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.

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by MarkG

Quote:

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.

[Oerdin]

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.