Peter Arnett's Dismissal from NBC/MSNBC: A Free Press Perspective

[russ_watters]

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 That report was retracted by CNN and lead to his demise there - but he still stands by it and all the conspiracy theorists cling to it.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 that's the very definition of a free press.

 

[amp]

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>

 

[Alias]

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.

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.

 

[Zero]

What some people call 'making teh president look bad', the rest of us call 'asking him to stop lying'.

 

[russ_watters]

Agent Orange... wonder if its a chemical..hmm

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.

What some people call 'making teh president look bad', the rest of us call 'asking him to stop lying'.

Assuming that he is lying doesn't make it true. The media has not gone that far.

 

[amp]

That was rhetorical Russ but now that you mention it...

there is a site in my thread that 'Americas no Angel...' that talks about the use of chemical weapons in Vietnam, here tis and its not Mr. Arnett.:

http://www.refuseandresist.org/resist_this/072498timesindiaed.html

 

[Zero]

Bush is a liar. This is a fact(he's a politician, isn't he?) Want a list of lies so far?


Here's some budgetary lies:http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm

He's a liar, no question about it.

 

[Alias]

I'll bite. Which lies are the most significant, do you think?

 

[amp]

All,

The significant thing is how he says one thing and does another. Get him/her(?) Zero, grrr

 

[kyleb]

exactly, lies themselves are not significant at all; it is that type of insignificant bs that is exactly the problem.

 

[Alias]

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?

 

[russ_watters]

there is a site in my thread that 'Americas no Angel...' that talks about the use of chemical weapons in Vietnam, here tis and its not Mr. Arnett.:

Amp, that is indeed Mr. Arnett's retracted report still being cited. It even mentions the retraction on that page.

exactly, lies themselves are not significant at all; it is that type of insignificant bs that is exactly the problem.

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.

 

[amp]

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:

Amp, that is indeed Mr. Arnett's retracted report still being cited.

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

 

[russ_watters]

Amp, those are the producers and yes, they were also fired. Arnett has claimed he had nothing to do with the production and just read the script. Nevertheless CNN fired him for reading it.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/apr1999/oliv-a22.shtml

 

[amp]

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.

 

[kyleb]

Originally posted by amp
P.S. try to take off the blinders when you get to the parts you don't want to read.

but there is all sorts of turmoil and such invovled with that; why should one bother?

 

[russ_watters]

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.

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 argument 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.

 

[amp]

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>

 

[russ_watters]

Your are right he narrated it. Does that make it his story?

*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.

 

[Njorl]

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

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Njorl
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

Yeah, but news outlets love controversy. It only takes days before another network picks him up. And they love his controversy until he says or does something that bites THEM in the ass. Then they drop him like a bad habit for the next network to pick up. Amusing.

 

[damgo]

^^^ Hours, actually. The Daily Mirror (a British paper) picked him up a few hours later.

“They don't want credible news organizations reporting from here because it presents them with enormous problems,” Arnett was quoted as saying by British Daily Mirror.

I reported on the original bombing for NBC and we were half a mile away from those massive explosions. Now I am really shocked that I am no longer reporting this story for the U.S. and awed by the fact that it actually happened.

“That overnight my successful NBC reporting career was turned to ashes. And why? Because I stated the obvious to Iraqi television; that the U.S. war timetable has fallen by the wayside.

 

[amp]

Damgo good post,

Russ your right, when Richard Attenborough narrates on Nature, its his. When Allen Alda narrates Scientific Aerican Frontiers, the work of all those scientists are his, after all Richard and Allen are recognized names and when they attach their names to those productions, the work becomes theirs...NOT. Thats a martial art technique I call piercing the circle of YOUR circular argument. Russ, I guess Mr. Arnett will repudiate when he is sgian threatened, eh what. CNN was squeezed by the Pentagon- have no doubts- its something like strong arm technique.

 

[russ_watters]

They don't want credible news organizations reporting from here because it presents them with enormous problems

Wait, is Arnett conceding that he is *NOT* a credible news source?

 

[N_Quire]

Peter Arnett is now free to say what he wants thanks to the British newspaper the Daily Mirror, a left/liberal paper which backs Tony Blair but not the War in Iraq. Arnett is not overly impressed with the American leadership of the war and is directly critical of Rumsfeld.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ your right, when Richard Attenborough narrates on Nature, its his. When Allen Alda narrates Scientific Aerican Frontiers, the work of all those scientists are his, after all Richard and Allen are recognized names and when they attach their names to those productions, the work becomes theirs...

Amp those people CITE the work of others in their narration. Thats not investigative journalism. Enough hairsplitting. Conversation over.

 

[amp]

Well as I said in another thread

Rumsfeld is undercutting/micromanaging the war, he should leave the job to the people that are trained and know what they are doing.

 

[amp]

Russ,

same with Arnett, he didn't say he did the foot work, nor did he tell those former SOG members what to say, Period.

 

[N_Quire]

I have just read Arnett in the Mirror and I can't really argue with anything he says. It seems non-controversial to me and I support the War.http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12795678&method=full&siteid=50143

 

[russ_watters]

Arright, fine, one more thing. Transcript: http://www.aim.org/publications/special_reports/NewsStand06-14.html

"...our report..."

From Time magazine: http://www.aim.org/publications/special_reports/TIME06-15.html

"By APRIL OLIVER AND PETER ARNETT"

When a person attaches his name to a story - including actually participating in the story's construction (he conducted interviews himself and helped write the article in Time), he is attaching his credibility and vouching for the accuracy of the report.

You can draw whatever conclusions you wish. Clearly I have mine (and CNN agrees).

Amp, it just seems to me like you want to be able to separate the report from Arnett because of Arnett's lack of credibility - thereby increasing the credibility of the report. Thats about the only way you can justify continuing to cite an admittedly (by cnn) inaccurate and intentionally misleading report.

 

[amp]

It is somber Nquire and sobering,

this caught my eye - Mr. Arnett says "I don't blame NBC for their decision because they came under great commercial pressure from the outside", interesting he didn't point an accusing finger at Bush.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by amp
this caught my eye - Mr. Arnett says "I don't blame NBC for their decision because they came under great commercial pressure from the outside", interesting he didn't point an accusing finger at Bush.

"Commercial pressure"? I'm not sure what he means there. Sponsors pulling ads?

 

[kat]

Originally posted by russ_watters
"Commercial pressure"? I'm not sure what he means there. Sponsors pulling ads?

Their ratings dropped, no wait..I think they plummetted..like someone tied a cement brick around the neck and dropped em over a bridge..get it?

 

[N_Quire]

News at the mercy of commercial interests? How can that be news?

 

[kat]

Originally posted by N_Quire
News at the mercy of commercial interests? How can that be news?

Ya..can you believe it..a commercial enterprise like...get this..commercial television..would care about commercial interests...unbelievable!