"Peter Arnett will no longer be reporting for NBC News and MSNBC," NBC said in a joint statement with National Geographic, for whom the Pulitzer prize-winning reporter was also working.-- NBC Fires Peter Arnett Over Iraqi TV Interview[...]
Arnett told the Iraqi television that American war planners had underestimated the determination of Iraqi troops to fight U.S. and British troops and that the Pentagon seemed to be amending its original strategy.
"Now America is reappraising the battlefield, delaying the war, maybe a week and rewriting the war plan," Arnett said in excerpts of the interview aired on U.S. networks. "The first plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance. Now they are trying to write another plan."
He added there was a "growing challenge to President Bush about the conduct of the war and also opposition to the war."
Did Arnett lose his job because he (A) lost his objectivity, (B) supported propoganda efforts of a wartime enemy, (C) personally disagrees with President Bush and/or his war plan (and said so in public in as many words), or (D) failed to perform his duties as a reporter in the conflict?
I heard an interesting take on Arnett's firing from a local PBS station. The companies fired Arnett because he was casting the US invasion in a negative light. Fox News has ratings that are soaring right now because of their coverage which is apparently overwhelmingly positive (haven't watched it myself)...so NBC and Nat'l Geographic fired Arnett so they wouldn't lose in the popularity poll. Kind of grim if you ask me. It is really amusing how we are suppopsedly fighting for freedom of speech and democracy while these very things are being put on hold in support of the war and homeland security. Perhaps I'm bitter.
On a somewhat related note, last night the Jim Lehrer News Hour showed photographs and names of the US troops who have been killed so far in combat. Just the images, no sound or commentary. For me this sequence did more than all the embedded commentary and pyrotechnics I have seen so far...making the war real.
Re:fired
pudge on 2003-04-08T02:29:36
Certainly, someone who criticizes the war is going to hurt ratings (i.e., drive people to Fox News:-). But still, Arnett did two Really Bad Things: he made things up that just had no basis in reality ("the US plan failed"), and he encouraged Iraqis to fight against Americans.
So there are plenty of reasons to fire Arnett. Pick one. Ratings are a fine reason (forget the political and speech implications... business is business, and it always has been). But recognize that the ratings drop would have been primarily because of the other two reasons. Arnett was stupid in what he said, and he was stupid for saying it, and he deserved to be fired.
As for making the war real... silence is good for that. CNN gets major karma for not saying anything for eight minutes during the start of the bombing a few weeks ago. They just had audio and video of the bombs.
