The two faces of Peter Arnett

tim · **Posted:** Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:34 am

In the Daily Mirror of April 1, written by Arnett:
"SOME reporters make judgements but that is not my style. I present both sides and report what I see with my own eyes."A reporter, not an analyst.In a story on Mr. Arnett in the Los Angeles Times of April 2:
"Earlier in his career, Arnett won a Pulitzer Prize for his Vietnam War reporting and he also worked for CNN, but now, he said, he is an analyst and documentary filmmaker."An analyst, not a reporter.Oh, there is so much more with this guy. In the Daily Mirror piece, Arnett said the optimism about the war effort from the U.S. is justified, yet in his interview on Iraq TV, he said the U.S. war plan was a failure.Monday, he apologized. Tuesday, he is pissed for being treated unfairly.I'm kind of intrigued as to what he comes up with next.[ April 02, 2003: Message edited by: Tim Hathcock ]

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:53 am

Was Arnett's mistake that he appeared on Iraqi TV or that he criticized the U.S. war plan? If he had gone on Iraqi TV and praised the war plan, I doubt he would have been fired. It follows that he was fired for espousing unpopular views. It's another attach on free speech.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Apr 02, 2003 2:05 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
Was Arnett's mistake that he appeared on Iraqi TV or that he criticized the U.S. war plan? If he had gone on Iraqi TV and praised the war plan, I doubt he would have been fired. It follows that he was fired for espousing unpopular views. It's another attach on free speech.<hr></blockquote>Peter Arnett was an AP guy who became a TV showman during the 1991 war. That was the apex of his stardom. His mistake, as far as I can tell, was thinking that his opinion matters.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Wed Apr 02, 2003 5:50 pm

The guy may be the biggest jerk in the world, but as you know, the point is not whether his opinion matters; it's whether he's allowed to express it. I am arguing that his "mistake" was not in airing an opinion but in airing the "wrong" opinion.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Apr 02, 2003 6:15 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
The guy may be the biggest jerk in the world, but as you know, the point is not whether his opinion matters; it's whether he's allowed to express it. I am arguing that his "mistake" was not in airing an opinion but in airing the "wrong" opinion.<hr></blockquote>You're probably right. My point is that it doesn't matter.

jmcg · **Posted:** Wed Apr 02, 2003 8:57 pm

I think the issue is the medium more than
his opinion. I have enough problems with
reporters on the tube, promoting themselves
and their ill-gotten, half-ass celebrity.
Arnett did all that -- and on Iraqi government TV, which is even more than a despicable propaganda arm than, say, Fox News.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Thu Apr 03, 2003 1:04 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by jmcg:
I think the issue is the medium more than
his opinion. <hr></blockquote>NBC said when it canned him that it was wrong for Arnett to appear on Iraqi TV, so they are indeed claiming that as an issue. But do you believe Arnett would have been fired if he had said on Iraqi TV that the Americans were kicking ass?

tim · **Posted:** Thu Apr 03, 2003 2:12 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
NBC said when it canned him that it was wrong for Arnett to appear on Iraqi TV, so they are indeed claiming that as an issue. But do you believe Arnett would have been fired if he had said on Iraqi TV that the Americans were kicking ass?<hr></blockquote>The decision to fire Arnett was correct, regardless of what NBC's motivations were.If Arnett was a reporter, which he clearly was, then he has no business spouting his opinions of the war on air, be it Iraqi TV or MSNBC. He compromised the trust of many of his viewers, who subsequently could not have watched his reports without wondering if they were tainted by his publicly stated views.If Arnett was an analyst, which he only claimed to be after the fact, then he was a pitiful one. I imagine the four journalists who were imprisoned for a week would argue that journalists have not been treated well by Iraqis, as Arnett claimed. The war plan, while flawed, cannot yet be called a failure, as Arnett said. And there is no proof that Arnett's reporting eroded support for the war here in the U.S., as if Arnett could know such a thing. Support for the war spiked after it began, which was predictable. Everything I have seen indicates it has remained steady.Arnett's arrogance did him in, not NBC's cowardess.

Bakelite · **Posted:** Thu Apr 03, 2003 5:13 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
But do you believe Arnett would have been fired if he had said on Iraqi TV that the Americans were kicking ass?<hr></blockquote>I doubt that Iraqi TV would be devoting much airtime to that opinion.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Fri Apr 04, 2003 12:20 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Dean Betz:
I doubt that Iraqi TV would be devoting much airtime to that opinion.<hr></blockquote>Of course not, but that's beside the point.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Fri Apr 04, 2003 12:40 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Tim Hathcock:
If Arnett was a reporter, which he clearly was, then he has no business spouting his opinions of the war on air, be it Iraqi TV or MSNBC. He compromised the trust of many of his viewers, who subsequently could not have watched his reports without wondering if they were tainted by his publicly stated views. <hr></blockquote>Most of these TV guys spout opinions, and it's obvious that their reports are tainted by their views. The difference is their views are "patriotic," whereas Arnett's seemed to be the opposite. You say his analysis was wrong. Perhaps so, but that's not usually a fireable offense.

Bakelite · **Posted:** Fri Apr 04, 2003 2:03 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
Of course not, but that's beside the point.<hr></blockquote>I believe it is the point. It was the context of Arnett's expression of free speech that was his downfall, not the mere expression of unpopular or inconvenient views. Had he made the same statements in a studio interview with an MSNBC talking head, rather than voicing them on the primary propaganda arm of a nation that is "the enemy," he'd still have a TV job.[ April 04, 2003: Message edited by: Dean Betz ]

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Fri Apr 04, 2003 2:52 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Dean Betz:
Had he made the same statements in a studio interview with an MSNBC talking head, rather than voicing them on the primary propaganda arm of a nation that is "the enemy," he'd still have a TV job.[ April 04, 2003: Message edited by: Dean Betz ]<hr></blockquote>That's probably true, and I admit it's a flaw in my argument. Obviously, it was the combination of the message and the medium that the American network found unpalatable. But if we can agree that Arnett is free to express his views, why isn't he free to express them on Iraqi TV? Because it is run by the enemy? The assumption is that reporters are supposed to take sides--or rather the American side. Do you think Arnett would have been fired if he had been working for a truly neutral network in, say, Brazil or India, where his patriotism would not have been called into question?

rumymommy · **Joined:** Tue Aug 06, 2002 12:01 am **Posts:** 138

As evidenced by the horse-shit ads Fox News has put out regarding the pissing match between them and NBC, Arnett was a liability simply because he wasn't wrapping his drivel in red, white and blue. Let's face it, there's no room on American television -- and too little in print -- for criticism of the war or those in charge of it. The bottom line is no one is allowed to say "unpopular" opinions without having some effect on the bottom line of whatever it is they do. The Dixie Chicks will give me an amen on that. As usual, real news has taken a back seat to viewers and profit.I have seen an Iraqi news broadcast, and it's no more slanted than Fox News. Seriously. But no doubt Arnett should have gotten the go-ahead for his "professional courtesy" interview from a higher up at the station. If they approved the interview and his spouting opinion, he shouldn't have been fired for giving his true views. Takebacks are a shitty business mantra.

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:22 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:

But if we can agree that Arnett is free to express his views, why isn't he free to express them on Iraqi TV? <hr></blockquote>In the United States of 2003, I'm not sure a noncitizen is free to express opinions without fear of retribution. Arnett doesn't have dual citizenship, does he?Arnett was free to do what he did, just not with a guarantee that the U.S. government would protect him from his employer.Individual newsgatherers -- be they citizens or noncitizens -- have no absolute right to express an opinion on anything without threat of dismissal by their employers. Good luck winning strong enough backing from any professional association to win that fight.Obviously, Iraqi TV and a for-profit U.S. network are not good places to test these rights.

Hawkeye · **Posted:** Sat Apr 05, 2003 1:04 am

I don't know about dual citizenship, but on the Today Show (or one of those) he mentioned "being an American."

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sat Apr 05, 2003 3:26 am

AP said he became a U.S. citizen in 1980.[ April 05, 2003: Message edited by: blanp ]

jmcg · **Posted:** Sat Apr 05, 2003 1:16 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
AP said he became a U.S. citizen in 1980.[ April 05, 2003: Message edited by: blanp ]<hr></blockquote>And to think hundreds of papers run AP copy unedited. Nail this down for us, would you?

gullyj · **Posted:** Sat Apr 05, 2003 2:32 pm

Right or wrong, America is at war against Iraq.
That makes Iraq the enemy of America.
Iraq TV is a state-owned propaganda device for America's enemy.
Freedom of speech is an unknown concept to Iraq TV.
Arnett got in bed with America's enemy. He was free to say whatever he liked but Iraq TV was only going listen to what it wanted to hear.
Arnett got what he deserved.
I do not believe America should be at war with Iraq but Arnett's actions were just stupid.[ April 05, 2003: Message edited by: canuck ]

rumymommy · **Joined:** Tue Aug 06, 2002 12:01 am **Posts:** 138

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by canuck:
Right or wrong, America is at war against Iraq.
That makes Iraq the enemy of America.
Iraq TV is a state-owned propaganda device for America's enemy.
Freedom of speech is an unknown concept to Iraq TV.
<hr></blockquote>Apparently American TV shares the same view. American media is not at war with Iraq. American media is supposed to be fair and cover as many sides as possible. That isn't happening. And when American media looks at the target of a U.S. administration's war as the enemy, American media is no better than any government-controlled office anywhere else in the world.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Mon Apr 07, 2003 3:45 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by canuck:
I do not believe America should be at war with Iraq but Arnett's actions were just stupid.[ April 05, 2003: Message edited by: canuck ]<hr></blockquote>Were they stupid? You're in a city under attack in a nation that has kicked out most of the foreign journalists. The totalitarian regime asks you to grant a TV interview. If you don't play along, you too may get the boot. If you grant the interview, you can stay. I don't know the circumstances of Iraq's request to Arnett, but given the choice above, I wouldn't fault a journalist for granting such an interview if it meant he or she could continue to report the larger story.

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Mon Apr 07, 2003 7:39 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>
Were they stupid? You're in a city under attack in a nation that has kicked out most of the foreign journalists. The totalitarian regime asks you to grant a TV interview. If you don't play along, you too may get the boot. If you grant the interview, you can stay. I don't know the circumstances of Iraq's request to Arnett, but given the choice above, I wouldn't fault a journalist for granting such an interview if it meant he or she could continue to report the larger story.<hr></blockquote>unfortunately, by doing so the reporter made himself a part of the story. even if he hadn't been jerked out by his employers, he'd compromised himself.not that he's alone in that. if he'd compromised himself by saying something other than what Iraq's bosses wanted to hear, he probably wouldn't have been pulled by his corporate bosses. to many he'd be a hero. as perhaps you hinted, though, there's no telling what Iraq might have done to him. as always, it's easier to second-guess, but i guess that's what we do here.

pzicari · **Posted:** Wed Apr 09, 2003 12:38 am

Personally, I pay little attention to the blatherings of TV "analysts," on U.S. or the former Iraqi TV. But I don't think Arnett said anything more insightful than what a platoon of retired generals was saying on Washington talk shows. Since they annoyed the administration but didn't have their medals rescinded, it follows that WHERE Arnett said his piece was the issue, and the fact that he wasn't there to be a commentator at all. I think NBC was within its rights to dump him, but by doing so, they gave up some credibility, by seeming to pander to the right wing.

Testy Copy Editors

The two faces of Peter Arnett

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links