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

[Bereta_Eder]

but the reason why he was fired was simply for displeasing the political status quo of the country. which makes this of paramount importance and absolutely relevant to freedom of speech.
political culture included in the mix.


he was not fired for being inacurate, sloppy in his job, teeling lies, not crosschecking, he was fired because the "lords" of the US didnt like what he said.


this can very well be interpreted as a serious curtailing of the journalistic profession.


so you only keep journalists that say lies that please you?


you could, but you're in serious want if this is the case.

[yavoon]

first of all, he was not in the least bit objective. so if ur journalistic integrity definition includes being objective. then you dont have a damn leg to stand on when trying to defend arnette under some guise of him being this great and impartial journalist.

and seriously stop using freedom of speech. the more u use it the more stupid you look. and the more uninformed you sound.

[spiritof1202]

He was fired by a corporation. The reason was commercial, not political. People don't like what Arnett had to say (and thus won't watch that network.) The peoples reasons for not liking what he had to say were political.

[Bereta_Eder]

hwat he said was that the "war" was not going as planned.


and you think this is a lie?

and freedom of speech is what this is all about.


you sound more medieval by each post....

[Bereta_Eder]

basically the illusion of unhindered freedom of speech in the US has suffered a major blow. for those that beleived it in the 1st place that is.

[Bereta_Eder]

if those words bother you, then you can tell it a mockery of the independance journalists should have.

eaitherway it falls under the 1st precept.

too bad for the US.

[Bereta_Eder]

that being solved we come to the one aspect that can exhilarate to some extend the US political culture.

and that is in times of "war" what is OK to say and what it isnt?

I imagine you dont get scenes of dismembered iraqi children by the american bombs either?

[spiritof1202]

You just don't get it paiktis.

Arnett was and is free to say whatever he wants.

He is also in a competitive environment in which RATINGS matter.

What he said is unpopular to the audience in the US. It is a reporters job not only to report news, but to maintain and increase the networks ratings in doing so.

If they act in a way which reduces the networks ratings, they can EXPECT a pink-slip.

He was free to make the comment, and free to search for a new job.

I find it interesting that Peter Arnett himself DISAGREES with your viewpoint, Paiktis.... as his lawyer hasn't attempted to file a civil suit against NBC, just as he didn't when his contract wasn't renewed by CNN. In fact he apologized to the network, which implies culpability.

[DinoDoc]

This thread is dead now that Zorba is here.

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by paiktis22
basically the illusion of unhindered freedom of speech in the US has suffered a major blow. for those that beleived it in the 1st place that is.

What about the network's freedom of speech? Maybe they don't want to be associated with a guy who's willing to become a mouthpiece for a dictatorial regime just to get a career advancing interview with said dictator. Freedom of speech works both ways.

[MarkG]

And compromise your ability to report objectively

i fail to see how
plus, his reports where just fine for nbc until the interview. obviously he has the same opinions while doing these reports. it wasnt as if he suddenly had a revelation in front of the iraqi camera

while at the same time being unnecessary

when you're forced to appear as good man to a regime in order to allow you to stay there, what it is unnecessary varies a lot from when you're thousands of miles away

Arnett gave an interview to another news network, and as such is probably in violation of his contract.

i've seen dozens of interviews by arnett the last few years....

[spiritof1202]

and NBC can choose to react how and when they want to ratings and contract obligations. Its their right as a corporation.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MarkG
when you're forced to appear as good man to a regime in order to allow you to stay there,

Now your making up things Arnett himself didn't even claim.

[MarkG]

and NBC can choose to react how and when they want to ratings and contract obligations. Its their right as a corporation

amazing how easily we end up with the "it's a corporation, it's money, though luck" argument these days....

Now your making up things Arnett himself didn't even claim

am i supposed to only repeat arnett's public arguments?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MarkG
am i supposed to only repeat arnett's public arguments?

It's hard to claim coercion in defense of someone when they fail to mention any.