Arnett TV statement US war policy failure: good or bad idea?

There is an ethical question here. When does journalism become propaganda- and when does reporting give "aid and comfort (and perhaps too much information) to the enemy"!

Next thing you know, he'll be reporting our battle plans to the Iraqis. Yeecch!

well since he has already been fired he's history.

dyslexia- When was he fired?

Arnett fired by NBC
NBC fired Arnett, but what about National Geographic? BBB

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=496&u=/ap/20030331/ap_on_en_tv/war_arnett_10&printer=1

BBB- Thanks for the link. I think that this quote from your link says it all:



I am sure that there is a nice house in Baghdad that he could buy. Good riddance!

But, my question was should he or shouldn't he?
Given the history of government hiding its mistakes, in future years, we may learn that Peter Arnett was correct in his views of the US war plans, etc.

But that wasn't my question re the reporter ethics of his actions.

Even if he Knew the truth of his theory (and I don't know how he could unless he had leaks from very high pentagon or CentCom authority) should he have made the statements publically AND on Iraqi TV?

BumbleBeeBoogie

BBB- Exactly my thoughts. During wartime, I am sure that reporters see many things, the reporting of which would aid the enemy. Even if his allegations are true, he should have been wise enough to keep it to himself. Certainly, to broadcast this information on the Iraqi state run media is a breach of professional ethics, IMO.

I can only draw a couple of conclusions, not of which are positive for Mr. Arnett:

He is a very stupid man, or

He has an agenda that is against the aims of the Coalition.

new information re Arnett, Geraldo Rivera, and Fox TV
Interesting perspective and new information re Arnett and Fox TV:

QUOTE: "Arnett's comments are sure to touch off a debate about journalists covering the war, magnifying issues of bias being tossed about on both sides. And Arnett's appearance has already solidified the argument that one network, Fox News, has no qualms about waving the flag during this war. On Sunday night, Fox News took sole possession of the Arnett interview and whipped it into a media story by saying his actions were aiding Iraq."

Interesting because, according to The Drudge Report, tabloid FOX TV apparently has fired it's sleeze reporter Geraldo Rivera: "DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE: U.S. military expels FOX NEWS CHANNEL's Geraldo Rivera from Iraq after violating rule; giving away crucial details of future military operations during a live broadcast... Developing..."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/03/31/MN249533.DTL

---BumbleBeeBoogie

I understand all of your concerns -- but aren't we all complaining that people like Saddam try to "manage" the news.

Arnett pretty much gave his comments as opinions. He is entitled to them. And if all our protestations about freedom to speak mean anything, we should really be applauding the Iraqi media for allowing the truth to be told -- even if they did so only for personal advantage.

We've got to get over some of the nonsense of this war.

Rumsfeld keeps talking about the Iraqis "not fighting fair."

Holy moley -- we are the most powerful country the planet has ever seen and we are invading (WITHOUT FIRST HAVING BEEN INVADED) a third world country. And we are complaining that they are not fighting fair???!!!

That is like Mike Tyson in a fist fight with a cub scount -- complaining that the kid is not fighting fair.

For shame!!!!!!!!!!

A reporter telling the truth instead of parroting American propaganda. What was he thinking??? Does he really believe that there should be an independant media in the US?

Let's hang him!

Sorry guys, I think that during wartime, one must be careful about information given to the enemy. Would you want some of our military to be hurt or killed because some reporter couldn't keep his mouth shut?

Should the enemy receive information that could hurt the coalition, just to get a "scoop"?

WAR IS NOT A DAMN REALITY SHOW. IT IS REAL LIFE!

Two more thoughts...

I just saw footage of Arnett's interview with Iraqi television and his apology to America. The fact he was speaking on Iraqi television was poor judgement. The format gives me pause, not the content of what he said.

However, A reporters first responsibility is to the news not to the military. The military should do the military's job and let the journalists do the journalist's job.

The journalist's job is far more important than the military's. They represent truth, the humanity and accountability. They ensure human rights on both sides and keep the army that I am paying for from commiting too many atrocities.

And ... Peter Arnett is certainly a more reliable voice than Donald Rumsfeld's pathetic assertions that everything is going according to plan..

Except in cases that would specifically compromise a military action (i.e. immediate tactical plans) the military should just butt out and let reporters do their jobs.

interesting? statement made by NBC prior to political spin "NBC praised Arnett's outstanding reporting from Iraq and said he was trying nothing more than to give an analytical response to an interviewer's questions" "The first Bush administration was unhappy with Arnett's reporting about the allied bombing of a baby-milk factory in Bagdad that the military said was a biological weapons plant."

How do we call regimes where people get sacked because they say what they think?

COMMENT:

I agree with you on most things, Phoenix, but I think you are off base here.

Our side has certainly interveiwed Iraqis.

Nothing wrong with Iraqis interviewing one of ours.

And Arnett was merely giving views of how he thought the war was going and what his feelings were about various aspects of the war.

We do that here in A2K -- and many of us have expressed views identical to those of Arnett.

Iraqis can come on to the internet and read every word we write.

Would you have us muzzled?

Nothing wrong with what Arnett said on t.v.. That's his job - to say what he thinks is the truth. To censure him for it is against our freedom of speech. As long as he's not giving away military secrets, he should be free to say anything that he sees from his observations. c.i.

Just for argument sake, what is a TV reporter doing being interviewed by anyone? Isn't he the one supposed to be doing the interviewing?

That's the part that bewilders me a bit. I have nothing against what he thinks, but can't figure out why he was interviewed as though he's the expert...

When I hear about Peter Arnett's behavior, I recall in memory the British citizen Mr. William Joyce, better known as Lord Haw Haw. I want to remember to Mr. Arnett that this "lord" that has never been a member of the House of Lords was hanged for treason in 1946. Mr. Arnett should feel himself lucky for being only fired.
Since the USA is a republic, and there are no lords, I think that Mr. Arnett should get a nickname "Haw Haw" without any noblesse titles.

By the way, Lord Haw Haw did not disclose any British military secrets for a very simple reason: he had no access to them, and the only secrets he could disclose were these of his employers from Berlin. But he attempted to undermine moral of his compatriots during the war, and was punished for this. By the way, Lord Haw Haw cooperated with enemy being led by his political convictions; but this did not save him from the deserved punishment.