NBC Severs Ties With Journalist Peter Arnett

[adios]

NBC, MSNBC fire Peter Arnett (http://www.msnbc.com/news/893115.asp?0cv=CB10)


Didn't NBC do a 180 from yesterday i.e. weren't they defending him yesterday? I guess this is clear cut proof that the news media is controlled by the US government after all thus there is no freedom of the press in the USA.

[Clarkmeister]

I know this. If an Aljazeera reporter did an interview with NBC stating that the US bombing campaign was sapping the will of the locals in Baghdad, two things would happen:

1. The Aljazeera reporter would be fired.
2. NBC would cite the firing up as proof of censorship and agenda pushing by the Arab media.

[adios]

You may be surprised in that I actually have a problem with this firing at least for the apparent reasons. Apparently someone strenuously objected to Arnett's continued use by NBC (his employment status is unclear to me) after NBC came out and defended him. I'm reading that it was advertisors that demanded he be fired but it could have been something else.

[andyfox]

Another element might have been that tne bigwig decision makers were unavailable on Sunday and once they were consulted on Monday morning, Arnett was gone. This might account for the apparent 180 degree turnaround from Sunday to Monday.

[Jimbo]

"I know this. If an Aljazeera reporter did an interview with NBC stating that the US bombing campaign was sapping the will of the locals in Baghdad, two things would happen:

1. The Aljazeera reporter would be fired.
2. NBC would cite the firing up as proof of censorship and agenda pushing by the Arab media."

Gee you inadvertantly left out #3 Clarkmeister.
3. The reporter would be killed and then displayed publicly to deter any more interviews by others.

[Clarkmeister]

Possibly. Though I suspect its more likely that he would "disappear".

What's your take on the Arnett firing?

[Michael Davis]

I am not well versed on this story, but I was wondering: Has anyone considered the possibility that Arnett was either forced, or at the least coerced, into his appearance on Iraqi TV?

[Jimbo]

"What's your take on the Arnett firing?"

I bet you know the answer to this question already. Let me put it this way, it is a good thing you do not work for NBC or MSNBC else you'd be back at the poker table full time. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

I believe he had every right to express his opinion. With that said he also had every reason to expect to be fired. Since he apologized publicly today he must not have expected the result. Therefore I consider him not too smart, not for having his opinion but for failing to realize the probable consequences of his actions. In that respect he has a great deal in common with Saddam.

This is what helps make America great. Even a person with little to no common sense can become very influential. (I gave an opening here to Nicky g and IrishHand to bash someone in particular if they so choose).

[Jimbo]

"I am not well versed on this story, but I was wondering: Has anyone considered the possibility that Arnett was either forced, or at the least coerced, into his appearance on Iraqi TV?

Not in My wildest dreams! If it had been Geraldo Riviera or Bill O'Reilly I could then think of no other alternative. Since it was Arnett or if it had been Ted Koppel no doubt it was voluntary and sincere.

[HDPM]

Al Jazeera doesn't work as an analogy because it is not owned by the state with whom we are at war. The Iraqu state television exists to prop Saddam and the government up. It is state owned. Arnett should be fired and should consider himself lucky to avoid losing his citizenship or being prosecuted for treason. He deliberately gave aid and comfort to the enemy during the war. One can be a journalist and report bad facts without crossing the line. But Arnett clearly crossed the line. He's a traitor basically. Maybe he and Cronkite can do lunch.

[Clarkmeister]

You make a good point about the difference between state owned and independent media, but what would your opinion be had he made the exact same comments to Aljazeera rather than Iraqi TV?

[HDPM]

Probably wouldn't hang the traitor label on him. Prolly just chalk it up to a general liberal bias.

[adios]

Is Peter Arnett a US citizen? I don't know but I know he was born and raised in New Zealand. I suppose NBC could have fired him because his objectivity in reporting was comprimised. However, I would suspect that it had more to do with the opinions being construed as pro Iraqi. I just assumed the major networks had dropped all pretense of objectivity but I may be wrong about that. I need to get a life and leave this forum for awhile. Out.

[HDPM]

I heard others talking about Arnett's citizenship. They said he became a US citizen. They could be wrong. If they are, then I am wrong in my assessment. There is no obligation on the part of a non-US citizen not to aid and comfort Saddam etc...

Look, don't leave this board and get a life. You might not like what you get. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Chris Alger]

If Arnett had lied and said that Iraqi resistance is collapsing everywhere and that the war is going as the planners hoped, would that also be treason?

[andyfox]

"I consider him not too smart, not for having his opinion but for failing to realize the probable consequences of his actions. In that respect he has a great deal in common with Saddam."

He also has one nose and two feet. This doesn't mean he has a great deal in common with Saddam. People miscalculate all the time, it doesn't mean they have a great deal in common with other people who miscalculate.

"This is what helps make America great. Even a person with little to no common sense can become very influential."

Ah, a hanging curve. Actually, I think you would hit this one the deepest, but I'll give it a try. What makes America great is that we have an open society wherein we can judge for ourselves who has little or no common sense. Common sense is greatly overrated anyway. To wit:

There's a new biography of Khrushchev out now which is getting good reviews. Khrushchev once told JFK that there was a man arrested in the Kremlin because he was running around yelling, "Khrushchev is an idiot!" Khrushchev said he was sentenced to twenty years: two for insulting the Party Secretary, and eighteen for revealing a state secret.

[Jimbo]

"If Arnett had lied and said that Iraqi resistance is collapsing everywhere and that the war is going as the planners hoped, would that also be treason?"

Good question Chris, the answer is NO, it would have been edited out of the interview!

[Jimbo]

"He also has one nose and two feet. This doesn't mean he has a great deal in common with Saddam. People miscalculate all the time, it doesn't mean they have a great deal in common with other people who miscalculate."

Andy having one nose and two left feet does not have any severe consequences attached other than perhaps increasing your expense while purchasing shoes or on the dance floor. Now expressing an opinion whcih at the very least was likely going to cost him his livlihood and perhaps subject him to criminal punishment is akin to Saddam's reckless thought process when he invaded Kuwait. They both ignored the consequenses of their actions and are both receiving more than a modest punishement.

People do miscalculate everyday, heck I probably miscalculate rverytime I respond to one of your posts yet the risk to me is minimal. I assure you if my personal risk was great I would not miscalculate and I have that in common with most people with common sense, unlike Peter Arnett. I know you are obligated to support your fellow Liberal spokesmen but you might have stopped short of supporting him. Perhaps you have made a trivial miscalculation? /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[andyfox]

"Now expressing an opinion which at the very least was likely going to cost him his livlihood and perhaps subject him to criminal punishment is akin to Saddam's reckless thought process when he invaded Kuwait. They both ignored the consequenses of their actions and are both receiving more than a modest punishement."

I just don't see it, Jimbo. You're comparing a guy talking to a state owned press outlet with off-the-cuff remarks as he has done dozens of times in his career with a sadistic tyrant invading another country (although Iraq has always claimed Kuwait is part of Iraq).

But it's not anything to argue over. I agree with you that Arnett probably didn't see the gravity of things since he issued an apology (on NBC!). That's what makes me think that what he was told on Sunday, by the woman who said there was nothing wrong with what he did, that all would be OK, just apologize on our show, changed on Monday when someone higher up got involved.

I never knew Arnett was a liberal spokesman. I never felt an obligation to support him. What concerns me, just a bit, is that there is a general insinuation in this country today that those who speak out against the party line are somehow less patriotic than those who support it. Sometimes it's more than an insinuation. Perhaps I made a miscalculation when I sensed this in your comparison of Arnett with Hussein.

Were I Arnett's boss, I would have fired him too. He's a seasoned veteran, he knew this was a state owned propaganda apparatus, not a legitimate journalistic enterprise that required a courtesy interview.

[Jimbo]

"Perhaps I made a miscalculation when I sensed this in your comparison of Arnett with Hussein."

That is correct Andy, I never intended to correlate Peter Arnett with the regime of Saddam Hussein, just the comparative misjudgement of the consequenses of thier seperate actions. Heck I may be a Loony Toon and not understand the logic behind a liberal perspective but I certainly do not compare being a liberal with being a sadistic tyrant. Although a tryannical Liberal would be an awsome force with which to contend!! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[andyfox]

Interestingly, Arnett didn't apologize for what he said. He apologized for the "firestorm" his remarks caused. Then he said he is not anti-war, although he is anti-war. Then he said he had said nothing different than what he heard Tim Russert say on the Today Show.

Probably not a day Arnett is going to look back on with fondness.

[Mark Heide]

Tom,

I think he was fired to set an example for the news producers and editors. First, they wanted him to be viewed as a traitor to the public. Secondly, they wanted to remind their editors to consider self-censorship or this could happen to you. Just my opinion of course. I expect a reply from Jimbo. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Mark

[Jimbo]

Here is my reply Mark.

http://www.myhandwriting.com/celebs/arnett.html

An excerpt from the analysis: "He also seems to be a very spontaneous individual..." NO SH*T???

[Jimbo]

HDPM, you are correct about Arnett becoming a US citizen I researched the subject and he was naturalized in 1986.

[Cyrus]

If the bin Ladens of this world succeed in promoting their ideology, military victory is of no importance. What good is it to conquer ground when one's beliefs have surrendered to the enemy?

Fewer freedoms and even fewer freedoms is the order of the day, for the foreseeable future. After all, this war's duration, "against terrorism", will be "indefinite".

Carry on.

[brad]

well u know hes in bagdag, and its very easy when people are talking to him for him to respond 'yes', when hes not agreeing with them, but hes just saying, yes, i hear you.

im speaking generally im not up on the incident.

also if hes canadian or australian or something he may see himself as a neutral third party, perhaps even somewhat predisposed to the iraqi point of view since their country is being invaded.

[brad]

----------
If the bin Ladens of this world succeed in promoting their ideology, military victory is of no importance. What good is it to conquer ground when one's beliefs have surrendered to the enemy?

Fewer freedoms and even fewer freedoms is the order of the day, for the foreseeable future. After all, this war's duration, "against terrorism", will be "indefinite".
---------

exactly. there is a critical mass of 'disappearances', which if it gets to it, the government will obviously be blatantly illegal and terroristical.

we are not there yet obviously, but the groundwork is laid to basically take away all the freedoms americans once enjoyed and really got to take for granted.

[brad]

so basically the problem is that he didnt propagandize his report?

i mean i read the link and what he said is true.

1) US war plan seems to have changed. this is obvious on the face of it.

2) reporting of civilian casualties has helped anti war effort. this too is obvious on the face of it.

so the real problem is that ??

it looks to me that arnett sees himself as neutral 3rd party, when nbc sees him as a US viewpoint from iraq.

in a nutshell, thats it right?

[Billy LTL]

Arnett has had an interesting career which many, including myself, have followed since his reporting for the AP in Vietnam.

This isn't the first time he's been fired. You may recall he got the flick from CNN a few years back. CNN had aired a story called "Valley of Death" and in one segment, Arnett's contribution about something called Operation Tailwind, put a lot of Pentagon noses out of joint.

Seems CNN/Time/Arnett had gathered "evidence" that U.S. special forces had used sarin gas in Laos during the days of the Vietnam war. CNN also alleged the U.S. military had used the gas on American soldiers who had deserted to Laos.

My memory of the event is hazy and I can't be bothered to look it up but I remember the "evidence" was a bit too shaky to support CNN's allegations. But strangely, the piece had been approved by editors, lawyers, and top CNN brass before airing.

Nonetheless, Arnett was certainly despised by the military during the last Gulf war. If you remember, you were regularly being shown military footage from missile-mounted cameras of missiles hitting their exact targets. If I recall correctly one even tracked down a damn chimney or smoke stack before blowing up. Smart bombs, smart bombs.

Arnett was taken by the Iraqis to the site of one of these smart bomb attacks. The U.S. said it was a chemical weapons factory they hit. The Iraqis said it was a factory to make powdered milk for babies. And that a number of families had been taking shelter in the factory when the bomb exploded.

Arnett, after touring the factory, chose to believe the Iraqis.

Still, what he said in his interview was pretty dumb.

[Cyrus]

I looked up Arnett's CV too and it is, shall we say, spotty. But he's one that tends to get into the fray and ask questions later -- and you want that from a reporter, more so from a war correspondent. I recall that most of the excellent, in-depth journalists during Vietnam were close to bandits in their attitudes, eg Page, Flynn, Herr. And they were pretty much insubordinate fellas, ie disliked by the brass and liked by the trooops. Maybe one needs a healthy dose of gonzo craziness to keep one's marbles intact and file one's piece from the front or close to it.

[nicky g]

""I know this. If an Aljazeera reporter did an interview with NBC stating that the US bombing campaign was sapping the will of the locals in Baghdad, two things would happen:

1. The Aljazeera reporter would be fired.
2. NBC would cite the firing up as proof of censorship and agenda pushing by the Arab media."

Gee you inadvertantly left out #3 Clarkmeister.
3. The reporter would be killed and then displayed publicly to deter any more interviews by others.


Jimbo"

I really don't get these statements about al-Jazeera. What exactly are your criticisms of it? It may broadcast footage and views we don't like, but it's an entirely free channel - it's not anyone's propaganda machine, it doesn't take editorial lines, it shows both sides of the story. Most of the criticism aimed at it is for showing "inflammatory" footage of Iraqi or Palestinian casualties - what's wrong with that? Those things happened and people want to know about them, especially in the Arab world. We're happy enough to be shown footage of casualties from suicide bombers (which it also shows). It also broadcasts coalition press conferences in their entirety, for instance. It is hated by repressive Arab regimes because it frequently hosts debates which include opposition figures, and is a wonderful democratic development for the Arab world. Most of its journalists were previously BBC World Service. I seriously doubt they would fire a reporter for expressing such views.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,922496,00.html

As for the idea that people with no common sense rise to positions of great influence in the US, well as you hint I can't find any objections to that.

[Billy LTL]

Cyrus - re Tim Page, I hope you and everybody here checks out the book he researched, compiled and edited.

It's called REQUIEM By the Photographers Who Died in Vietnam and Indochina

Those who covered both sides of the war, South and North.

It should be required reading for every person who inhabits this planet.

[adios]

I found a lot of things interesting about this situation. The most interesting to me was NBC's 180 on Arnett. They came out with a statement totally supporting him. Later on they came out and fired him. Why the about face on Arnett by NBC? Andy pointed out that it could have been NBC top management, I've read rumors about NBC advertisers, Billy LTL points out (correctly) that military hates Arnett because of his reporting of an incident during Desert Storm so perhaps the US government had something to do with it. It could be all 3 or none of the above. If it was the US government leaning on NBC to fire him I think that it could be construed as a form of censorship. If this was the case, I would find that extremely disturbing and would certainly add a lot of credibility to what you've been posting about. Will Arnett be tried for treason? I doubt it but I'm not an expert on the laws regarding treason.

[adios]

Yeah but NBC came out and supported him originally and later did an about face. They, NBC, did mention something about objectivity in their press release in firing him. I doubt if that's the real reason they did their about face though.

[brad]

'He's a traitor basically. '

could u outline exactly why?

is it because he tempered a fact (US drive has stalled) with his opinion?(stalled because iraqis putting up good fight)

and thus gave moral support to enemy?

btw i think fonda should be hanged because she helped injure US soldiers, something i think arnett clearly did not do.

[John Cole]

Billy,

A few days ago, I saw for the first time in my life, video of the children fleeing the napalm attack on Highway 1, which was captured in the famous photograph featuring the boy screaming in the foreground and the naked girl running along the street. I also saw the video of Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing the suspected Viet Cong sympathizer, another tape I never realized existed.

If we had only seen these events on video, they would not have been seared into our consciousness in the way the photographs have left a permanent mark for all of us. How silly and inadequate these images from hand held phones appear now.

John

[John Cole]

It's a good thing then, brad, that "the nations that harbor terrorists" are, in theory, finite.

[Billy LTL]

If we had only seen these events on video, they would not have been seared into our consciousness in the way the photographs have left a permanent mark for all of us

Good point John.

Nick Ut, I think he's with the LA Times now, shot the still of the napalmed girl.

And the ARVN general executing a suspected VC, that picture was shot by Eddie Adams. Last I heard he was shooting celeb portraits in New York. By all accounts Adams has never been comfortable with that picture and has been known to say he wishes he never shot it.

In Vietnam every journalist had total access. I think it would be pretty safe to say that they played a large part in ending that war.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Depends who you are talking to I guess.

Billy

[John Cole]

Billy, since you are so well informed on the subject, could you tell me who shot the photo of the starving child in the Sudan with the vulture lurking in the background? I know this was a tragic case.

Thanks,

John

[nicky g]

"By all accounts Adams has never been comfortable with that picture and has been known to say he wishes he never shot it."
Indeed. In an interview I read, he said the guy being executed had only minutes earlier been responsible for some civilian deaths (I forget te exact details), and that he personally did not disapprove of the execution, as most people who see the photo probably do.

[HDPM]

This is the greatest danger of what is going on right now. I don't agree it is inevitable or is as pronounced a problem as Cyrus or certainly Brad. But it is a real potential outcome that bears close scrutiny.

[Cyrus]

Ass't Director friend of mine doesn't want to see the day when walkie-talkies and police radio become so advanced that you hear the other party as if it's next to you. The static cackle between messages and the mangled voices are the whole point, the primary signifiers of distance (and alienation), he claims. He's right.

(I worked Billy's favorite word in the post, inadvertedly.)

[MMMMMM]

It is a valid concern.

I think the rights of US citizens should not be abridged in the war on terror--and we have lately been moving somewhat in the wrong direction on this IMO--but I also think that foreigners visiting the U.S. should be subject to profiling, quick deportation if deemed prudent, etc. Immigration laws, the workings of the INS (now merged with Homeland Security I believe), requirements for the granting of visas, and all related matters should be reformed with an eye to greater national security.
Also, our borders should be borders, not merely lines of demarcation as they effectively are in many spots.

[MMMMMM]

What I want from a reporter is facts not opinions (during his regular reportage, at least).

If Arnett actually said on Iraqi TV that the US war plan had failed, that's an opinion--plus he offered it quite inappropriately IMO, especially given the circumstances.

[Jimbo]

nicky g, you have said some funny things on these forums in the past as have we all but this one is at the top of my list (at least for now).

"I really don't get these statements about al-Jazeera. What exactly are your criticisms of it? It may broadcast footage and views we don't like, but it's an entirely free channel - it's not anyone's propaganda machine, it doesn't take editorial lines, it shows both sides of the story."

All I can say is can you spell NAIVE?

[nicky g]

I'm very naive. So are some of the rest of us. Could you outline the hard truth we're all failing to see? Have you ever even seen al-Jazeera?

[Jimbo]

I must admit I am basing my opinion on their English version website. The Arabic broadcast is much more likely to be unbiased.

[nicky g]

I'd be impressed if you're reading at the moment, given that it's still down cos of hacking attacks (of "uncertain" origin - ah that commitment to free speech is so refreshing)!. Anyway, care to prvide an example oftheir heinous bias?

[brad]

its publicly admitted the war on terrorism will last like 100 years or something.

think about that before you say hey, its just temporary ...

[andyfox]

"I recall that most of the excellent, in-depth journalists during Vietnam were close to bandits in their attitudes"

For those interested, Prochnau's Once Upon A Distant Waris a great read about those "bandits."

[brad]

well did u see my post where theyre trying to pass a law in oregon where u get life in prison for blocking traffic? (links to newspaper and bill itself).

i mean just think about that.

[brad]

'I think the rights of US citizens should not be abridged in the war on terror--and we have lately been moving somewhat in the wrong direction on this IMO--but I also think that foreigners visiting the U.S. should be subject to profiling, quick deportation if deemed prudent, etc. Immigration laws, the workings of the INS (now merged with Homeland Security I believe), requirements for the granting of visas, and all related matters should be reformed with an eye to greater national security.
Also, our borders should be borders, not merely lines of demarcation as they effectively are in many spots.
'

obviously M, youre right on target here.

unfortunately it is also obvious that our government is 180 d. opposite of this.

so what does this say about our government?

[brad]

also Raul Grijalva congressman (US) from southern arizona was on the alex jones show

and said we need to 'legalize a reality' regarding mexican border.

weve got congressmen and administration people saying we dont really have a border!


http://www.americanpatrol.com/FEATURES/021205-MECHISTA-REP-DOUGLAS/021205Feature.html

[Jimbo]

How bout we do this the "American" way nicky. You stated they were unbiased, so prove it. I find it odd that you doubt I have read their website when I do not question whether you have watched the American news channels you so arbitrarily bash. It is more likely I have read the stories on their website than you have watched 8 or more hours of news daily on American cable TV. Get a grip!!!

[HDPM]

Yeah, I saw that post. Scary law. It had no real chance of passing as it was though. Not to say that it could never pass i.e. "That could never happen!" Everything can happen, I just assign lower probabilities to certain things than you do.

[brad]

yes but you miss the point (at least point i tried to make).

the point isnt that it wont pass.

the main super huge colossal point is that weve got people who are trying to pass such a law.

i mean think about that.

an analogy to gun laws - right now many guns are illegal in CA that are perfectly legal in arizona. soon all guns may be illegal in CA.

why? because people (a slim, evil segment of society, with the aid of numerous 'useful idiots') had the will to keep trying to ban guns.

thats the point im trying to make.

[Billy LTL]

could you tell me who shot the photo of the starving child in the Sudan with the vulture lurking in the background?

A South African photographer named Kevin Carter. He later won a Pulitzer for the picture. Not so long after that he killed himself.

[Parmenides]

It's part of the neo conservative double speak. War is peace. Revoking the Bill of Rights is protecting freedom.
Destroying the economy is economic growth.

It's has grown out of hand. Both Bush and Powell cited sources in the last 2 months that they both know to be false. They have no fear of the public wanting the truth. They are feeding the frenzy that leads to National Socialism.

[nicky g]

I don't doubt you've read their website at all - why would I? I said I doubt you're able to read it at the moment, as it's down, with the CIA as the main suspect. I don't recall trashing American news channels recently, but anyway, fyi CNN is available over here and I frequently have the pleasure of watching Fox Comedy - I mean news - when I visit my wife's family in the states. I'll be sure to watch some more next week so we can talk about it.
I don't see how the burden of proof is on me - I was simply reacting to you talking as if al-Jazeera were a totalitarian government rather than a satellite news channel. It's impossibe to prove a lack of bias - I can cite balanced stories but I can't go through all of them. You on the other hand merely need to give a few examples. I've given examples of its balanced coverage, and made the point that its journalists were trained by the BBC which is one of the most, if not the most, respected news organisations in the world in terms of impartiality. You state that you thinnk it would fire a journalist for departing for the editorial line and even kill him or her - you prove it. So far it's American networks that have been firing journalists - so you come up with some proof that al-Jazeera are the censorers.

[HDPM]

Yes, of course there are people out there working to eliminate liberty.

[Mark Heide]

Tom,

Arnett will not be tried as a traitor, but those that don't like what he said will promote him as one. I'm just wondering who gets Iraqi TV, since none of us do. For this reason alone, I suspect the US administration intercepted the broadcast. Didn't like it, and asked NBC to make an example of him. I guess you could call it "Hearstian" method of controlling the news.

Mark

[HDPM]

Iraq gets Iraqi TV. And Arnetts blather gave them hope and reinforced Saddam's line of BS. I don't care if Arnett gives aid and comfort to liberals in the US, I do care if he gives aid and comfort to the Iraqi regime.

Of course he won't be charged or tried as a traitor. And maybe life's too short and it won't matter a lot in the long run, etc... That doesn't mean he isn't a traitor though.

[Cyrus]

"What I want from a reporter is facts not opinions (during his regular reportage, at least)."

By definition, the reporter is supposed to report what's happening. However, reality is always subjective and so is reporting. As I wrote in another post, trust less those reporters that claim to be objective -- at best, they are deluding themselves, at worst you. Even when you get "the facts straight", it is still the messenger's message that comes across. (I thought all this was elementary by now, in our media-savvy age.)

Maverick reporters have ingrained in them a sense of rebellion and their reportage benefits from that. They are contrarians. They mock authority. This makes for a lousy accountant perhaps but it makes for a good reporter.

"If Arnett actually said on Iraqi TV that the US war plan had failed, that's an opinion--plus he offered it quite inappropriately IMO, especially given the circumstances."

I saw the interview. Arnett only said what is being said on this board and on the airawaves across America : that the original plan surely must have been over-optimistic. I found nothing wrong with the interview. It's a case where the network wants to appear more patriotic than even the Pentagon. The press bosses have gone to the dogs.

I regret that Arnett felt he had to apologize later on. He should have realized that his job was already gone, that he could not save it by apologizing and that he should at least try and exit gracefully, with his dignity intact.

[MMMMMM]

His exact words were "overly-optimistic" and not "had failed?" I'm really wondering here since I don't have a transcript.

Regarding objectivity: obviously, "total objectivity" is well nigh impossible. But some things are clearly opinion not fact. If Arnett said the war plan had failed, or had failed thus far, that's an opinion--and almost surely a wrong one to boot. If instead he said it appears to have been overly optimistic, that might be an opinion, or it might be a fact. Of course, for him to be offering it as a fact presupposes that he actually knew what the war plan was--which is not something I would presume, even if the Pentagon announced it clearly.

I also take exception to the "messenger's message" always coming across. Must these reporters all have such hopelessly inept poker faces that they cannot but help give away their most personal feelings when reporting the news? Let alone writing in colored language--shame shame shame. That's not true reporting, that's offering their own perspectives. They should save that stuff for the talk shows or roundtables. If they want to write columns then they should be columnists, or perhaps write an occasional column. If they want to be reporters then they should damn well just report when reporting.

Nobody should have a job as a national newscaster who allows their emotions to creep into every sentence they speak. Occasionally in extreme news some emotion may be unavoidable but as a rule I feel many of these so-called 'reporters' are taking it upon themselves to be commentators as well: disgusting. You might almost as well have scientists skewing their reports according to how they feel.

[brad]

'That doesn't mean he isn't a traitor though. '

if he said look US plan failed cause u guys fought too hard, now US has no choice but to level bagdag, absolute minimum 100,000 iraqi casualties (just in bagdag), would u still consider him a traitor?

transcript anywhere?

[Cyrus]

"His exact words were "overly-optimistic" and not "had failed?" I'm really wondering here since I don't have a transcript."

No, I'm paraphrazing, I didn't quote anything in brackets. Like I said, Arnett essentially repeated what we, at least some of us, are saying on this board, and what a lot of people say on TV -- in the West. That the plan surely failed in its original form and now needs to be revised.

And for that he's cast as Benedict Arnmold... Pathetic.

"Must these reporters all have such hopelessly inept poker faces ? Nobody should have a job as a national newscaster who allows their emotions to creep into every sentence they speak."

Yep. Mike Caro and Derren Brown should be screening newscaster hopefuls.

[Mark Heide]

HDPM,

The point here is how free are we to speak our thoughts. I believe that Arnett was telling the truth, as he sees it, and that information was used as propoganda by Iraqi TV. So what, I think we are smart enough to know the difference between propaganda and fact. This incident was a deliberate act of intimidation by either a corporation or the US government. It ended up giving NBC the opportunity to send a message to their employees.

The danger here is in the future reporters and editors of news organizations will be afraid to report on an important issue for fear that they may lose their job. Overall, the press can be a good watchdog to expose government corruption and coverup. I don't want these people to be afraid to speak freely. Lastly, I seriously doubt that Arnett's interview gained any more iraqi supporters for Saddam. The whole middle-east, except for Kuwait and Isreal, are for Saddam. Just take a look at the Arab media like Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi.

If our corporations and government officials feel it is fine to silence what they don't like, does that make us any better than Saddam?

I believe we have to set the example to show that we tolerate different viewpoints.

[MMMMMM]

"So what, I think we are smart enough to know the difference between propaganda and fact."

We are indeed often smart enough to separate propaganda from fact. What I wonder is why Arnett apparently wasn't smart enough to see that his statements would be used as propaganda by Iraqi TV. Or perhaps he was...which makes me wonder a bit more about his statement that both he and the Iraqis are "warriors."

"I believe we have to set the example to show that we tolerate different viewpoints."

Well at least we didn't chop off his head. That ought to impress them at least somewhat.

[Cyrus]

"REQUIEM By the Photographers Who Died in Vietnam and Indochina"

Ordered it. It says it contains pix from "135 journalists either MIA or KIA". That's a big number of journalists, forever embedded.

[Billy LTL]

Ordered it. It says it contains pix from "135 journalists either MIA or KIA". That's a big number of journalists, forever embedded.

Sincere thanks for ordering it. I'd greatly appreciate your opinion on it, after you've received and had time to digest it.

The text, by the way, is also very compelling. It's sometimes just a snippet, like the last telex message received by the Associated Press from their Cambodian reporter Mean Leang in Phnom Penh after the Khmer Rouge entered the city.

"I with a small typewriter, shuttle between the post office and home. May be my last cable today and forever.

I feel rather trembling.

He was never heard from again. Peace, Billy