POLL: Where's the Opposition? Should Peter Arnett have been fired?

Remove all ads!

Where's The Opposition? America used to be a place where there was open and free debate on the issues. What's happened?

With an approval rating of about 72 percent, very few in America have gone public with any real opposition to Bush's war. In fact, The Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore and Pearl Jam have all faced open hostility from Americans by publicly condemning the War. The major news media outlets have all but completely fallen into line with the administration on the war.

This week, famed news reporter, Peter Arnett appeared on Iraqi TV and criticized the President and was fired by NBC. msnbc I'm curious as to what those here at SP think. Should Arnett have been fired by NBC for his criticism of Bush, or not?

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 12 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Where's the Opposition? Should Peter Arnett have been fired? (12 votes.)

Where's the Opposition? Should Peter Arnett have been fired? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 33% (4)
* No - 58% (7)
* Don't Care - 8% (1)

 

Hello?

Because it's open and free is the exact reason why he got chucked on his ***. I hope they grabbed him, threw him out the front door, drug him back inside, and threw him back out. Just for the pleasure of being able to throw him out the door, twice. Those poor security guys live rather droll lives.

That's the beauty of the system. It's not required to like you. Companies can put all your things in a cardboard box, have everyone in the newsroom urinate on it, and send it UPS overnight to your house.

Also, I'm still leery from Vietnam. Moan and complain before and after; not during. Either prevent it from happening, or prevent it from happening ever again.

Supply. Demand.

 

I understand the defense is "I was just telling the truth."

But, I think the other side is that as a reporter it is your job to report and if you are a commentator it is your job to comment. Arnett was a reporter, not a commentator. Also, it should be noted he was also fired in 1998 by CNN for, reportedly, fabricating a story about the US using Sarin gas in Laos - the story later had to be embarassingly retracted.

I don't know whether firing him was the right move, but I think it fair to point out he is a reporter thought to have an axe to grind.

While we're commenting about the Dixie Chicks -- it annoys me to hear people complain about the response to their comments. While if I liked em I wouldn't stop buying their records for what they said, their fans have the same right that the celebrities have to exercise their rights. It seems to me, that hollywood wants to claim the right of speech when they speak out against the war but when fans legally voice their displeasure they scream and yell. Where is the fairness in that? Yes, you have the right to speak, but others have the right to speak back (even if they aren't rich celebrities).

EDIT - just realized something. The title of the thread is, "where is the opposition." As a reporter, is it ok to be acting as "opposition?" Aren't you supposed to try to neutrally report rather than to oppose or support?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2000/newsmakers/2917635.stm

ejsmith wrote

Demand = The things you want to hear. It's not the job of a journalist to tell you, what you WANT to hear, it's the job of a journalist to tell you what he LEARNS. He has to tell you the TRUTH.
If you wan't someone to comfort you or make you happy, go to a preacher or to the movies.

If you still think, a journalist on NBC should tell you, what you WANT to hear, rename NBC into Prawda.

I think Arnett did nothing wrong. It was NBC that made the mistake. They hired him and they knew, who they hired. A well-reputated Journalist with a mind of his own.

So, NBC should fire also the person who was responsible for hiring Arnett.

[ April 06, 2003, 02:41: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Laches -- Since I created this poll, I was trying to refrain from giving my own opinion, either way, as to whether or not NBC should have fired Arnett. The question was not whether NBC has the right to fire him or not, for I'm sure that any rich, powerful corporation has the right to do all the things to a person that EJ says it can -- perhaps more (I guess that's the beauty of the system), but whether or not a person appearing on a separate interview, as obviously he was not reporting at the time, has to fear reprisal from his employer or fans as a consquence of a stand on an issue as a private individual, voicing his/her own opinion.

[ April 06, 2003, 04:44: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Well said Blackthorne.

 

I agree with BTA... and who cares? He'll get another job with someone else. He's not going to dissapear from journalism just because he said the wrong thing... for god sakes Bill Clinton is still on TV every now and again! This might just make him more famous for all anyone knows.

 

ejsmith,
now take your position on complaining before and mourn and after but shutting up during a conflict: According to that philosophy any internal german resistance against Hitler during WW-II would have been descpicable and illoyal. Really?

Criticsm on an actual war still is a moral issue - one that you cannot silence with PCness. That's why there's no opposition: The demands for PCness, and beeing "patriotic".

Let me quote Herrmann Göring:

The risks of not following the unspoken demand for obedience to PCness and beeing patriotic is social sanctioning. PCness is much more effective than public censorship, and much more efficient, as individuals aren't bound to silly stuff like freedom of speech - unlike the gvt.

[ April 06, 2003, 13:43: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Rag, I am WELL aware of the pressures that a german citizen faced.

You conform; or you die.

Natural Selection, of course, would choose those people who conform, which leads to future generations that conform. It's one big cycle. And either way, you are going to have problems. The problems that the conformists face will be the exact opposite of the problems that the non-conformists face. This is why it's important to keep the balance. I understand the need for tree huggers; it's critical that we have them. And it's not like they are going to go extinct any time soon, which means it's perfectly acceptable for me to despise them.

Preserve the balance.

It works the same way in Iraq. And in journalism. He stuck his head up, and he got shot. I would be appalled to see it any other way. Peter stuck his head up, at the wrong time, and Natural Selection noticed him.

You do not want to be noticed.

 

I could not agree more EJ, balance is the key. Arnett could have been playing the big one -- greasing the wheels in Iraq to land the big interview with Saddam. He should have partnered with his superiors at NBC before he made the attempt. I think he is now working for an English newspaper, The Mirror.

But the larger issue is what Ragusa touched on: When does news reporting and journalism become mere propaganda? Right now there is a lot of conformity, and almost no opposition. So where's the balance?

 

I think the media is way too involved in this conflict. So much so, that I believe they are jeopardizing the lives of the soldiers fighting there.

Each night, the media gives away the position, strength, and possible objectives of the Coalition forces operating in Iraq on worldwide TV. Saddam doesn't need an intelligence gathering force, he has CNN, MSNBC and FOX doing it all for him!

In World War II, there was a phrase: "Loose Lips, Sink Ships" it had a simple message: don't talk about troop movements! Any idiot can understand the reasoning, yet the media continues to broadcast military operations in Iraq.

Although Freedom of Speech is guaranteed in America, it is in fact, a responsibility, not a license to act with impunity. The media ought to realize that their coverage is possibly costing people their lives...And act accordingly.

 

I disagree on why the coverage seems so pro-coalition. I think the military really outmaneuvered the media this time with embedded (sp?) reporters.

Here is what I don't think. I don't think the reporters are fearful of being harmed etc by the soldiers next to them. I do think that when you spend months with a bunch of 18 or 20 year old kids you get to know them personally. Their hopes and fears. About girl problems. etc. The reporters like them, and that changes their reporting.

 

Clearly. The "embedded" aren't allowed to send anything that hasn't been approved, or censored, by the US military. So what do they provide? Pictures of hard fighting, ever advancing, glorious and victorious GI's in Iraq, pictures of capitulating iraqis and other crap. In brief: Propaganda. The US media are now in bed with the pentagon - zero distance, zero neutrality.

And, true american spirit, they provide their propaganda for free, it doesn't cost the taxpayer a penny. CNN and Fox are the US propaganda ministery, outsourced, totally consent with the pentagon.

As for freedom of speech as a beeing a responsibility in times of war: Sure, but I don't necessarily mean Arnett probably guiving the iraqis a chance for propaganda - I talk about the people facing hostility for ... being for peace. Nothing less.
I can't see anything irresponsible in that. Stressing the "responsibility" to speak right in times of war is ... what? Another form of public pressure - since, as long as it doesn't concern military issues, what bad can it be to stand for your ideals? Peace is IMO one of the best ideals around atm. And for sure a comforting difference to the ever moronic "Pave France!" and "**** Iraq!" yells ...

 

Hang on a minute. The message we keep hearing is that "the people of Iraq are not the enemy", that this is a war of liberation being conducted on their behalf. If that is true, then he wasn't addressing his remarks to the enemy but to the people America is trying to help. Anyway, it's not like the real "enemy" doesn't watch American TV. Hussein's goons probably *only* watch American TV these days, taking notes as they go. Geraldo Rivera served the Baathists far better on US TV than Peter Arnett did on Iraqi TV.

My own opinion is, what did the guy think he was doing working for a major American station if he didn't want to toe the line? He should have known his freedom to speak publically would be curtailed, and if sharing his opinions with the people of Iraq was so important to him he could have saved everyone a lot of trouble by quitting and working for British TV in the first place.

 

Since I'm in front of the TV watching FOX, CNN, and BBC nearly every waking moment. I need to chime in on this.

"Clearly. The "embedded" aren't allowed to send anything that hasn't been approved, or censored, by the US military. So what do they provide? Pictures of hard fighting, ever advancing, glorious and victorious GI's in Iraq, pictures of capitulating iraqis and other crap. In brief: Propaganda. The US media are now in bed with the pentagon - zero distance, zero neutrality"

I've reciently seen a television article with an embedded reporter in a captured hospital in Iraq (Najaf I think). The reporter made the statement that since the embedded reporters have been sticking close to the troops during the advance, they havent really had the opportunity to meet with and show the losses among the population of Iraq. The report showed several civilians recovering from horrible wounds. Some old, some just children, and one man who I clearly remember had both of his legs blown off.

I've also seen dead American soldiers. I've seen pictures (I had to go to the net to get the whole video's) of the American's killed in the ambush, and the prisoners being "interviewed". Hell I just saw several Iraqi's jumping up and down on a burned out M1A1 on the streets of Bagdad, which I think is really amaising! I saw the shots of the Abrams from the day before when it was with the rest of the american armored vehicles on the same road the day before. It appeared to have an engine fire, and a crew was working on it.

The networks seem to immideately report on american casualties, and some are even showing the pictures, names and ages of these soldiers that have lost their lives in the line of duty.

I've listened to and watch embedded reporters talking about american casualties, and american problems. I agree that not everything they shoot is showen on tv, and that the military restricts when they can and cannot transmit. I do not see that they actually censor the reporters on their reporting, as long as they don't give away tactical information.

It is clear to me that these reporters are showing much more and talking about more than just "Pictures of hard fighting, ever advancing, glorious and victorious GI's in Iraq, pictures of capitulating iraqis and other crap".

I do agree that they are showing alot of hard fighting, advancing, and victorious GI's....mainly because in less than 3 weeks only 3 divisions of American troops have been fighting hard and advancing all the way to Bagdad. Now, I can't say what they would be reporting on if the war was going poorly for the Americans and the Brits, mainly because it is not.

 

"Clearly. The "embedded" aren't allowed to send anything that hasn't been approved, or censored"

Not exactly. Geraldo Rivera (however) drew a map in the sand, and it made the news. Subsequently, he was kicked out-country. He chose south to Kuwait. They downgrade the video, but when they are allowed, they put out full resolution. The news agencies are co-operating with the military, but they are (painfully) not reviewed beforehand.

Also, if you flip between Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN:

It becomes apparent that CNN is against the war, Fox is for it, and MSNBC bounces their articles back and forth (which averages out to near zero).

The general idea is that you have to think for yourselves. Deductive. Reasoning.

Typically, you'd like the luxury of not having a firearm pointed at your head when you are reasoning. Sometimes this is not possible, but I think it is the vast majority of the time.

Unfortunately, I think the Iraqi Minister of Information has not this luxury...

 

The amount of silly pics shown, like dead GIs even, is only adding to the credibility of the censored pictures. It's along the line: "When they even show us such terrible sights, what shall they then hide?".

The whole media reporting suggests: "It's a ground war - this time it's serious!" So serious even US soldiers die. Pictures of dead GIs clearly underline that. They are shown because the people at home have to understand that, to prevent them from dropping support. These pictures serve a function. They induce emotions. Showing suffering of the soldiers they bind more people to the demands of patriotism and support for the boys and girls down there. This prevents unwanted questioning of the war: "Our soldiers die and you stab them in the back by criticising them?! They need our prayers, not your foulmouthing!" Deservably it's even so that the people may say "*MY* boy is down there and you ...." Counter that.

It's by far a more subtle approach of US PR than in first the gulf camaign. No one believed the US that the first gulf war was clean and "surgical". And this time there is significant action on the ground and so the seeker pics of laser guided bombs are out. Ground fighting pics dominate. And as ground war is bloody - we have been told that often enough - better get used to it. It's also an insurance in case things go bad.

The idea is to give the spectators in the US and the rest of the world the illusion of beeing well informed by checking several sources with different tendencies as that adds to the credibility of the PR. The Pentagon has learned it's lessons.

PS: As for the firing of Peter Arnett: IMO it's a warning for all the youngster reporters in the field, who might feel tempted to gain profile by beeing uncomfortable and critical: "See, it can even hit the prominents. Sure, Arnett will find a nother job in media business. But for you the consequences would be grim as you don't even have a name the people home know." That would probably convince me too to conform.

[ April 07, 2003, 06:29: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Rag...

I've been really impressed with some of your posts on this board. But you have me a bit confused on this one.

"The amount of silly pics shown, like dead GIs even, is only adding to the credibility of the censored pictures. It's along the line: "When they even show us such terrible sights, what shall they then hide"

What is it that you think that they are hideing? And given the "world wide" media reporting on this war, what kind of overt or even sensitive(in the emotional sence)censorship are you talking about? Do you believe the events being portrayed are not taking place?

""It's a ground war - this time it's serious!" So serious even US soldiers die. Pictures of dead GIs clearly underline that. They are shown because the people at home have to understand that, to prevent them from dropping support. These pictures serve a function. They induce emotions. Showing suffering of the soldiers they bind more people to the demands of patriotism and support for the boys and girls down there. This prevents unwanted questioning of the war"

So should they not show pictures of the dead GI's, or even not report on US casualties at all? Whoud that cause the public to NOT support the war? I don't really see you point here. Or what you are argureing for that matter. It almost sounds like you are upset that reporting the truth(granted, only for the most part) of what is happening from a tactical standpoint is a bad thing. If reporting is true, then it cannot be consider propagand. Now I have read the Goering quote...but I don't buy the arguement that the US government is manipulating the press in order to prevent unwanted questioning of the war. Maybe you are argueing that the war shouldn't be covered by the media at all? Showing all of the dead GI's during the Vietnam war didn't seem to prevent massive protests agains the war...by the contrary it increased them.

"It's by far a more subtle approach of US PR than in first the gulf camaign. No one believed the US that the first gulf war was clean and "surgical". And this time there is significant action on the ground and so the seeker pics of laser guided bombs are out"

Maybe you are argueing that the air war isn't being surgical at all this time around? That the reason we are not seeing endless shots of bombs flying through windows like GWI, is that they are not precise? That the pictures of all of these bombs and milliles hitting apartment building, hospitals, day care centers are being censored out by the military and the government? Even the Iraqi government?

"Ground fighting pics dominate. And as ground war is bloody - we have been told that often enough - better get used to it. It's also an insurance in case things go bad."

And that is the absolute truth

"The idea is to give the spectators in the US and the rest of the world the illusion of beeing well informed by checking several sources with different tendencies as that adds to the credibility of the PR. The Pentagon has learned it's lessons."

Now this one has me stumped. Am I to believe that the US government, and it's militay, have that much control over the WORLD WIDE media? Do you believe that all of the media reports are just an illusion? What are we not being told? What are we being told that is not credible?

If the war is being covered truthfully, and I believe that it is, then are you argueing that the truth is bringing credibility to the conflict? Granted different media sources, and I am including the arab press, put their own "spin" on the news. But the truth is still the truth.

On Arnett being fired......I think he was fired mainly b/c his statemnt on Iraqi TV was not only false, but stupid. Two good reasons, in my opinion, to be fired.

 

It's because they know they can win, so thats why almost everybody has banded together in support of the war.