[RussSchultz]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ipt/index.html

Under duress, or speaking freely?

Arnett -- who is reporting for National Geographic Television and NBC News -- also said Iraq has given him and other reporters a "degree of freedom which we appreciate," this despite the fact that Iraq has expelled several journalists, including CNN's Baghdad team, and apparently has imprisoned two journalists from the New York newspaper Newsday.

Arnett is a member of the Board of Directors of the Committee to Protect Journalists, which is trying to locate the missing journalists

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ett/index.html

Discuss. And flame on!

[Sxotty]

Well the first war didn't fail it did exactly what it was supposed to do, they should have done more but the UN did not want them too, and neither did Bush b/c he did not want tons of casulties.

He never said the missles that hit markets were US so I see no problem there.

Actually I see very little wrong with what he said, however it is obvious he is under a little duress, i.e. he could not speak freely b/c if he did he would suddenly be kicked out missing or obviously they would not have let him talk.

[Nagorak]

Originally Posted by Sxotty

Actually I see very little wrong with what he said, however it is obvious he is under a little duress, i.e. he could not speak freely b/c if he did he would suddenly be kicked out missing or obviously they would not have let him talk.

Why? Maybe so, maybe not, all you're basing stuff on is what CNN tells you.

Frankly, CNN did a piss-poor job of doing any reporting from the Iraqi perspective. Since they've gotten booted out of Baghdad their reporting hasn't changed one bit, which is to say it was bad to begin with. They deserved to get kicked out.

[RussSchultz]

BBC is reporting that NBC has sacked Arnett .

[epicstruggle]

yeah, he got fired from nbc, msnbc, and national geographic. all after 12 hours from the interview. i wonder if he got kicked out of the hotel room too.

later,

[pascal]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

BBC is reporting that NBC has sacked Arnett .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2903503.stm

[horvendile]

I don't get this.
I've read the transcript. And I don't understand what was so horrific. Granted, it wasn't exactly US propaganda, but I didn't find any obvious lies (I could elaborate on that, but I'll wait until it seems necessary), and US does have free press, right?

The report I heard was that he was fired due to un-patriotism. If patriotic reporting is a requirement of US reporters, and this is enough to get fired, then I'm worried.

[RussSchultz]

Peter Arnett should know that the Iraqi government would use it as they did: for purely propaganda purposes. His words are not bad, but the circumstances are just very poor.

I think he did "aid" the enemy by offering some sort of hint that if you hang on long enough, the building anti-war movement would change the US policy. His interview dignifies the Iraqi regime by supporting its claims.

But, just as he has the right to say what he did, NBC has the right to choose who speaks with their voice.

Beyond that, I think a reporter should be an observer and a reporter, not an editorialist. The editing that happens by choice of subject matter and emphasis is bad enough, but to tarnish his "reporting" creditials by offering unqualified opinions...

[Sharkfood]

He has already given a public appology for his actions and stated that he misjudged and whatnot.

It's not such a vile crime what he did for the context of his remarks- what was so criminal was that it was delivered and given to the Iraqi state-run TV news station to serve as propaganda for their cause. In a time of war, this can be considered treason.

It is perfectly legal.. and supported, to make wildly false or inaccurate statements here in the free press of the USA. It's a totally different matter to travel to a foreign country and use their state-run propaganda machine to present this kind of agenda directly.

The truth is- his statements held no water and had no factual base behind them. He made claims that the war plan had "failed"- so people demand to know how he got his hands on the war plan to measure it's failure (to the best of my knowledge, the military doesnt hand out war plans to media journalists.. not to mention ones stationed in Iraq).. as well as the war taking a week pause to re-write a new war-plan, etc.etc. People can theorize this kind of thing on US media since the American public is used to extremists making absurd and unfounded claims... but using the Iraqi TV propaganda machine to imbed these unfounded pieces in an arena that offers no counter-debate or fact delving in their society is just wrong. Wire it to the US.. Wire it to Germany/France. Wire it to the UK or other free nations.

[Sxotty]

Yeah like I said he was pretty stupid to go on their TV and say anything, because they have a propaganda network, so whatever he says even if he is very careful not to lie (which he did not) will look bad. I mean there was really no good that can come from any honest person trying to talk on Saddam's propoganda network, I don't know that he deserved to be fired though.

And free press doesn't mean you can't get fired by your boss if he thinks you suck it means you can't be put in jail I think youguys realize that though.

[horvendile]

I've thought about it a bit now.
I know what free press means, and that his employer has the right to fire him. But that he, within the limits of free press, has a right to fire him doesn't mean that he should.
However, as I've said, I've thought about it a bit now. And were I his boss, it's not impossible that I, too, would have fired him. Not for what he said, that was harmless enough. Not for him giving the Iraqi propaganda machine a push, they do fine without him. But simply because appearing in an organized interview in Iraqi TV might not be compatible with his relations with NBC. Aargh, I don't know how to put this in English! But it's something like: If he works for NBC, then he works for NBC, and should not appear elsewhere, partly because he might appear speaking for NBC when in fact he's not.

Originally Posted by Sharkfood

People can theorize this kind of thing on US media since the American public is used to extremists making absurd and unfounded claims

I think the Iraqis, too, should be used to extremists making absurd and unfounded claims!
No really, I understand what you mean.

[Snyder]

Originally Posted by horvendile

I think the Iraqis, too, should be used to extremists making absurd and unfounded claims!
No really, I understand what you mean.

Ouch!
Almost Pythonesque, that one...

[pascal]

He has a new job in the Daily Mirror and will continue to work: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...927169,00.html

I am still in shock and awe at being fired. There is enormous sensitivity within the US government to reports coming out from Baghdad.

"They don't want credible news organisations reporting from here because its presents them with enormous problems," he said in today's paper.

"That overnight my successful NBC reporting career was turned to ashes. And why? Because I stated the obvious to Iraqi television; that the US war timetable has fallen by the wayside.

"I made these comments to television stations around the world and now I'm making them again in the Daily Mirror.

"I'm not angry. I'm not crying. But I'm also awed by this media phenomenon.

"The rightwing media and politicians are looking for any opportunity to be critical of the reporters who are here, whatever their nationality. I made the misjudgment which gave them the opportunity to do so," he said.

The reporter said he had not yet decided whether to stay on in the Iraqi capital and was still coming to terms with what he describes as his "Waterloo".

But he vowed to continue telling the truth: "Whatever happens I will never stop reporting on the truth of this war whether I am in Baghdad or somewhere else in the Middle East - or even back in Washington."

[Crusher]

The Daily Mirror? Do they look at everything backwards? You know, like left is right, republicans are liberal, Peter Arnett knows more about the military's plans than the military does, and Saddam is the good guy...

[epicstruggle]

what annoys me is that people think that because we have free press he can report what he wants. Free press means the government can only put reasonable limits on what the press can/cannot print/publish/televise. It does not mean a corporation cant fire you for what it feels is shady reporting.

No offence but what kinda military training does he have to start questioning how well/bad this campaign has being going on.

Im just suprised that he didnt decide to work for saddams government run paper.

later,