Peter Arnett: "Iraqis ... See Me as a Fellow Warrior."

[MarkG]

And some Americans manage to make the subject totally ridiculous one more time.....


Petition drive calls for U.S. to revoke Peter Arnett's passport

http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=15617

[Daz]

CICSMaster:

Knowing of his anti-americanism, isn't it kinda strange the US TV stations (specially CNN) kept him for so long?

I mean, if you know someone is a traitor, and he proves that repeatedly, why stick with him?

...suspicious...

[Guest]

Not, if you know what the aim of the US TV stations are/is.

They are all about shock. The greater the shock, the more people watch.

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
News coming in: Arnett hired by the Daily Mirror, some British newspaper.

I haven't seen anyone defect from the U.S. to the British that fast since Benedict Arnold. Hmmm.... Benedict Arnett?

[The Mad Viking]

In a free country, you have a free media.

You do not get fired for what you say.

In particular, you should not get fired for reporting the truth.

But then, that would only apply to a free country.

[Jac de Molay]

They can fire him for any reason they want.

This only confirms my belief that the American war coverage is such biased cheerleading that anyone with a dissenting (anti-war) view is given short shrift.

Arnett's a wacko, but there's people much saner who dont receive any time or consideration on snoozestations these days.

[The Mad Viking]

Actually, one of the keystones of a free society is, paradoxically, not being able to fire reporters and editorialists for any reason they want.

Without an open press that can report WITHOUT FEAR OF REPRISAL you do not have a free country.

[Jac de Molay]

Without an open press that can report WITHOUT FEAR OF REPRISAL you do not have a free country.

Freedom of the press is not about saying what you want without fear of reprisal from the place you work for.

It's about freedom to report and editorialize without reprisal from the government. That's the First Amendment protection that people and press are afforded.

There was a 'dixie chicks' thread about sort of the same thing. Like I said, it just proves how pro-war biased our media is, but they reserve the right to fire him for any reason whatsoever.

[Gatekeeper]

TMV, et al.:

Y'know, for a country that supposedly doesn't have a free press, I sure as hell find it pretty easy to find a rainbow of opinions within the journalism world regarding the war in Iraq — from supporters to non-supporters to those who think the war supporters/non-supporters camps are *both* idiots and so on.

I don't know about you, but the press certainly isn't shackled as much as some folks think it is. A lot of the complaints can be strained down to one single assertion: The press ain't covering the war the way *I* think it should, so therefore it must be:

1. Controlled by evil corporations.
2. Controlled by evil liberals.

I mean, c'mon! Make up your minds, folks. Are we folks in the press brainwashed demonic corporate automatons or pot-smoking free-loving hippie liberals?

More often than not, "none of the above" would apply.

Gatekeeper

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Actually, one of the keystones of a free society is, paradoxically, not being able to fire reporters and editorialists for any reason they want.

Without an open press that can report WITHOUT FEAR OF REPRISAL you do not have a free country.

Would this apply if Arnett starting spouting, say, white supremacy propoganda? If a newspaper is FORCED to print opinions it does not want to, THAT would be a violation of free speach.

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Actually, one of the keystones of a free society is, paradoxically, not being able to fire reporters and editorialists for any reason they want.

Without an open press that can report WITHOUT FEAR OF REPRISAL you do not have a free country.

Freedom of speech extends only to the individual.

He's free to speak, as an individual, but the media is a commercial construct and able to make its own commercial decisions. If they believe that Peter Arnett will effect their ratings then its in their right to fire him, and hire someone else that they feel will not adversely effect their ratings.

Peter Arnett is free to get another job with another news organization, and has apparently already done so.

[The Mad Viking]

Suffice to say, and I almost never will do this, but

YOU ARE ALL HORRIBLY WRONG! (Not to mention terribly misguided.)

(Gatekeeper- I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I don't think it really applies- I'm not suggesting the press is "shackled". "Whipped" is the term that comes to mind. )

OTHERS: Freedom of speech clearly does not extend only to the individual. Just like TENURE in universities, the individual must be protected FROM HIS EMPLOYER because it is clear that COVERT INFLUENCE can be applied there.

I'm not suggesting, obviously, that NBC shouldn't be entitled to fire Arnett. They just require NON-POLITICAL REASONS to do so. Or they would in a FREE COUNTRY.

Sorry about the shouting.

[MarkG]

more fun stuff

Try Arnett for treason, senator says

http://enquirer.com/editions/2003/04/02/loc_rail.bunning02.html

Correspondent Peter Arnett should be "tried as a traitor" for remarks he made in an interview with Iraqi state television, Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., said Tuesday.

"I think he should be brought back and tried as a traitor to the United States of America, for his aiding and abetting the Iraqi government during a war," Bunning said in a conference call with reporters. Later in a speech on the Senate floor, Bunning said: "Mr. Arnett can apologize all he likes for being a `useful idiot' for Saddam and his barbaric regime. But that's not enough for me, and it's certainly not enough for our soldiers and many Americans."

"I think Mr. Arnett should be met at the border and arrested should he come back to America," said Bunning.

[MarkG]

the passport petition is here

http://www.afa.net/petitions/arnett.asp

[yavoon]

arnette's freedom of speech is not being encroached upon in the slightest. so can all you ignorant ppl please stop it w/ those insinuations.