This Subject Shouldn't Help Inspire An Oscar!

(With the Oscars scheduled for Feb. 22, this is my view on the subject of one of the movies nominated).

I’ve been unable to bring myself to see the movie, Frost/Nixon.

The movie seems like a fraud to me. I’ve heard the advertisements describe Frost and Nixon like they’re heavyweight fighters facing off for the world boxing championship.

Yet, David Frost is anything but a “heavyweight” or a “fighter.”

I know a little about Frost because I worked for him as a reporter/researcher during the summer of 1987 when he hosted a 13-part series of television interviews with the 1988 presidential candidates. I helped develop questions for Frost to use in those interviews.

First, I had found Frost’ 1977 interview with Nixon tremendously disappointing. Despite taping 28 hours with Nixon, Frost failed to extract much of anything newsworthy from Nixon. Nevertheless, in 1987, I hoped Frost would challenge the 1988 candidates at least a bit. I knew Frost was the polar opposite of Mike Wallace, but, I had no idea on the extent to which Frost would repeatedly choose to avoid seeking important truths in these interviews, and, instead, focus on having chummy conversations that allowed the candidates to dictate most of the content.

Frost conducted the 1987 interviews at the homes of the candidates.

Let me recall a few anecdotes:

· During our preparation for Frost’ interview with then-Vice President George H.W. Bush, a 1988 presidential candidate, we agreed that it’d be interesting if Frost were to ask Bush about the death of his three-year-old daughter. She had died of leukemia but Bush had rarely discussed this.
Frost raised the topic during the interview and Bush began to describe personal recollections. Bush began to get emotional, when, suddenly, his advisor, Roger Ailes, jumped up and demanded that the cameras be turned off and the interview stopped. Frost and our crew did nothing to stop this virtual “censorship” to occur and minutes later, after this “break,” I recall Frost continued the interview by moving on to other subjects.

· We traveled to the Chicago home of candidate Jesse Jackson where we were forced to wait a long time. (Painstaking preparations were made to set up each of these interviews, which required a large TV crew). Jackson, to our dismay, was not there and there was no sign of him after more than a half-hour. We waited and waited. The crew had the lights and props all set up when, finally, Jackson, arrived, incredibly late.
He greeted Frost by spontaneously inviting him to accompany him to an event about to start soon that featured then-mayor Harold Washington. Frost, who Jackson had just pushed aside to take care of his own needs, simply acquiesced to Jackson without complaining and went off with him. When Jackson and Frost returned, Frost did a remarkably uneventful interview, avoiding many potentiallly compelling, significant topics to raise with Jackson.

· Frost’ interview with Mike Dukakis, was, by a twist of circumstance, scheduled for the night of the day when Dukakis had to accept the resignation of his campaign manager John Sasso, his most trusted advisor, who was viewed as indispensable to his campaign. Many journalists would’ve seen this as an incredible opportunity to ask Dukakis probing questions about this story. Yet, Frost did not press Dukakis for any details or even spend much time on it.

· Frost chose to not ask General Alexander Haig any challenging questions about his relationship with Nixon in Nixon’s last months in office or other controversial times in his career.

I could give numerous examples, but, my own experience – as one of a few researchers developing questions – was that Frost chose never to ask my best questions – questions that would have explored new angles or uncovered ground with candidates. Instead, Frost was content to ask general, “softball” questions such as:

What is your relationship with God? Do you think there is a God or do you know there is a God?

What is your earliest memory – the first thing you can remember?

What would you say is the most important personal quality that a President needs?

What I observed was that: David Frost was an entertainer – not a journalist. I saw this – firsthand in his approach before, during and after his 1987 interviews.

And, I saw the same approach in 1977, when Frost paid Nixon $600,000 and a share of the profits to conduct the interviews. Much significance was paid to Nixon making a public apology for his Watergate role, but, that was a moment, which, by definition, would have constituted “news” whenever Nixon chose to do so. Did it come as a result of Frost’ journalistic skills?

As a Watergate buff myself, I recall that Frost did not try to shine light on all kinds of shocking Watergate details with Nixon. I also recall that certain individuals did press for the truth about Nixon in the 1970s, as events unfolded. I recall former US Sen. Lowell Weicker (R-Ct.), during the US Senate Watergate hearings, aggressively interrogating Nixon’s top aides, HR Haldeman and John Erlichman, under oath about what they knew about Watergate. I recall people like James McCord, Judge John Sirica, and, probably the most, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post. These were people who helped get the truth out with regard to Nixon and Watergate.

So, when I’ve heard the advertisements for Frost/Nixon suggesting that Frost was Nixon’s primary adversary, or, interrogator. I think back not only to the true muckrakers who brought Nixon down, but, to my own experience with David Frost – and, it bothers me.

To make a movie that greatly elevates and distorts the role of David Frost, is not only disappointing and misleading. It seems like a fraud.