rely on playground politics. 'I'm not talking to you because you gave me a bad review - ooh you'll never guess what she said about your friend' AAArgh. They are disturbing enough - but as for the weasels with which they surround themselves. I can't decide if I'm angry because they act as if telling tales is such a noble and important occupation or I'm angry because the US public and media believe it. Truly pointless and pathetic.
Elaine Williams
Horsham

Yes - the US elections are dirty, but who are we to criticise. So much filth was unearthed in May '97
Peter Lee-Roberts
Faversham

The programme tonight seems to show that American politics is about voting in the lesser of 2 (or more) evils, rather than being elected on the needs of the country and its people. We may know that no-one is perfect, but its awful that that gives credence to the cynical exploitation by powerful lobbies of the people who are supposed to trust them to look after them. I know it sounds twee, but the message conveyed by the programme is just that. There are theories that overstating the obvious i.e. hiding intentions in full view because no one would possibly accuse you of such awful intentions, may well be true to some degree or another. There is some danger that the outsiders view of programmes such as Panorama can highlight events in a more balanced light. I would imagine that the programme would be unwelcome in the USA for general viewing as it has no political battle to fight.
Paul Clewlow
Canterbury

This was one of the most biased, unbalanced and unrepresentative pieces of political reporting I have ever seen. It portrayed Al Gore as the villain of the piece and gave credence to a bunch of young, arrogant, strutting lemmings in the Bush camp. Bush was portrayed as whiter than white, this man, the Texas executioner who is responsible for many more deaths than our own Yorkshire ripper. Strip away the hype and what viewers got was little more than old footage repackaged for public consumption. This was political reporting at its very worst. Peter Marshall seems to be living in his own flawed fantasy world and should be sacked. The truth is out there....that's all I can say.
Miss O.M Thomas
London

I believe that America's campaign circus is actually all about winning the election by playing the game dirty. The American people should be offended by this attack on democracy. There can only be dignity in winning a fair fight. But does that also include politics?
Alida Pham
Boxtel, The Netherlands

I am a U.S. military dependent living in Sleaford. I personally find the methodology of our presidential candidates repugnant. It makes me feel embarrassed for them. I agree that the democratic process is being damaged by this mudslinging. Also, it is beneath the dignity of the office they are running for to behave in that manner.
Stephen Bockman
Sleaford

I saw your programme on the coming elections in the USA. I fear the worst. And I hope that all Americans use their sense and vote for Mr. Gore. In my opinion Mr Bush is no more then a bag of hot air waiting to come into power. It is my opinion that Mr Bush, although elected governor of the state of Texas, is almost a kind of neo-nazi with old fashioned ideas about weapons; education; health-care and foreign politics. I wish with all my heart that the American voting public has enough sense to comprehend that they have to vote for the contents of the message of the candidate for president and less for the presentation of the man in person.
D. Burggraaff
Amstelveen

Absolutely brilliant programme. Just the ticket for us Europeans who cannot follow the campaign up close. I guess David Letterman got it right when he said: "I'm looking very hard at Ralph Nader by now."
Hans Schoemaker
The Hague

Programme falls down for lack of journalistic content. Why does the reporter never ask the big questions? e.g. How is it that America which has a vast population, can't come up with better candidates? If these two bozo's are all the great USA can offer then thank god for the inadequacies of the British system.
Steve
Belfast