Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Peter Arnett

  1. Mar 31, 2003 #1

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Not sure if everyone heard, but Peter Arnett was fired yesterday from NBC/MSNBC for giving an interview on Iraqi tv. He said things not too dissimilar from what you hear on other reports about how the war isn't going well (according to the media), he just went a little further - and said the things on Iraqi TV. He practically congratulated the Iraqis on their efforts so far. My personal opinion is that this is borderline treason (question: is he an american citizen? he was born in New Zealand).

    Some of you may also remember his reports on the US using chemical weapons in the Vietnam war. That report was retracted by CNN and lead to his demise there - but he still stands by it and all the conspiracy theorists cling to it.

    In another thread, people are talking about propaganda, and maybe I'm moving that thread to here, but I tend to think the existence of Peter Arnett and the fact that despite saying hugely unpopular things he still gets jobs in mainstream media tends to validate the idea of "free press" in the US. The media in the US *DOES* report things that show the US in a negative light and they *DO* express opinions counter to the opinion of the government. They do these things on a daily basis because media thrives on controversy. To me thats the very definition of a free press.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 31, 2003 #2

    amp

    User Avatar

    LOL Russ,

    Actually, it tends to confirm what we've been saying - the message is- putting the US(namely its policy makers)in the light (never mind the negative) of truth... gets you canned if your a journalist paid by the major media outlets. Agent Orange... wonder if its a chemical..hmm
    its a 'Defoliant, I'm sure we've all heard what it has done to the vetrans that were exposed to it. Now the question is is it a weapon? Sorry Russ, Alias's sarcasm is rubbing off on me.<must decontaminate>:wink:
     
  4. Mar 31, 2003 #3
    Sorry Amp, it tends to confirm nothing of the sort. Your assertion is outrageous.

    Much of the American press tries to make the current US administration look like crap EVERY DAY. If your assertion were true, there wouldn't be anyone left to deliver the news.
     
  5. Mar 31, 2003 #4
    What some people call 'making teh president look bad', the rest of us call 'asking him to stop lying'.
     
  6. Mar 31, 2003 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    SARIN is the chemical weapon he was referring to, Amp.

    And like I said, the things he said are little different from what the media is saying constantly - the basic difference is that he said them on Iraqi tv. THAT is why he was canned.

    Assuming that he is lying doesn't make it true. The media has not gone that far.
     
  7. Mar 31, 2003 #6

    amp

    User Avatar

  8. Mar 31, 2003 #7
  9. Mar 31, 2003 #8
    I'll bite. Which lies are the most significant, do you think?
     
  10. Mar 31, 2003 #9

    amp

    User Avatar

    All,

    The significant thing is how he says one thing and does another. Get him/her(?) Zero, grrr
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2003
  11. Mar 31, 2003 #10
    exactly, lies themselves are not significant at all; it is that type of insignificant bs that is exactly the problem.
     
  12. Mar 31, 2003 #11
    I know this is getting off topic but let's clear this lying thing up.

    All politicians lie. It's okay if your side does it and bad if the other side does it. Is that about right?

    Or does it depend on what the definition of 'is' is?

    ***************

    Back to the topic...

    If Arnett is in Baghdad, and he doesn't have a job with the media, does that mean he is in grave danger?
     
  13. Mar 31, 2003 #12

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Amp, that is indeed Mr. Arnett's retracted report still being cited. It even mentions the retraction on that page.
    That is certainly true. As someone pointed out, he is a poltician. But we're talking specifically about this war. Stories on things like whether or not the generals asked for more troops, is the war going according to "plan," etc directly challenge the administration. But they don't accuse Bush of lying about those things. The media (and the politicians) are very careful about qualifying EVERYTHING they say. So its pretty difficult to catch them in flat-out lies. In the media, getting caught in a flat out lie usually gets you fired (which is why Arnett got fired for the Vietnam/Sarin story). This time around he was fired for bad taste/treason.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2003
  14. Apr 1, 2003 #13

    amp

    User Avatar

    Russ, what were you reading?

    heres snippets from the article.If you read you will notice Mr. Arnett is not the one who produced this in fact its out the mouths via broadcast TV of former members of SOG, mayhap you will notice this...this time.
    Russ posted:
    Did Mr. Arnett change his name?
    Article: (The Times of India - 11 July 1998)… when a CNN broadcast last month accused... The allegations focussed on an incident which occurred in Laos in September 1970. In the programme, former members of the Studies and Observation Group (SOG) -- a secret US army outfit -- confessed to dropping sarin on Vietcong fighters and even suggested that non-combatants might have been gassed…Pentagon media managers launched a guerrilla operation to discredit the CNN programme….Ms April Oliver and Mr Jack Smith, stood by their story and were summarily fired while an executive producer was forced to resign…The channel's retraction and subsequent dismissal of the staff involved raises disturbing questions about media freedom. While US journalists routinely speculate about the crimes of other governments on the flimsiest ofevidence, they are evidently not free to point fingers at their own
     
  15. Apr 1, 2003 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  16. Apr 1, 2003 #15

    amp

    User Avatar

    What you fail (refuse) to see even though its

    in plain sight is it was not Arnett's story(1), He was coerced into repudiating his part(narration)(2)and the site you put up to repudiate me confirms the Oliver's story.

    SEE:

    http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/july1998/cnn2-j24.shtml

    P.S. try to take off the blinders when you get to the parts you don't want to read.
     
  17. Apr 1, 2003 #16
    Re: What you fail (refuse) to see even though its

    but there is all sorts of turmoil and such invovled with that; why should one bother?
     
  18. Apr 1, 2003 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Amp, please. Are you also going to claim he was coerced into narrating it too? Please.

    When a reporter reads a report, they are attaching their name and their credibility to the report unless they state explicitly in the report that it is not their report. If it wasn't Arnett's report, then he wouldn't have been fired for reading it.

    Amp, this is another clear case of a circular arguement in a conspiracy theory: Since the claim was pulled, it must have been coerced (the retraction), and therefore it is a conspiracy. Why do you refuse to consider the possibility that it was pulled because the story itself was flawed? If the shoe were on the other foot you'd think that.
     
  19. Apr 1, 2003 #18

    amp

    User Avatar

    Yours is the classic misdirection ploy

    <Amp blocks the weak lay up attempt> you realize of course I've used your source against you. Your are right he narrated it. Does that make it his story? You can come better than that. Let me point out it was an interview of former SOG members on video. They were there... involved. <Amp shoots he scores...and the crowd goes wild...Yahhh>
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2003
  20. Apr 1, 2003 #19

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    *YES* unless he specifically stated that it was NOT his story, it is his story. Thats how being a reporter works. When Gore said, "I took the initiative in inventing the internet" did the fact that he didn't write the words mean he wasn't responsible for saying them? NO. Similarly the reason the producers weren't reading the report is because the report gains credibility by being read by the reporter. By reading it, he gives his stamp of approval to it. Do you really think a reporter writes ANYTHING he says if it isn't live?

    Regardless of what YOU think, CNN clearly disagrees with you. They would not have fired Arnett if they didn't consider him to be responsible for what he said.

    So take it either way you want it. Either way, you are still wrong.

    Look I realize you don't like being proven wrong, but circular arguements, hairsplitting, and sarcasm do NOT help you to save face - they just make you look childish. Admitting your error so we can move on is the honorable and mature thing to do.
     
  21. Apr 1, 2003 #20

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I think it was Slate that had the best reason for firing Arnett. It wasn't because of his politics, or treason or anything like that. It was because he is a naive dupe. That does not disqualify you from many professions, but it makes you a terrible reporter.

    Njorl
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Peter Arnett
Loading...