posted on March 31, 2003 05:38:06 AM new
By DAVID BAUDER, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK - NBC fired journalist Peter Arnett on Monday, saying it was wrong for him to give an interview with state-run Iraqi TV saying that the American-led coalition's first war plan had failed because of Iraq (news - web sites)'s resistance. Arnett himself called the interview a "misjudgment."
Arnett, on NBC's "Today" show on Monday, said he was sorry for his statement but added, "I said over the weekend what we all know about the war."
"I want to apologize to the American people for clearly making a misjudgment," Arnett said.
NBC had defended him on Sunday, saying he had given the interview as a professional courtesy and that his remarks were analytical in nature. But by Monday morning the network switched course and, after Arnett spoke with NBC News President Neal Shapiro, said it would no longer work with Arnett.
"It was wrong for Mr. Arnett to grant an interview to state-controlled Iraqi TV, especially at a time of war," NBC spokeswoman Allison Gollust said. "And it was wrong for him to discuss his personal observations and opinions in that interview."
Arnett, who won a Pulitzer Prize reporting in Vietnam for The Associated Press, garnered much of his prominence from covering the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites) for CNN. One of the few American television reporters left in Baghdad, his reports were frequently aired on NBC and its cable sisters, MSNBC and CNBC.
posted on March 31, 2003 05:55:43 AM new
Well OK - Now we know for sure that if any US reporters see anything but glorious victory they will be fired. Sort of just confirms what I suspected anyway. They are not independant.
Embedded = contained. And the Arab reporters are as bad the other way leaving no really neutral source of information.
posted on March 31, 2003 06:10:58 AM new
Its called TEAM playing, if you're not going to be a part of the TEAM then you're not going to be on the TEAM...
I applaud NBC for this action and hope Arnett is in one of the buildings we bomb... guy was snake in '91 also.
I am beginning to see why some people here just don't "get it", seems like they have never been part of a team before and especially one that is a winner, so don't understand the concept.
posted on March 31, 2003 06:56:52 AM new
Good, glad to hear that. This isn't the first time Arnett has done this same thing. [kiss up to the Iraqi government]
I fully agree with twelvepole. A journalists job is to report the news...not aid and comfort the enemy. His remarks were uncalled for in a time of war. Really makes one wonder who's side he's really on.
One of the issues that bothered me is that I saw his statements as 'brown nosing' the Iraqi government. All other reporters who were reporting what their experiences are over there, were thrown out if they didn't attend this 'state run' meetings or report their findings in the appropriate/approved Iraq manner.
Yea....that sure looks like receiving 'fair' reporting to me. You don't praise our country [Iraq] then you leave.
BUT more importantly to me is the fact that this TRAITOR was singing the praises of the Iraqi news media while two of the reporters who were told to leave by the Iraqi government, have gone missing. Hope we don't find out they're in some shallow grave for having spoken in an un-approved manner.
posted on March 31, 2003 07:07:46 AM new
Teams are OK for high school football.
Then you grow up and get a life and at some point expect to be treated with more respect than being required to fawn over some captain as your hero you must blindly follow.
Teams can do more than an individual - or less if they hold a superior player back.
posted on March 31, 2003 08:47:47 AM new
If your job is to report on what occurs and instead you invent scenarios that you are clueless about, that would seem to be grounds for dismissal. I have no desire to hear Arnet's "theories" about the progress of the war anymore than I do Jenning's, Brokaw's or anyone else that reads a teleprompter.
posted on March 31, 2003 09:33:03 AM new
If you recall Arnett got fired from CNN for his sham "reporting" of the Vietnam era "Tailwind" story about the US using chemical weapons, which proved to be a huge lie.
Arnett's statement to Iraqi TV was also a lie. He was fired not for telling the truth, but for again lying and offering baseless opinions as facts.
posted on March 31, 2003 09:42:52 AM new
“offering baseless opinions as facts”
What about, “Now to our reporter in Baghdad, please be aware that all statements are under the scrutiny of the Iraqi regime”
But the other imbeded reporters “ Now to our reporter with troop wyz giving an inside view” no frequent reminders that the info is coming from the brass.
posted on March 31, 2003 09:48:24 AM new
True, Reamond
--------
gravid - Teams are OK for high school football. Then you grow up and get a life and at some point expect to be treated with more respect than being required to fawn over some captain as your hero you must blindly follow.
'Teams' don't stop after high school, or when people 'grow up'. There are teams set up in all kinds of corporate companies. The 'team' concept lives on, well into retirement where one looks at another company who was in competition with the one you worked for and watched their sales to see who was/is ahead. It's the spirit of competition that has helped make companies what they have become today.
posted on March 31, 2003 09:55:14 AM new
"It's the spirit of competition that has helped make companies what they have become today"
Yeah like EXON and Union Carbide and the one from that 'Enid Brockovich' movie too.
posted on March 31, 2003 10:36:16 AM new
I don't know if any of you watched the today show this morning but it was very interesting. First you have an american official on who is talking about the war plan and is it working and where there are breakdowns in communication and what some of the potentially costly misconceptions were in the planning of the war in Iraq. Following this, they did an interview with Arnett who appologized for having made the statements to the Iraqi press, explained how the interview came to happen and then made a very interesting comment, He did not say anything to the Iraqi press that the guest before him had said. He is right. In fact, the offical before him HAD said the same things. Then as the end the interview and head to commercial comes the tease... In the next half hour... Did american underestimate the will and frce of Iraq?
At this point I fell asleep and missed the segment but it seems to me that this whole thing i being blown very much out of proportion. Arnett did not say annything that has not been said in the past few days by many others, and it's not like the Iraqis have no access to American media outlets.
posted on March 31, 2003 10:38:32 AM new
~sigh~ Some can only look for and point to the negative in everything in life. Others choose to find and point to the positive, life giving, side of life. Things that have worked well....like capitalism.
posted on March 31, 2003 10:45:03 AM newAt this point I fell asleep and missed the segment.....you will be punished for that later
I read his words. During war time, to me, they were the words of a TRAITOR. He played into the hands of our enemy [said what they wanted to hear]. Just like Jane Fonda did. "everything is fine...America is at fault for everything...I see my country as being wrong. Well fine...move there and enjoy their way of life.
posted on March 31, 2003 10:47:59 AM new
The furor is for those that recognize the difference between a reporter and someone hired to give opinions.
If Arnett wants to be an opinion piece commentator, then be one, but don't use the integrity shield of a reporter to give opinions.
The first rule of reporting is to report news, not make it.
An opinion can come under assault unlike facts can. An opinion can fly in the face of facts. Facts can be corroberated, independently verified, opinions can not.
When Arnett said that the American-led coalition's first war plan had failed because of Iraq's resistance, he was stating a conclusive opinions.
In any event, by any measure, the war has been a resounding success. Each day, as the Iraqi civilians become more trusting, the resistence falters. No one remembers how thousands of civilians were murdered by Hussein when George 1 announced they should revolt. They were crushed and we watched. If I were an Iraqi, I would hesitate before I got involved.
posted on March 31, 2003 11:06:17 AM new
From Reuters:
In another media development, veteran reporter Geraldo Rivera, a correspondent for Fox News, is being removed from Iraq by the U.S. military for reporting Western troop movements in the war, the Pentagon said on Monday.
posted on March 31, 2003 11:07:38 AM new
Facts? LOL!
There's a long list of facts that have had to be revised the last week. Facts are verfiable and until there is sufficient verification all proported facts are suspect.
The foreign press, as well as our own more patriotic conservatives, have helped sort quite a few out lately.
posted on March 31, 2003 11:22:06 AM new
::The furor is for those that recognize the difference between a reporter and someone hired to give opinions.
If Arnett wants to be an opinion piece commentator, then be one, but don't use the integrity shield of a reporter to give opinions. ::
1) Ok, I can see NBC firing him if they did this with them while giving a report that they are paying him for....however... He made the comments to a different organization. Not as a news report, but as his opinion of what was happening in an interview much like ones he has done with numerous other organizations. Would you have been as incensed by his comments had they been voiced during an interview with a Japanese journalist? Is it what he said, or who he said it to?
2) All reporters inject opinion, some blatantly, some subconciously in their delivery. If news was relayed on a purely factual basis with no interjection of opinion, there would be no need for the designations of left and right wing press.
3) Have you seen a report yet with an embedded reporter where he was not asked, what's the attitude..., how do they feel about... etc. Do you think you are getting a purely factual answer to the question or the reporters opinion of these things?
posted on March 31, 2003 11:47:19 AM new
Once again Reamond. As a guest being interviewed by another organization, anything he said would be an opinion. He says he was giving personal observations. Surely no one could watch the interview and believe that it was supposed to be factual reporting.
posted on March 31, 2003 12:57:42 PM new
Whether or not something is factual is not determined solely by the format in which it is reported. Neonmania is correct in stating that Arnett was interviewed, which is different from a newstory and it is acceptable to include analysis and opinion in such coverage. But even if it had been a newstory that wouldn't automatically make the information itself factual. News reports are supposed to be based upon at least two independent, verifiable sources. That is obviously not being done, however, with much of what passes as news today. Whether it is misinformation, disinformation, or ethical oversight, the result is the same: the fact being that the facts reported are not factual.
So if the real reason for firing Arnett is because his reporting is not factual, then a large number of journalists who have reported information which was not factual should certainly be fired since their behavior is far more egregious than Arnett because they are using a format which by its nature is supposed to be factual, unlike Arnett who was merely being interviewed and questioned about his personal observations. Of course, then Fox, CNN, and NBC would lose about half their staffs.
posted on March 31, 2003 01:03:26 PM new
National Geographic severed its relationship with reporter Peter Arnett today, citing his expression of "personal views" on state-controlled Iraqi television about what he said were failures of the U.S. war strategy.
Arnett, who has been reporting on the war from Baghdad, has apologized to the television companies and the U.S. people for his "misjudgment."
The statement released by the National Geographic Society said the following:
"National Geographic has terminated the service of Peter Arnett. The Society did not authorize or have any prior knowledge of Arnett's television interview with Iraqi Television, and had we been consulted, would not have allowed it.
"His decision to grant an interview and express his personal views on state-controlled Iraqi Television, especially during a time of war, was a serious error in judgment and wrong."
posted on March 31, 2003 01:09:33 PM new
::At this point I fell asleep and missed the segment.....you will be punished for that later ::
Hey - it was 7:30 in the morning and I was still awake, isn't that punishment enough?
::I read his words. During war time, to me, they were the words of a TRAITOR. ::
One gave his opinion of what was going on, one that is shared by a few high ranking officials, and even one of the commanders in the field. Are they traitors as well?
::He played into the hands of our enemy [said what they wanted to hear. America is at fault for everything...I see my country as being wrong.::
PLEASE find the quote where he says that America is at fault for everything and wrong. The transcript that I read said that he believed that the US had misjudged the Iraqi people and their sense of naionalism thus overestimating civilian uprisings and in light of this had backed off to regroup and adjust the plan. I don't think he ws wrong that we overestimated the uprising factor.
BTW - I never heard him praising the Iraqi News Media, I did hear him state that he agreed to do an interview with reporters that he had gotten to know and become friendly with over his years in Iraq. Big difference.
posted on March 31, 2003 01:14:07 PM new
Just out of curiosity, is there any here that does not believe that a large factor in his firing was State Department pressure on NBC?
posted on March 31, 2003 01:16:28 PM new
Wasn't he suspected of being brainwashed in the LAST Gulf War?
The bottom line is that the press SHOULD NOT HAVE OPIONIONS. They REPORT. They should not give OPINIONS.
Some people are for the war, some are against. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But it is *SSOOOOO* clear that most of the non-CNN media is against the war. With true non-biased reporting, you shouldn't be able to tell so easily.
posted on March 31, 2003 01:24:17 PM new
"he gave his opinion of what was going on, one that is shared by a few high ranking officials, and even one of the commanders in the field. Are they traitors as well?"
posted on March 31, 2003 01:34:37 PM new
More GREAT news, Reamond....yeah yeah
------
neonmania - Well...7:30 huh? okay, I'll let you slide this time. Know the feeling though....
Yes, I have read several online sites reporting on this story. And also have watched part of his interview on TV....the clip of his statements on film.....that's where he was singing the praises about the Iraqi government allowing them to be there and that they were being very fair in what they were allowed to view and report. [of course, I'm paraphrasing here not quoting exactly]. Other reports I've read have been in total disagreement with what he said...saying that's not at all true. They've said if the reporters didn't attend the Iraqi's daily meeting, or if they felt what was being said was against their cause, they were asked to leave the country.
On the other statements....anything I wrote after the words Jane Fonda...I was attributing to her statements and things she said during the Vietnam war. Sorry that wasn't clearer. But anyone who criticizes their country, when we're in a war time, is a traitor to me. "Well...American has failed in XXXX, That gives comfort and aid to the enemy.
posted on March 31, 2003 01:38:19 PM new
neonmania - Just out of curiosity, is there any here that does not believe that a large factor in his firing was State Department pressure on NBC?
Yep, me. I KNOW it's this GREAT email list we've got going on....burning the night oil emailing away....
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 31, 2003 01:43 PM ]
posted on March 31, 2003 01:48:40 PM new
If the State Dept requested anything of a news organization, the opposite would happen if it would in any way compromise the integrity of the news.
