Another FATALITY in Bush's War of Censorship

[shannon_a]

Peter Arnett was renowned in the first Gulf War for his honest reporting of what was really going on over there. He's been doing the same this time around, but was today fired from NBC for (1) daring to give an interview to Iraqi TV -and- (2) daring to question the American military-industrial cartel.

This story from the Guardian in Britain is the best I've seen regarding it:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,926553,00.html

Here's quote from the article:

"I want to apologise to the American people for clearly making a misjudgment," Arnett told NBC's Today show.

But he went on to say he had only pointed out "what we all know about the war".

Wonderful, isn't it, that we're now living in a country where we can no longer say what we all know to be true without putting our lives and livelihoods in danger.

The Pulitzer Prize winning journalist has already been snapped up by a British paper, and for that matter over in Britain they're starting to publish articles concerning how terrible the strategy has been for the war--exactly what Arnett was doing when he was fired for being un-American.

I find the most interesting aspect of the whole issue that as of this morning NBC was strongly standing behind Arnett, and then they very suddenly let him go this afternoon.

Pressure from the White House, anyone?

Edited: This New Yorker article talks about how Rumsfield's idiotic war plans are on the verge of turning Iraq into another Vietnam. It also briefly mentions the religious forces from throughout the Islam world heading into Iraq, turning this into a religious war which could easily spiral into being World War III.

Comments

[allorin.livejournal.com]

My wife and I were discussing this last night.

It's basically censorship, isn't it? One of the very ideals that Bush has *supposedly* started this war to defend. I mean, OK, he has a job and the responsibilty that goes with that job, but I don't see how appearing on Iraqi television and expressing his own views could possibly impact that job. He didn't breach his contract - why should he have been fired?

As for being unAmerican (there doesn't seem to be any such thing as unBritish over here, BTW - take from that what you will) - it seems that a lot (the majority?) of Americans think it is unpatriotic to challenge your leaders. Strangely, whenever I've came across anyone with this point of view, and asked them if they thought German civillians should have challenged the Nazi leadership, they haven't replied to me....

[shannon_a]

I agree that it amounts to censorship.

Even if the government isn't directly repressing, speech, they're creating an environment of fear which encourages citizens to repress speech for them.

I think your correlation to Germany is very apt.

[biftec.livejournal.com]

I mean, OK, he has a job and the responsibilty that goes with that job, but I don't see how appearing on Iraqi television and expressing his own views could possibly impact that job. He didn't breach his contract - why should he have been fired?

Because he is still associated with the news organization that employees him, regardless of the fact that he expressed those opinions on Iraqi television and not on NBC, and ideas that he expresses inevitably lead back to that news organization. Yes, in a perfect world, reporters could say whatever the hell they wanted outside of their actual station, but in reality, everything a reporter says reflects on their news organization, as does every bias they present.

I haven't heard everything that was said, but just going on what I've heard, that he went on the state-controlled television of Iraq and made comments about how the United States military plans have failed, I find it hard to believe that he *didn't* think this would affect his job. News organizations are about image as much as reporting, and like it or not, Arnett's actions reflected on the image of NBC as a news organization. It's a business, and as such, they chose to disassociate themselves with someone who presented an image that didn't jive with the image of the organization as a whole. Freedom of speech does not mean that you are speaking into a vaccuum. Actions still have consequences, and for Arnett to think his wouldn't seems extremely naive in my opinion.

Re: Peter Arnett

[webmacher.livejournal.com]

I was thinking the same thing, and have been reluctant to label this incident as censorship. It wasn't so much what he said, but where he said it. He's not the only person to bring up those points -- The New York Times ran an article today basically saying a lot of the same things, and even pointing out that many Republicans in the administration are quietly (and anonymously) voicing some anxiety about how things are going. But the person who wrote that piece wrote it for the New York Times, not the Iraqi state-run press, and I think they'll still have their job tomorrow.

It may also have something to do with the "personal" nature of television -- you aren't just writing a story that gets reprinted somewhere, you're actually showing up in person, and somehow that seems like more of an endorsement.

If Peter Arnett had gotten busted for appearing on Al-Jazeera, that would be more troubling to me, since they are an independent news channel (I think)

Re: Peter Arnett

[biftec.livejournal.com]

Word to everything you said.

You are right about the NY Times article. This isn't nearly as much about what he said as who he said it to and who he associated with. He basically went on Saddam's television station and told the people of Iraq exactly what Saddam wanted them to hear. He is associating himself with being in Saddam's camp by doing that, even if it is unintentional, and you just don't pull that during wartime. Any news organization who wanted to keep their viewership would have cut him loose.