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

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by 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....
*SNIP*

There are two sides to each argument. Arnetts continued employment with NBC required their continued happiness with his worthiness for the task he was employed for.

That ceased... and thus his employment ceased.

End of story.

[Dinner]

It comes down to every corporation has a right to act in the interests of their share holders. If the public precieves the network as being bias, reguardless if it is true or not, then a news network isn't going to do well. It is equally true that if the net work alienates its advertisers it will not do well.

NBC was reacting to its market interests not government censorship.

[MarkG]

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

he's still there you know....

i mean, look at what the Pentagon is saying about the Iraqi people and why they are not revolting

If the public precieves the network as being bias, reguardless if it is true or not, then a news network isn't going to do well

once again, shuting up against the (minority, hopefully) masses of idiots....

[spiritof1202]

the free market simply decided this matter, MarkG... it really is that simple.

[MarkG]

simple equals acceptable?

[spiritof1202]

Yes... in this case, absolutely acceptable. No massive protests outside NBC asking to reinstate Peter Arnett on NBC.

Come to think of it, the only protests that i've heard, have come from Greece... *smiles*

[Cyclotron]

Reporters are supposed to report news, not be news. Everybody knows that. When a reporter becomes the news story, he's not a very good reporter and I don't see why any news company wouldn't fire a bad reporter.

[MarkG]

No massive protests outside NBC asking to reinstate Peter Arnett

no massive protests to fire him either

Reporters are supposed to report news, not be news

is that supposed to be a more important argument than a reporter's freedom to say his opinion when he is not reporting(and reporting obectively! he was fired because of the interview not because his reports were bad)?

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by MarkG

No massive protests outside NBC asking to reinstate Peter Arnett

no massive protests to fire him either

Except the network execs that pulled the trigger of course... *grins* and they are the only ones that count in the debate of "keep him vs. fire him". They are the best placed to know the rating reactions to keeping him, and as such acted promptly and preemptively, as is their right.

[MarkG]

preemptively

see what Bush started?

the execs that you say "know best" took a decision to quickly and now i read that they have Fox puting out ads attacking them

[spiritof1202]

its their network... not Arnetts network.

They can act as they wish.

Prove, MarkG... why they shouldn't

Why should Peter Arnett have a job for life?

[MarkG]

They can act as they wish

there are these things called "contract". hopefully, in a free, democratic country with laws and courts, you cant be fired for speaking your opinion outside your work while doing your job right. at least not without geting a large amount of money. arnett should take nbc to court

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by MarkG

They can act as they wish

there are these things called "contract". hopefully, in a free, democratic country with laws and courts, you cant be fired for speaking your opinion outside your work while doing your job right. at least not without geting a large amount of money. arnett should take nbc to court

It has nothing to do with his stating his opinion. It has everything to do with NBCs view of the PUBLIC'S view of...

a) the opinion he stated
b) the forum in which he stated the opinion
c) the timing of the statement

[Ned]

Even if Arnett was censored by big American Media, he personally is not censored. There are plenty of anti-American sources of work for "journalists" of his political bent. Further, his views can still be heard in America by those who subscribe to the anti-American news rag that employs him.

This is all nonsense. News is far bigger than America. It is global. The problem of censorship arises when countries, such as the Chinese, attempt to block access to outside media and simultaneously censor domestic news.

[yavoon]

I have no fathoming how you ppl can consider arnette's firing a suppression of freedom of speech. you must have some ridiculously twisted interpretation of the first amendment.