posted on April 1, 2003 04:09:25 PM new
In a New York Times op-ed, Walter Cronkite uses the T-word:
Under the Constitution, giving "aid and comfort" to a wartime enemy can lead to a charge of treason. So far as I know no one has yet suggested that Peter Arnett be charged with that capital offense. But it seems that Mr. Arnett hangs by a rope of his own weaving.
posted on April 1, 2003 04:31:11 PM new
So if there is anything negative happening to his side or anything good for the enemy it is a journelist's patriotic duty to spin it for the government? If anyone is not smart enough to see when that starts happening then I guess it probably doesn't matter what they think anyway.
posted on April 1, 2003 04:32:33 PM newClearly Mr. Arnett, in granting the interview, was cozying up to sources he depended on for, first, their tolerance of him in Baghdad and, second, any information he could get: about Iraq's military posture, its claims of combat successes and techniques, and the morale of its populace.
"It is even conceivable that his inside look was of some value to our own military."
It is the reporters responsibility to avoid being used as a propaganda tool by anyone. Unless there are circumstances that we don't know about, such as the inside look or information that he might get about Iraqi's military etc., Arnett failed in that respect. In addition to that, Arnett was reporting the truth about civilian casualties. Arnett, who is anti war, reportedly said that his reporting on Iraqi civilian casualties "helps those who oppose the war."
posted on April 1, 2003 04:55:06 PM new
Yes, I called him a traitor to our country when this story first broke ...because that's how I see him when he made those statements. Maybe those who have no affiliation with the military don't understand the concept of giving 'aid and comfort' to the enemy.
He wasn't doing an interview, to find out information from their side. He was blaming American and praising the Iraqi's. That's not journalism....it's kissing a$$.
Here are more of Walter's words:
Mr. Arnett, of course, is the former reporter in Baghdad for NBC and National Geographic who was fired for giving an interview to state-controlled Iraqi television. In the interview he criticized the American military effort and praised the morale of the Iraqi people and the cooperation of Iraq's information ministry — this latter despite the fact that many American correspondents have been ejected from the country and, indeed, two of them are missing, last heard from in Baghdad.
There is no excuse for Mr. Arnett's lack of judgment, and he has apologized for it. However, journalists — especially those who have had to deal with foreign governments at times of extreme tension — will recognize a motivation in his acceptance of the interview. They can recognize it without excusing it.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 1, 2003 05:15:52 PM new
OK - Here is a cut and paste of a AP report - the reporter draws a conclusion - that the US is trying to fool Saddam into showing himself. Obviously if they are her comment is counter productive. But nobody is complaining about her adding her analysis.
By PAULINE JELINEK
The Associated Press
Tuesday, April 1, 2003; 5:53 PM
Pentagon officials insist they don't know whether Saddam Hussein has survived two weeks of bombing. In case he's alive, however, they appear to be trying to bait him into showing himself.
posted on April 1, 2003 05:22:42 PM new
Arnett was a slime ball in Gulf War I and now has shown his colors once again, one can only hope that a Marine Sniper soon ends Arnett's treacherous ways...
Or that his body be found in one of the Iraqi Military buildings we destroy...
Walter Cronkite has forgotten more about news reporting than Arnett will ever know.
posted on April 1, 2003 05:48:04 PM new
gravid - I don't know who you're asking...but is that all there was to that AP report?
When at war, anyone who goes on the enemies state-controlled [not a free press] TV and tells the enemy that their [Iraq's] war strategy is working against their own country, [which would only encourage it continuing to be done] is giving 'aid and comfort' to the enemy. He then continued to state the mistakes his country has made. It puts our troops at more risk. Makes the enemy feel more confident that they're on the right track in their war strategy.
Then he crosses the line every further by praising Iraq as to how they're treating the International press. When what is happening is if the press doesn't attend their meetings, and they don't like what the reports are reporting, they are expelled from the country...or worse...two of them are missing...last seen in Badhdad. Why didn't he have the guts to ask...for his reporting purposes....where his fellow reporters had gone to? You do know how the Iraqi's handle people who say things they don't like don't you?
So if your article above is all that reporter said, I don't see it the same at all.
----------
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 1, 2003 06:22:09 PM new
::Then he crosses the line every further by praising Iraq as to how they're treating the International press. ::
Well yeah, they could have kicked them all out immediately.
::When what is happening is if the press doesn't attend their meetings, and they don't like what the reports are reporting, they are expelled from the country::
Well, they are given vIsas based on their coverage of events, if they are not attending briefings, are they really doing their job? Even if the briefings are nothing but propaganda (which we know they are), they are news and should be covered if for no other reason than for American officials to know how the population is being primed. As for being ejected for disfavorable reports, that I have not heard.
:: ...or worse...two of them are missing...last seen in Badhdad. ::
Who is it that you are talking about? The ones I have read about were told to believe because they were in the counntry on invalid expired visas and rather than leave via plane as would be expected, they trekked out. They were seen by other journalists heading to Syria. This the two that are with the photo journalist from Virginia that used to work for Gore.
