Full Version: Peter Arnett fired over Iraqi interview
Journalist Peter Arnett was fired on Monday after giving an interview on Iraqi TV.
Arnett Fired
My question is this...do you think Arnett's actions warrent a dismissal? Was what he was doing defensible?
I know the firing decision is pure PR. But what he was saying was blatantly wrong. He seemed to emphasize that Iraqi resistance was a big surprise to US forces and that images of civilian casualties were being broadcast in the US and were hindering the war's support.
What do others think of this decision...
Arnett Fired
My question is this...do you think Arnett's actions warrent a dismissal? Was what he was doing defensible?
I know the firing decision is pure PR. But what he was saying was blatantly wrong. He seemed to emphasize that Iraqi resistance was a big surprise to US forces and that images of civilian casualties were being broadcast in the US and were hindering the war's support.
What do others think of this decision...
I do agree that saying the things he said, especially to an Iraqi TV station, was extremely wrong. Stating that the US war plan has failed and essentially telling Saddam how to win the war; i.e. if you show pictures of dead civilians, it will increase the opposition to the war here in the U.S. I do agree firing him was a PR move, because initially they were not going to fire him, but only decided to do so after the public outcry.
I'm thinking it was only a matter of time before Arnett's questionable sense of propriety got him in trouble. Here is a 1997 pic of Arnett hanging with his homeys—something to remember him by.
NBC's dismissal of Mr. Arnett was more than just a "PR move", but necessary for NBC to maintain any sense of journalistic credibility. Given Arnett's past history, NBC had to sneak him in under the radar in the first place as a National Geographic reporter. So what does he do? He turns around and hands Saddam Hussein a piece of propaganda at a time in the war when propaganda is about the only weapon Saddam has that is in any sense effective. Arnett's comments may indeed serve to bouy the spirits of Saddam's thugs and encourage them to commit yet more atrocities not only against coalition forces, but against the Iraqi people. This action falls far beyond a simple lack of judgement on Arnett's part, it is completely irresponsible.
Mr. Arnett forgot one of the fundamental rules of journalism. YOU are not the story.
Mr. Arnett forgot one of the fundamental rules of journalism. YOU are not the story.
While it was irresponsible of Arnett to make statements that might "buoy the spirits of Saddam's thugs," I'm not sure that firing him was justified. It seems his firing was necessary only for maintaining ratings at a time when polls (however questionable) are indicating a majority of America supporting the administration in this war.
I read in the article provided for this thread where Arnett was reprimanded by CNN in 1991 for supporting the Iraqi claim that a facility targeted by Allied forces for biological weapons was instead producing powdered milk. White House officials went so far as hinting accusations of treason for his reporting.
A Lesson in U.S. Propaganda
As the years went by following the 1991 bombing, evidence and personal testimonies came out that supported the claim that the facility was indeed a baby milk facility. Designers and engineers of the facility supported this as did video footage of the facility only 5 months prior to the bombing. But perhaps Arnett shouldn't have been televising what appears to have been either a miscalculation of the U.S. or an intentionally misguided attack against a neutral target.
The article also claimed Arnett was reprimanded, and his reputation tarnished, after alleging use of sarin nerve gas in Laos by American forces. I did a search and came up with this article from 1998: HERE
And now we have Arnett being fired for discussing his views that Coalition forces are being forced to rewrite war plans and that they underestimated the determination of Iraqi forces.
Was he feeding an Iraqi propaganda machine or didn't officials indeed say that Coalition forces had underestimated the Fedayeen Saddam? Arnett stating this was nothing new and nothing any Arab station couldn't get from any American news service. And hasn't the administration begun shifting the plan from one of urban warfare in the streets of Baghdad to a possible siege in hopes of rallying anti-Saddam sentiment from inhabitants?
It seems it is fine for Americans to hear these ideas broadcast on our news services, but it's not proper to deliver the same news to foreign news services. I guess a reprimand might have been in order for allowing himself to become the story, but firing seems a bit extreme. Arnett seems to have stirred up controversey throughout his career by reporting the news without giving America or allied nations any more protection than those nations we wish to slander and discredit. I don't necessarily agree with his giving an interview to Iraqi television, but his comments don't appear to be anything new that Iraqi television couldn't have gotten from monitoring ongoing American news coverage. And it doesn't appear Arnett stated anything that can't be supported by current facts... if nothing else, I'm not sure how it can be viewed by some that Arnett contributed to propaganda by reporting facts and giving his informed personal opinion based on those facts.
I read in the article provided for this thread where Arnett was reprimanded by CNN in 1991 for supporting the Iraqi claim that a facility targeted by Allied forces for biological weapons was instead producing powdered milk. White House officials went so far as hinting accusations of treason for his reporting.
A Lesson in U.S. Propaganda
As the years went by following the 1991 bombing, evidence and personal testimonies came out that supported the claim that the facility was indeed a baby milk facility. Designers and engineers of the facility supported this as did video footage of the facility only 5 months prior to the bombing. But perhaps Arnett shouldn't have been televising what appears to have been either a miscalculation of the U.S. or an intentionally misguided attack against a neutral target.
The article also claimed Arnett was reprimanded, and his reputation tarnished, after alleging use of sarin nerve gas in Laos by American forces. I did a search and came up with this article from 1998: HERE
And now we have Arnett being fired for discussing his views that Coalition forces are being forced to rewrite war plans and that they underestimated the determination of Iraqi forces.
Was he feeding an Iraqi propaganda machine or didn't officials indeed say that Coalition forces had underestimated the Fedayeen Saddam? Arnett stating this was nothing new and nothing any Arab station couldn't get from any American news service. And hasn't the administration begun shifting the plan from one of urban warfare in the streets of Baghdad to a possible siege in hopes of rallying anti-Saddam sentiment from inhabitants?
It seems it is fine for Americans to hear these ideas broadcast on our news services, but it's not proper to deliver the same news to foreign news services. I guess a reprimand might have been in order for allowing himself to become the story, but firing seems a bit extreme. Arnett seems to have stirred up controversey throughout his career by reporting the news without giving America or allied nations any more protection than those nations we wish to slander and discredit. I don't necessarily agree with his giving an interview to Iraqi television, but his comments don't appear to be anything new that Iraqi television couldn't have gotten from monitoring ongoing American news coverage. And it doesn't appear Arnett stated anything that can't be supported by current facts... if nothing else, I'm not sure how it can be viewed by some that Arnett contributed to propaganda by reporting facts and giving his informed personal opinion based on those facts.
QUOTE
Leaving a second network under a cloud may mark the end of his TV career. Arnett was the on-air reporter of the 1998 CNN report that accused American forces of using sarin nerve gas on a Laotian village in 1970 to kill U.S. defectors. Two CNN employees were sacked and Arnett was reprimanded over the report, which the station later retracted. Arnett left the network when his contract was not renewed.
Arnett is either the only honest journalist in the bunch, or an pro-dictator zealot...you decide. He does have a track record.
CNN refused to renew the contract of Peter Arnett following the "Tailwind scandal" because he had failed to exercise proper journalistic judgement and fact-checking on that story. The two producers responsible for that story were fired pretty much on the spot when the questionable basis for it was exposed.
National Geographic Explorer (associated with NBC News) hired Peter Arnett to go to Baghdad and develop a documentary on the war there. NBC News was thus able to use him as a reporter without claiming specific 'ownership' of him, otherwise, given his lack of credibility and objectivity following Tailwind, NBC wouldn't have touched him. He wasn't hired as an "analyst", he was hired as a reporter as in Jack Webb's famous words, "Just the facts". When he went onto Iraqi television and offered his opinions on the war, he stepped over the line and ceased being a reporter, instead opting for the role of a commentator. NBC didn't hire him to do that so bascially they told him to do his commentary on his own dime. Given his past history of a lack of journalistic integrity, hard to blame them. He has about the same amout of credibility as Scott Ritter has.
National Geographic Explorer (associated with NBC News) hired Peter Arnett to go to Baghdad and develop a documentary on the war there. NBC News was thus able to use him as a reporter without claiming specific 'ownership' of him, otherwise, given his lack of credibility and objectivity following Tailwind, NBC wouldn't have touched him. He wasn't hired as an "analyst", he was hired as a reporter as in Jack Webb's famous words, "Just the facts". When he went onto Iraqi television and offered his opinions on the war, he stepped over the line and ceased being a reporter, instead opting for the role of a commentator. NBC didn't hire him to do that so bascially they told him to do his commentary on his own dime. Given his past history of a lack of journalistic integrity, hard to blame them. He has about the same amout of credibility as Scott Ritter has.
[Edited: in response to Amlord's assertions]
How can reporting the alleged use of sarin nerve gas, the bombing of a baby milk factory, or an interview about a war in anyway portray Peter Arnett as being a "pro-dictator zealot"?
Did I miss something? I haven't seen anywhere that Arnett lobbied for dictatorship over democracy or applauded the trampling of human rights. Quite the contrary, his reporting seems to be a true pursuit for the truth without regard for how controversial it may be. The information for the sarin gas used in Laos was gathered by the fired CNN employees and Arnett merely did commentary, from what I have read at least. There seems to have been reason for them to believe the stories being told by "Tailwind" and other veterans. The baby milk factory seems understandable, considering his filmed tour 5 months prior to attack and the evidence and testimony which has surfaced since.
For all the other things you may say about him or his reporting, I am at a complete loss as to how you can twist any of the instances cited (from the article launching this thread) into some "pro-dictator" agenda.
How can reporting the alleged use of sarin nerve gas, the bombing of a baby milk factory, or an interview about a war in anyway portray Peter Arnett as being a "pro-dictator zealot"?
Did I miss something? I haven't seen anywhere that Arnett lobbied for dictatorship over democracy or applauded the trampling of human rights. Quite the contrary, his reporting seems to be a true pursuit for the truth without regard for how controversial it may be. The information for the sarin gas used in Laos was gathered by the fired CNN employees and Arnett merely did commentary, from what I have read at least. There seems to have been reason for them to believe the stories being told by "Tailwind" and other veterans. The baby milk factory seems understandable, considering his filmed tour 5 months prior to attack and the evidence and testimony which has surfaced since.
For all the other things you may say about him or his reporting, I am at a complete loss as to how you can twist any of the instances cited (from the article launching this thread) into some "pro-dictator" agenda.
Sounds like he went too far, and got what was coming to him. Good
--cheers
--cheers
The government should not inhibit speech, corporations should when an employees speech effects corporate profits.
Arnett's crass refusal to use fact finding in his reporting of American actions against murderous regimes is almost pathological.
In this case, he was the only Western journalist that Iraqi TV would put on the air. Why? Because they knew he at least leaned toward their direction.
Each side in this conflict wants to control the media spin on it. It's natural. Iraq's use of Arnett was brilliant.
Here is a commentary on Arnett's reporting...Tim Graham
In this case, he was the only Western journalist that Iraqi TV would put on the air. Why? Because they knew he at least leaned toward their direction.
Each side in this conflict wants to control the media spin on it. It's natural. Iraq's use of Arnett was brilliant.
Here is a commentary on Arnett's reporting...Tim Graham
QUOTE
Would it be fair to assume that the only brave souls left behind are correspondents who the desperate Iraqi thugs feel are "on message"? It was certainly fair in Arnett’s case.
Not every reporter has Arnett’s zest for propaganda, but all three broadcast networks should have learned their lesson in 1991. ABC’s Bill Blakemore, CBS’s Betsy Aaron, and NBC’s Jeremy Levin (borrowed from the BBC) all reported from Baghdad. In 45 stories from February 1 to February 27, 1991, not one of their reports suggested that Saddam Hussein was the slightest bit unpopular. Aaron reported, "The average citizen...thinks the Iraqi government has made every concession that it can make for a peace with honor." Bowen reported, "The people we met blamed the Americans for continuing the war."
But as soon as these reporters came out of Baghdad, they renounced their own presentations. "The one thing people have to know is that this man, privately, Saddam Hussein, is a hated man," Betsy Aaron told Dan Rather on March 7. On NBC News at Sunrise the next morning, Jeremy Bowen conceded: "The message that came from them very strongly in Baghdad was that they're pretty sick of Saddam Hussein. They don't like the man, they don't like what he's done to their country, and they'd like to be rid of him."
Not every reporter has Arnett’s zest for propaganda, but all three broadcast networks should have learned their lesson in 1991. ABC’s Bill Blakemore, CBS’s Betsy Aaron, and NBC’s Jeremy Levin (borrowed from the BBC) all reported from Baghdad. In 45 stories from February 1 to February 27, 1991, not one of their reports suggested that Saddam Hussein was the slightest bit unpopular. Aaron reported, "The average citizen...thinks the Iraqi government has made every concession that it can make for a peace with honor." Bowen reported, "The people we met blamed the Americans for continuing the war."
But as soon as these reporters came out of Baghdad, they renounced their own presentations. "The one thing people have to know is that this man, privately, Saddam Hussein, is a hated man," Betsy Aaron told Dan Rather on March 7. On NBC News at Sunrise the next morning, Jeremy Bowen conceded: "The message that came from them very strongly in Baghdad was that they're pretty sick of Saddam Hussein. They don't like the man, they don't like what he's done to their country, and they'd like to be rid of him."
So far, amlord, you've said Arnett is a "pro-dictator zealot" and that he leaned toward the direction of Iraqi television.
As I've said in previous posts, people may have other reasons to disagree with him, but I'm failing to see where you are coming from with it. I'm especially anxious to see where the "pro-dicatator zealot" accusation comes from. And in regards to him leaning in the direction of Iraqi television, I fail to see how he said anything different from what he and others were already saying all over the world. The only difference seems to be the medium he used to say it.
Am I the only one who saw television correspondants questioning Rumsfeld and Myers on war plan alterations during press briefings? Maybe I'm the only one who listened to anchors debate the issue with their military experts. And I'm not sure I heard Arnett say anything about the Iraqi resistance being underestimated prior to his appearance on Iraqi television, but I know I had heard it plenty from just about everyone else.
The one new thing I did hear from what I saw of his interview was more helpful for American forces than Iraqi forces. He reported that there seemed to be a growing sense of nationalism from within the city of Baghdad... if people are rallying around the regime out of a sense of national pride, there are that many more combatants our soldiers may have to face when they reach the city. I consider the feelings of the people to be important when considering a city of 5 Million or so... a CNN correspondant at the Pentagon (a Ms. Starr, I believe) seems to have agreed, questioning Rumsfeld repeatedly just the other day about it.
We can call it propaganda because it isn't helping the cause of war, but is it untrue? Aren't we seeing changes in both the wording and actions of those leading the charge? Did we not already know before this war that images of civilian casualties upset the American public? That's been known since, what, Vietnam? People find it a lot harder to support war once the horror of civilian casualties enters their living room.
Aquilla has justified the firing because he was basically being paid to do things he wasn't supposed to be doing by NBC. That's cool. But he really didn't say anything new, or anything Iraqi and other Arab news agencies couldn't have gotten from watching other NBC employees, CNN, etc. I understand his firing and people supporting the decision from NBC. I don't understand the completely anti-Arnett sentiment as though we were some kind of traitor for talking with Iraqi television.
As I've said in previous posts, people may have other reasons to disagree with him, but I'm failing to see where you are coming from with it. I'm especially anxious to see where the "pro-dicatator zealot" accusation comes from. And in regards to him leaning in the direction of Iraqi television, I fail to see how he said anything different from what he and others were already saying all over the world. The only difference seems to be the medium he used to say it.
Am I the only one who saw television correspondants questioning Rumsfeld and Myers on war plan alterations during press briefings? Maybe I'm the only one who listened to anchors debate the issue with their military experts. And I'm not sure I heard Arnett say anything about the Iraqi resistance being underestimated prior to his appearance on Iraqi television, but I know I had heard it plenty from just about everyone else.
The one new thing I did hear from what I saw of his interview was more helpful for American forces than Iraqi forces. He reported that there seemed to be a growing sense of nationalism from within the city of Baghdad... if people are rallying around the regime out of a sense of national pride, there are that many more combatants our soldiers may have to face when they reach the city. I consider the feelings of the people to be important when considering a city of 5 Million or so... a CNN correspondant at the Pentagon (a Ms. Starr, I believe) seems to have agreed, questioning Rumsfeld repeatedly just the other day about it.
We can call it propaganda because it isn't helping the cause of war, but is it untrue? Aren't we seeing changes in both the wording and actions of those leading the charge? Did we not already know before this war that images of civilian casualties upset the American public? That's been known since, what, Vietnam? People find it a lot harder to support war once the horror of civilian casualties enters their living room.
Aquilla has justified the firing because he was basically being paid to do things he wasn't supposed to be doing by NBC. That's cool. But he really didn't say anything new, or anything Iraqi and other Arab news agencies couldn't have gotten from watching other NBC employees, CNN, etc. I understand his firing and people supporting the decision from NBC. I don't understand the completely anti-Arnett sentiment as though we were some kind of traitor for talking with Iraqi television.
I think it is a big todo about nothing. We already know the amount of resistance in Iraq was a surprise, and we already know that showing dead Americans to Americans is bad for the war support.
To think the leadership of Iraq isn't aware of these two facts is quite a stretch of the imagination.
To think the leadership of Iraq isn't aware of these two facts is quite a stretch of the imagination.
Looks like the job market is opening up...
Rumsfeld and Myers just had to field a slew of questions from reporters about generals in Iraq complaining that they didn't have enough troops or the support they believed they would be receiving. They also seem to be saying that they are encountering stiffer resistance than what they expected.
If Arnett is to serve as any kind of model, any of our posters with journalistic aspirations should get those resumes out there! Don't they know comments like that only help to fuel the Iraqi propaganda machine...?
[Hopefully, my sarcasm will be noted...]
Update on Arnett: Hired by Daily Mirror
Rumsfeld and Myers just had to field a slew of questions from reporters about generals in Iraq complaining that they didn't have enough troops or the support they believed they would be receiving. They also seem to be saying that they are encountering stiffer resistance than what they expected.
If Arnett is to serve as any kind of model, any of our posters with journalistic aspirations should get those resumes out there! Don't they know comments like that only help to fuel the Iraqi propaganda machine...?
[Hopefully, my sarcasm will be noted...]
Update on Arnett: Hired by Daily Mirror
Whether what he said was bad or not, and if it warranted getting fired for or not seems rather a moot point now, The things he said was what he wanted to say. Whats next, are we going to go after Katie Couric for asking central command if the troops that killed 7 mothers and children at a checkpoint, going to be prosecuted? Its jounalism, If it will sell more papers, bring in more money, say what you want. None of us will ever know what goes thru a journalists mind when they make good or bad decisions, All we can hope for is what they report is true and accurate,And in this case the point being made was true and accurate, So where do we go?
This is all propaganda. Why should NBC pay Arnette to go on Iraqi television and let himself be used as a tool to motivate the Iraqi troops? If he wants to do that, let Iraqi television pay him. As a western journalist, he lends extra credence to what the information minister has been saying when he talks about the US getting bogged down and encountering heavier resistance than expected. NBC certainly doesn't want to be associated with a reporter that may or may not have prolonged the war. Tough questioning of American officials is a completely different ballgame than what Arnette did.
As for the assertions that the US is encountering tougher resistance and that things are not going according to plan: How do they know what the plan was? If the US military has such a problem that the war plan was leaked out, then we need to be finding out who leaked what, and charging them with treason. Otherwise, we need to stop the speculation and wait. Maybe things went according to plan, maybe they didn't. I've been seeing reports that the US is encountering heavier resistance than they expected, but the proof isn't there.
When a one-star general, assigned a mission to secure one town, says that they are experiencing more resistance than they expected, they are not speaking for the entire campaign, just that town, or maybe even just that section of town. When you fight a war, the plan does not follow a script for each individual objective. It is possible for none of the little things to go the way you expected, yet have the overall effect be exactly what you expected. Whenever US troops come under heavy fire, we hear about that. What about the times that they expected a hard fight, and found no resistance?
Don't presume that we are going to know everything that happens a couple weeks removed from the event. It is good to be sceptical, but don't let it blind you.
As for the assertions that the US is encountering tougher resistance and that things are not going according to plan: How do they know what the plan was? If the US military has such a problem that the war plan was leaked out, then we need to be finding out who leaked what, and charging them with treason. Otherwise, we need to stop the speculation and wait. Maybe things went according to plan, maybe they didn't. I've been seeing reports that the US is encountering heavier resistance than they expected, but the proof isn't there.
When a one-star general, assigned a mission to secure one town, says that they are experiencing more resistance than they expected, they are not speaking for the entire campaign, just that town, or maybe even just that section of town. When you fight a war, the plan does not follow a script for each individual objective. It is possible for none of the little things to go the way you expected, yet have the overall effect be exactly what you expected. Whenever US troops come under heavy fire, we hear about that. What about the times that they expected a hard fight, and found no resistance?
Don't presume that we are going to know everything that happens a couple weeks removed from the event. It is good to be sceptical, but don't let it blind you.
Peter Arnett apologized for a "misjudgement." I think that was appropriate.
NBC et al. fired him, and that is certainly their right.
The Daily Mirror hired him. That's because he is a good journalist.
I don't think it was a good idea for him to be interviewed on Iraqi television. He had to realize that anything he said would be highly politicized under the circumstances in Iraq, especially due to his status.
If I played poker, I wouldn't want my brother telling the player across from me what I had in my hand or my usual strategy.
In this case, I think it was the appearance of impropriety that got Arnett into trouble.
NBC et al. fired him, and that is certainly their right.
The Daily Mirror hired him. That's because he is a good journalist.
I don't think it was a good idea for him to be interviewed on Iraqi television. He had to realize that anything he said would be highly politicized under the circumstances in Iraq, especially due to his status.
If I played poker, I wouldn't want my brother telling the player across from me what I had in my hand or my usual strategy.
In this case, I think it was the appearance of impropriety that got Arnett into trouble.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.