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

[yavoon]

the ppl we are talking about rely on popular support. they are in the entertainment industry. I know u journalists groan being part of the entertainment industry.

thats why "they sacrifice their careers." its not a universal statement its just a byproduct of the place in which they earn thei rmoney.

and to be quite frank lotsa ppl w/ radical opinions make lotsa money. so its ont like the US acts in concert to supppress every dissenter by not buying their products or watching their show.

[The Mad Viking]

I think what TMV is getting at is that a free country requires not only a free press, but a press that is willing to keep the government in line. A nation in which the media has a tendency to support the government line is a bad thing.

Bless you, Tolls.

Gunk:

But as soon as you enter the political arena, you associate yourself with certain agendas. There are clearly good reasons why those who report the news should appear impartial, or at least not be at odds with their employer.

Actually, no. There are good reasons why newspapers should present a diversity of viewpoints, and that is the DUTY of the employer of a newspaper in a free country. But once again, that would only apply to a free country.

How would NBC protect itself from a boycott from those who disagree with Arnett? Better not to allow the problem in the first place.

Sure. Best to avoid the problem by presenting only the news people want.

And speaking of moron's, how does the good Senator expect to try a New Zealander in Baghdad for treason?

Gatekeeper:
I have little trouble with JOURNALISTS. It is the multinational conglomerates who run the media who get me steamed. Unfortunately, it is a conflict of interest to have the government regulate ownership of the media barons who finance their campaigns.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by yavoon
I know u journalists groan being part of the entertainment industry.

i'm a journalist? since when?

and to be quite frank lotsa ppl w/ radical opinions make lotsa money.

these people have probably based their jobs on "selling" their opinions

arnett gave a single interview. the dixie chicks singer made a single comment.

its ont like the US acts in concert to supppress every dissenter by not buying their products or watching their show.

in arnett, there wasnt even a need for an organized protest. nbc fired arnett instantly. radio stations acted against dixie chicks after a few phonecalls

dont you at least agree that corporations should think twice before acting? it seems like there is a "executives terror of the silent majority"

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Olaf HÃ¥rfagre
I like the ironic humour of that site. Have you been watching Michael Moore or what?

thanks. i've only seen a single michael moore documentary some time ago(i think it was about unmployment or something)

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

Sure. Best to avoid the problem by presenting only the news people want.

Arnett was on NATIONAL news channels. They simply cannot afford to carry a person who's views are so contrary to the viewers and advertisers.

Its simple free market economics.

Arnett can freely start his own public access news show. He has no guarantee to a national news network.

[yavoon]

so ur saying its immoral to not buy a dixie chicks album because u dislike their views? or are u saying its immoral to react as a corporation to ppl not buying ur product?

I dont know which side ur insinuating is immoral.

[MarkG]

so ur saying its immoral to not buy a dixie chicks album because u dislike their views?

"immoral" reminds me of the amazingly strange (to me) use of the word "evil"
i'd say "wrong"

musicians are to be judged (and have a job) by their music and lyrics.
reporterts are to be judged (and have a job) by their reports.

is something "immoral" about the above statements?

[Ned]

I don't know what Madonna was going to say. But the fact that she was going to say something highly negative on the war is known. It was rumored that she was going to throw a hand grenade at Bush in the video. There may be some in American, a few, who might be offended by this.

But, give her credit. She shut up at the right time. Perhaps she has had a change of heart. Perhaps she is simply looking our for No. 1. I'd personally would like to know the answer to this question.

[MarkG]

perhaps i've seen too many american movies where the good cop cant do a thing to the bad "white power" fascist cause he's only speaking his mind, but waits for him to actually break the law....

[spiritof1202]

the public has every right to base their commercial purchase decisions on any basis that they wish. That is the basis of a capitalist society.

Declaring that some form of decision is less valid, infringes the publics freedom... which is far more serious than infringing one persons freedom.

[The Mad Viking]

yavoon, you Constitutional Scholar, you...

Its called Freedom of the Press. I thought that might ring a bell. First Amendment, US Constitution...

Here's a excerpt from
An Unfettered Press
Constitutional Protection
by Robert S. Peck (Staff Director of the American Bar Association Commission on Public Understanding About the Law, and an expert on constitutional law.)

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., wrote in 1918: "The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market....That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution."

By expressing one's opinions, individuals are free to use reason and logic to win supporters. The expressions may sometimes be unreasonable and illogical, but it is not, the Constitution says, the responsibility of government to make that determination. The expressions must be permitted so people may judge the truth.

All American politicians, including such revered figures as founders -- and later presidents -- George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, have felt the sting of the press. In the U.S. constitutional system, the press occupies special ground, calling upon government officials to account for their actions and publicizing their failures so that voters may better judge them. Despite the ill treatment he received from the press of the 18th and early 19th centuries, Jefferson had no doubt of its importance. "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government," he wrote in 1802, "I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

A free press, as guaranteed in the First Amendment, plays a watchdog function in a democratic society: bringing people the information they need to exercise independent judgment in electing public officials who favor policies the people support. James Madison, who is regarded as the "Father of the U.S. Constitution" and was the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or perhaps both." A free press is thus an essential part of a democratic society; it enables the people to make informed choices.

The heavy presumption against censorship, which the Supreme Court acted upon in the Pentagon papers case, protects more than newspapers. When the Bill of Rights (comprising the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) was ratified, no one could anticipate the diversity of 20th-century communications. Radio, television, and computerized communications were beyond even the most vivid imaginations in 1791, when the First Amendment was added to the Constitution. Still, the concept of a free press has been applied to all these forms of communication. Broadcasters have First Amendment rights but, because the frequency spectrum is limited and people do not have equal access to the broadcast medium, their right of free expression is not identical to that of published or spoken communication. Broadcasters are considered public trustees of the airwaves and must serve the people -- for example, by carrying a certain amount of programming devoted to news and public issues.

Virtually all writers on constitutional freedoms express their belief that the media should be free from coercion by those in positions of power.

[yavoon]

why should they just be judged on their music? they certainly dont sell themselves on just their music. they sell their ideals, they sell their ass, they sell their sense of fashion. so why the hell do I have to go around and be blind to it when it DOESN'T help them.

and beyond that. its completely inane to place restrictions on the decision making process of consumers. u must be some ridiculous socialist.

[The Mad Viking]

OHMIGOD!!! SPIRITOF 1202!!! SHAME!!!

Declaring that some form of decision is less valid, infringes the publics freedom... which is far more serious than infringing one persons freedom.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GROUP FREEDOM!!!
THIS IS A LIE USED TO PERSECUTE INDIVIDUALS!!!
IT WAS INVENTED BY "DISADVANTAGED MINORITIES"!!!

THE ONLY FREEDOMS ARE INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS!!!

YIKES!!!

[yavoon]

so which company is gna pay to keep arnette employed so they can lose money? which part of the democratic process is that?

so is arnette because of his opinion now guarenteed work cuz we're all afraid that if we dont pay for him to express his opinions we are denying his freedom of speech? that is such a ludicrous ideal.

ur right in that the nations media is only as objective as the populace demands. but as long as its a public company there is no other way to do it.

and freedom of press is often reffered to as opposed to a gov't censorship, not that against a public company acting in its own interests.

[spiritof1202]

This isn't about Peter Arnetts freedom of speech, its his employment.

Nothing that NBC did violated Peters first amendment rights. He said it... and thats fine. Some people disliked that he did, and ultimately, he was fired.

No amount of repeating '1st amendment rights' will change the fact that this is an employment issue, and that NBC and NG are free to hire and fire him, as they wish.