Peter Arnett: "Iraqis ... See Me as a Fellow Warrior." - Page 3

MarkG · April 2, 2003, 20:08

Quote:

arnette's freedom of speech is not being encroached upon in the slightest.

ok then, just his freedom to work

he has resorted to get a job in another country. cool huh?

yavoon · April 2, 2003, 20:12

indeed.

MarkG · April 2, 2003, 20:27

signed the petition yet yavoon?

yavoon · April 2, 2003, 20:28

to wut? remove his passport? no thats just bandwagon idiocy.

DinoDoc · April 2, 2003, 21:52

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
ok then, just his freedom to work

That isn't being effected either. He won't miss one paycheck.

Quote:

he has resorted to get a job in another country. cool huh?

He should be glad to even have a job after the fiasco he created at CNN.

MarkG · April 3, 2003, 02:57

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That isn't being effected either. He won't miss one paycheck.

is there any US network that will dare to offer him a job?

Quote:

He should be glad to even have a job after the fiasco he created at CNN.

1) he just presented that report

2) i'm sure CNN didnt air it just like that but had some people look at it first.....

notyoueither · April 3, 2003, 03:00

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG

Quote:

arnette's freedom of speech is not being encroached upon in the slightest.

ok then, just his freedom to work

Sorry to break this to you buddy, but you have no God given right to a job.

All sorts of stupidity can result in your losing them. Saying something stupid is just one of them.

Tolls · April 3, 2003, 03:55

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.

I agree with Gatekeeper in that there is a wide range of views portrayed by the US media as a whole, but the MAJOR news outlets are not so evenly balanced, and that poses a problem. The shift in quality of reporting in the US media over the past 30+ years is not good...I very much doubt you'd get a Watergate investigation these days.

Having said all that, Arnett is an idiot and it never ceases to amaze me that people will keep employing the moron...

Gatekeeper · April 3, 2003, 05:14

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
(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.

)

I can understand where that view might come from, so I'm going to let you in on a small secret regarding journalism: A lot of us go into the field after college (or sometimes straight out of high school, but that's rare nowadays) all bright-eyed, chippy and, some would say, naive. We want to change the world for the better. Unfortunately, said world often chews up a good number of journalists and spits us out, and we become cranky, disillusioned and generally *hard-edged* to a degree towards *all* parties and issues — liberals, conservatives, greenies, commies, grandma, abortion, wars, revolutions, the local mayor who's crooked ... you name the subject, and there's likely to be a journalist out there somewhere who's just a bit jaded and disillusioned with it. Not everyone, mind you, but enough so to warrant its admission.

Sounds human, doesn't it? Well, it is, and it's also seen in other professions (doctors, lawyers and so on ...), so it's not an "exclusive" domain, so to speak.

If I had to classify the state of journalism today, I'd say that there are a number of "dreamers" in our field who are tempered by the "crusty" veterans. Some may be "whipped," while others may be just "crusty," while yet others are still "dreamers," and, last but not least, we have the "tempered" ones who do their jobs as journalists as best they can and go on from there.

It evens out in the end, and I truly hope, TMV, that you can see beyond the obvious to the "not-so-obvious," when it comes to journalists. We're human, and sometimes painfully so.

Gatekeeper

spiritof1202 · April 3, 2003, 09:02

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
is there any US network that will dare to offer him a job?

US News networks have US citizen audiences. The networks views' are generally that Arnett reports will cause viewers to switch to other networks if he's reporting on their network. Commercially they can't sustain him.

This is no such thing as "Arnett Aid"

Quote:

1) he just presented that report

2) i'm sure CNN didnt air it just like that but had some people look at it first.....

A few other individuals involved were also fired.

MarkG · April 3, 2003, 11:48

Quote:

Originally posted by spiritof1202
US News networks have US citizen audiences. The networks views' are generally that Arnett reports will cause viewers to switch to other networks if he's reporting on their network. Commercially they can't sustain him.

"you're free to your opinion outside your job. unless it's commercially unsustainable"

DinoDoc · April 3, 2003, 12:00

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
"you're free to your opinion outside your job. unless it's commercially unsustainable"

And compromise your ability to report objectively while at the same time being unnecessary.

Bereta_Eder · April 3, 2003, 12:28

That's a blatant suppression of speech anyway you look at it.

You say the wrong thing, doesn't matter if it's true, they fire you.

So much for that.

See, Americans do this kind of errour: They always hyperestimate the possibilities of their armed forces and when these don't of course fulfill their overblown "prophcies" they take it out on journalists who dare to speak what is already common knowledge.

Happened in Vietnam, is happening here.

Nothing new.

Of course one has got to ask this question: if your country was at war (well war in this case is not the right word) would you think it's ok to say "undermining" things?

And was that "undermining"

yavoon · April 3, 2003, 12:33

there is nothing in the constitution that sez a journalist can't be fired for what he sez.

so stop bastardizing the constitution to your political aims

Bereta_Eder · April 3, 2003, 12:34

LOL

Bereta_Eder · April 3, 2003, 12:35

it isn't a matter of constitution.
thelatter is not meant to be all encompasing.

its a matter of political culture and how strong the freedom of speech is in the US.

and of course the other question about the US being in a "war".

yavoon · April 3, 2003, 12:36

"freedom of speech" is a constitutional issue. weilding it around willy nilly isnt doing anyone any favors.

so just stop.

gunkulator · April 3, 2003, 12:37

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

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.

What a strange notion of freedom you have. So are you suggesting that NBC be compelled to keep Arnett? And presumably the gov't would enforce this. What you are describing then is the very definition of state controlled media.

Quote:

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.

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

Bereta_Eder · April 3, 2003, 12:38

so you're sayiong it isnt a constitutional issue and then say it is?

you sound very confused.

yavoon · April 3, 2003, 12:40

I never once sed it wasn't a constitutional issue. I said there is nothing in the constitution that sez u can not be fired as a journalist for what you say.

since ur having issues w/ comprehension try this:

freedom of speech does not protect arnette from being fired.

Ned · April 3, 2003, 12:41

There's plenty of work for anti-American journalists who want to deliver biased opinions as news. This guy could write a book about his experiences. I am sure it will be a top seller in France and the Arab world.

Bereta_Eder · April 3, 2003, 12:42

but you fail to answer that this is a matter of political culture and the strength of the american so called frredom of speech

if you could stop dancing around and answer you might start making a bit more sence?

yavoon · April 3, 2003, 12:45

when u stop using words like freedom of speech like we dont have any because some idiot journalist got fired.

try something like "how objective our media is when they fire complete biased whackos"

that would be more appropriate.

Bereta_Eder · April 3, 2003, 12:50

it is obvious im talking to a biased person.

the question you repeadetly fail to answer is about the quality of your so called freedom

Bereta_Eder · April 3, 2003, 12:51

and about the "ubdermining character" in times of "war"

although the word is not really the right one in this case.

yavoon · April 3, 2003, 12:53

and the point u seem to not be hearing is that our quality of freedom of speech is in full effect.

the question is the objectivity of our media, not the quality of our freedom of speech. its obvious you want to use a word like freedom of speech cuz it makes your case stronger, or atleast more shocking. but trying to use it is pure propaganda and until you stick to accurate usage I simply dont care what questions you ask.

Bereta_Eder · April 3, 2003, 12:55

when someone gets fired for what he says, even more so when his words are true, then of course it is a case about freedom of speech. even more importantly so in the field of journalism, the one profession supposed to be the guardian of democracy.

you still fail to answer that question as well as the "undermining" character of what he said.

spiritof1202 · April 3, 2003, 12:57

Freedom of speech doesn't mean guaranteed employment.

yavoon · April 3, 2003, 12:58

if you can't fire a journalist for what he sez what can u fire him for? is he unfirable? his opinions are his product, nbc hired him for his product. then they saw his product was going to hamper them greatly instead of adding. so they dumped him.

he is FULLY capable of expressing his constitutional right to freedom of speech in any # of other ways. simply because nbc wont allow him to do it while paying him hardly means that it has been encroached upon.

spiritof1202 · April 3, 2003, 12:58

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
when someone gets fired for what he says, even more so when his words are true, then of course it is a case about freedom of speech. even more importantly so in the field of journalism, the one profession supposed to be the guardian of democracy.

you still fail to answer that question as well as the "undermining" character of what he said.

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