• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

NBC, MSNBC terminate Arnett

Conky

Lifer
May 9, 2001
10,709
0
0
Serves him right. Forcing his opinions on the world and pretending to BE the news and not simply report it.

Pure hubris.
 

BDawg

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
11,631
2
0
Originally posted by: Crazyfool
Serves him right. Forcing his opinions on the world and pretending to BE the news and not simply report it.

Pure hubris.
Sounds like a perfect candidate for Fox.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
3
0
What exactly did he do that was so bad? Everyone has an opinion, and he gave it in an interview. Just because it's an unpopular one means he should be fired?
 

iwearnosox

Lifer
Oct 26, 2000
16,018
5
0
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
What exactly did he do that was so bad? Everyone has an opinion, and he gave it in an interview. Just because it's an unpopular one means he should be fired?
He's a reporter. You lose all credibility when you're the only source in a particular place and your opinions become the news.



 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
3
0
Originally posted by: iwearnosox
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
What exactly did he do that was so bad? Everyone has an opinion, and he gave it in an interview. Just because it's an unpopular one means he should be fired?
He's a reporter. You lose all credibility when you're the only source in a particular place and your opinions become the news.
So Dan Rather should be fired as well? I saw him on Letterman once.
 

Marshallj

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,326
0
0
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
What exactly did he do that was so bad? Everyone has an opinion, and he gave it in an interview. Just because it's an unpopular one means he should be fired?

If you think about it, a reporter works for the people, since they are the audience where the revenue to pay him comes from. He gathers information, and does reports so he can convey it to an audience. That audience in turn watches the program on TV and watches the advertisements filling the timeslots on the program. Unlike a courtroom trial where only the facts matter, when you're a public personality you are always under the scrutiny of the "court of popular opinion". If people don't like you, you don't have a job. He made the mistake of pissing off his audience.
 

Marshallj

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,326
0
0
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian


So Dan Rather should be fired as well? I saw him on Letterman once.

If Dan Rather went on Letterman and made remarks that pissed off his audience, you can be sure that he would indeed be fired. Most personalities will dodge controversial questions, and will be very cautious of what they say.

Media personalities must be liked by their audience. If they lose their audience, they'll be out of a job.

To oversimply it- "Don't bite the hand that feeds you"
 

exp

Platinum Member
May 9, 2001
2,150
0
0
Good riddance to this fool. Passing one's opinion off as news is obviously unethical from a journalistic point of view, but I have come to expect such drivel from the media as a whole. Appearing on the state-run TV station of a nation currently at war with the U.S. and providing pre-packaged sound bites for use as propaganda is an entirely different, and altogether more serious, offense. The two transgressions in question are not even in the same league. If this is the only punishment Arnett receives as a result of his repeated irresponsibility then he should consider himself quite lucky.

 

CJBongHit

Junior Member
Aug 22, 2000
17
0
0
He was fired from National Geographic as well.
I have a feeling that he's already received an offer from Al-Jazeera.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0


What exactly did he do that was so bad? Everyone has an opinion, and he gave it in an interview. Just because it's an unpopular one means he should be fired?
What did he do that was so bad? Nothing.

Mr. Arnett has been in Iraq for many years. He was in Baghdad during the 1991 Gulf war. The one where the USA actually took the time to build a coalition before invading Iraq.

Mr. Arnett was asked by Iraqi TV for an impromptu interview. He agreed. He said nothing that several current and retired Pentagon generals aren't saying. The US invaded Iraq without the troop strength the Pentagon wanted. If anyone takes the time to investigate they will find that Rumsfeld and his group of neo-conservative chickenhawks micro-managed the troop deployment. These are civilian Pentagon personnel who have NO experience in troop deployment and never served in the military telling the experts, the US military's top ranking experts, when and how to deploy troops to fight a war in Iraq.

The problem isn't what Arnett said. The problem is a few ideologues, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle (and Cheney who is their stealth leader) have hijacked US foreing policy and endangered our troops by acting on their ideas instead of letting the men who know how to do the job, do the job in a nuts and bolts operation. Arnett said what many people know and the people he offended by tellling the truth have the power and connections to see that Arnett doesn't have the chance to tell the truth about them again. At least not at NBC, MSNBC or National Geographic.

Rumsfeld made the circuit of all the morning talk shows Sunday swearing he had nothing to do with the deployment, "This is Tom Frank's plan." Pentagon sources who remain nameless, lest they suffer the same fate as Arnett, and several retired US military generals have said Rumsfeld is lying. Rumsfeld wouldn't even let a 62 man maintenance unit deploy without his approval. His lack of experience in troop deployment left some of our troops with only 5 to 6 days to tie up all the loose ends before they were shipped out. His original plan was to deploy only 50,000 to 60,000 ground troops. The Pentagon military leaders had to fight tooth and nail to get the current level of ground forces deployed. And we're seeing the result of that deployment. Our troops are now waiting for another 120,000 ground troops to finish the job. If Rumsfeld and Co. had ever heard of the Powell Doctrine they could have avoided putting our troops in danger during an unnecessary several extra weeks or months of fighting.

As always the spin doctors look for an easy target, and Arnett is it. But between tossing Al Jazeera out of the NY and American stock exchanges, and now journalists being fired for expressing their opinions it's clear the regime we have in Washington is in some ways no better than the regime they are trying to depose in Iraq. Freedom of the press so long as the administration controls the press.
To be fair there are some important differences between Bush and Hussein. If you give an opinion that is unpopular here, ie against the Bush regime, you lose your job and maybe the right to return home. In Iraq if you give an opinion that is unpopular, ie against the Hussein regime, you don't have to worry about your job or your citizenship, where you're going they wont matter. But in Hussein's regime you know this from the get go. In Bush's regime they claim to support free speech and our rights. That's hypocrisy.

The 4th Army Division is beginning to arrive in Kuwait. They are the best equipped fighting force in our armed forces. If they had been deployed at the beginning of this war it would more than likely be over by now. The men and women who are put in harms way because of this are the brave GI's on the ground fighting and praying they survive to return home to their families. Not the ideologues who are using their power to experiment with their ideas on troop deployment and war in the 21st century, and the lives of our troops.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
17,852
28
91
Poor Baghdad Pete! This guy still thinks he's back in the Vietnam days, when committing borderline treason was not only 'fashionable' among his peers and supervisors, but doing so might win you a Pulitzer and many other 'distinguished' awards of journalism. lol!

Hanoi Jane was warmly welcomed into the arms of the enemy so that she could be their honorary Minister of Propaganda and Demoralization of the Enemy.

These two are like peas in a pod.

Its no longer the good old kill-your-fascist-parents-and-burn-your-draft-card-Vietnam days, anymore, Pete! People love their country, today.

Pete says he was embarrassed by his lapse of judgement. What he means is, 'Damn, I used to win Pulitzers for this kind of stuff 30 years ago! This sucks ass! I wish people hated the US like they used to so I can stay gainfully employed.'
 

jagr10

Golden Member
Jan 21, 2001
1,995
0
0
I think the fact that he took an interview with IRAQI TV got him fired. That's supposed to be the opposition and NBC didn't like that.
 

Marshallj

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,326
0
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN



What did he do that was so bad? Nothing.
Other than pissing off his viewing audience, which causes people to not watch the program that he's on.

 

Marshallj

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,326
0
0
Originally posted by: jagr10
I think the fact that he took an interview with IRAQI TV got him fired. That's supposed to be the opposition and NBC didn't like that.

lol, I doubt that had much to do with it. I don't think NBC is competing with Iraqi TV in any market.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Good to see that Freedom of Speech* is alive and well in America.

*Freedom of Speech should not be interpreted literally see exclusions **
**Speech contradictory to corporate or government position is not covered.
**Speech to non government-approved news sources is not covered.
**Insufficiently vague speech that might offend anyone is not covered.
**Speech that does not use sufficient number of unnamed sources to create plausible deniability is not covered.
**Speech that might endanger lobbying efforts on behalf of NBC parent GE is not covered.
**Speech that presents a new opinion on which there isn't already a consensus is not covered.
**Speech that presents any new facts that might contradict governement propaganda is not covered unless released simultaneously with all other major news sources.
**Speech not approved by Rush Libmaugh, and which might expose the network to accusations of liberal bias on conservative radio shows is not covered.
**Speech regurgitating government positions, pandering to the conservative right, or involving US flag waiving is covered and encouraged, unless it's contradictory to GE corporate interest.
 
Jul 1, 2000
10,274
2
0
Originally posted by: Piano Man
Speak the truth when it goes against the govt, and you get the axe.
Journalists have been speaking against the government for years. Take that prune-faced hag Helen Thomas for example. She still has a job.

What Arnett did was different. His comments give comfort to our enemy. That is sedition.
 

AMDfreak

Senior member
Aug 12, 2000
909
0
71
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Good to see that Freedom of Speech* is alive and well in America.
No one is denying him his right to free speech. He can say what ever he wants, but nothing gives him the right to be paid for it if his employers don't like it. What he said can be used to give the remaining Iraqi forces something more to fight for. Sure, what Arnett said could be found in numerous other places if you're looking, but the propaganda effect of having an American make those statements on Iraqi state TV is very detrimental to the Coalition forces.

My $.02....

 

Pastfinder

Platinum Member
Jul 2, 2000
2,352
0
0
Geraldo got kicked out of the country by the US Military. Sounds like Al-Jazero has another candidate for employment...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY