Arnett was giving an interview, not reporting the news. It was the American propaganda steamroller that made it news. Nobody says sh*t about the Fox news RAH RAH RAH routine, why is this any different?
Arnett was giving an interview, not reporting the news. It was the American propaganda steamroller that made it news. Nobody says sh*t about the Fox news RAH RAH RAH routine, why is this any different?
I've seen great material on 60 minutes . . . sometimes they do make the news by giving an indepth report of events that have taken place. My 10 minute search and perusal of info on DOD use of sarin is not nearly as cut and dry as you implied. My short take is the producers were fast and loose with the facts while Arnett signed off on the overall project but there's definitely some smoke.
The highest-ranking military officer supposedly to offer confirmation of the nerve gas story was retired Adm. Thomas Moorer. Arnett claims that Moorer confirmed the use of nerve gas in Thailand "off camera." But Moorer later denied this. Besides, as Eric Felten reported, Moorer is 87 years old, lives in a nursing home and gets confused.
Eugene McCarley, the Army captain who led Operation Tailwind, told The Weekly Standard that he denied the use of Sarin a thousand times in interviews with Oliver. CNN never broadcast McCarley's denials, only a segment of tape in which McCarley said that poison gas "might have been available." How dishonest can you get?
Just the facts
Efforts to control chemical and biological weapons began in the late 19th cent. The Geneva Protocol of 1925, which went into force in 1928, condemned the use of chemical weapons but did not ban the development and stockpiling of chemical weapons. The United States did not ratify the protocol until 1974. In 1990, with the end of the cold war, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to cut their arsenals by 80% in an effort to create a climate of change that would discourage smaller nations from stockpiling and using such lethal weapons.
I wonder what we were doing before '74.
The highest-ranking military officer supposedly to offer confirmation of the nerve gas story was retired Adm. Thomas Moorer. Arnett claims that Moorer confirmed the use of nerve gas in Thailand "off camera." But Moorer later denied this. Besides, as Eric Felten reported, Moorer is 87 years old, lives in a nursing home and gets confused.
Eugene McCarley, the Army captain who led Operation Tailwind, told The Weekly Standard that he denied the use of Sarin a thousand times in interviews with Oliver. CNN never broadcast McCarley's denials, only a segment of tape in which McCarley said that poison gas "might have been available." How dishonest can you get?
Just the facts
Efforts to control chemical and biological weapons began in the late 19th cent. The Geneva Protocol of 1925, which went into force in 1928, condemned the use of chemical weapons but did not ban the development and stockpiling of chemical weapons. The United States did not ratify the protocol until 1974. In 1990, with the end of the cold war, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to cut their arsenals by 80% in an effort to create a climate of change that would discourage smaller nations from stockpiling and using such lethal weapons.
I wonder what we were doing before '74.
apoppin
Lifer
There's nothing wrong with reporting news or even offering commentary that isn't favorable to the US. That is not and never was the point.
There is something extremely wrong with a US journalist for his own purposes granting to the minions of a brutal dictator an interview on STATE-CONTROLLED TELEVISION and being an all-too enthusiastic agent of propaganda for that regime during a war. Had Arnett made the same comments in a FREE MEDIA, in the US or elsewhere, he would have been fine. He would have been criticized, but he wouldn't have been fired.
There is no difference between what Peter Arnett did and what Jane Fonda did during the Vietnam war, except that Jane Fonda was not operating under any pretext of being a 'journalist' nor was she doing it under the auspices of anyone's employment. Arnett was on the payroll of National Geographic and MSNBC, and not only were they perfectly within their right to sever ties with him, it was the right thing to do.
I see old Baghdad Pete still doesn't get it, he cites the 'right-wing media and politicians' as being the impetus for his firing, which strongly implies he isn't at all sorry for what he did, despite his 'heart-felt' apology to the American people and his employers, because he doesn't feel he did anything wrong. No, someone's 'out to get him', that's why he was fired.
Arnett is still living in the days of the Vietnam era, where he could not only get away with slanted reporting that is heavily critical of the US role, but win Pulitzers for doing so.
Wake up, Pete! Its 2003, not 1969.
Ah well, a tabloid-style rag like The Mirror suits you better, anyway.
And I see that even Arnett's story changes dramatically when he isn't playing the star role in Hussein's propaganda show. On Iraqi state-run media, Arnett in no uncertain terms characterized the US war plan as an unmitigated failure. Yet, for the Mirror, he writes:
Maybe Pete is suffering from a little dementia, secondary to overestimating one's own importance.
Huh?? That is quite a vast departure from what he said during the Iraqi interview.
Maybe Pete is suffering from a little dementia, secondary to overestimating one's own importance.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
speaking of dishonest reporting in the new, the courts seem to think it is all part of the job:
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm
NesuD
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 4,999
- 106
- 106
Originally posted by: Tripleshot
I think this was a knee jerk over reaction and capitulation by the network to appease someone like Rumsfield. This was a talented and valued reporter of the truth, his record unblemished until now. People can hire and fire who they want, but this to me was just plain wrong. Discipline,---- maybe yes, but career ruined,--- no freakin way. This is stupid, as well as dangerous. This smacks of censorship being dealt out by our adminisitration, or the right wing powers that actually control this adminstration.
I want to be informed, I want the truth. I do not trust my government to be the guardian of that truth. Why? Because I work for the government. I know what they can do. The media is the balance needed, and your own judgement and power of decernment should suffice to give you the ability to reason what is right and what is wrong.
Just my $.02 on this issue.
Carry on.
Relax. This isn't the first time in Arnetts career that he has opened his mouth and inserted his foot up the knee. He's been around since Vietnam and hasn't ruined his career yet so i doubt he will be ruined completely by this either. Problem this time is that he managed to offend about 75% of the U.S. population this time. That is going to tough for him getting work again on a U.S. network.
Wrong! He gave aid and comfort to the enemy making him a traitor.
Thankfully the State Dept. doesn't have to let him back in the country.
apoppin
Lifer
Nonsense . . . your definition of "aid and comfort to the enemy" is narrower than Bush's.
I think it is anyone who disagrees with your view of "support" for the war.About Arnett
Also Tuesday, a British tabloid said it has hired Peter Arnett, who was dismissed by NBC on Monday for giving an unauthorized interview to Iraqi state television in which he said the American-led war effort initially failed because of Iraq's resistance.
"Fired by America for telling the truth," the Daily Mirror said in a Page 1 headline. . . .
Arnett apologized Monday for his "misjudgment" in talking to Iraqi TV. But he added: "I said over the weekend what we all know about this war." And he wrote in the newspaper, "I report the truth of what is happening here in Baghdad and will not apologize for it."
Arnett, who won a Pulitzer Prize reporting in Vietnam for The Associated Press, gained much of his prominence from covering the 1991 Gulf War for CNN. One of the few American television reporters left in Baghdad, his reports were frequently aired on NBC and its cable sisters, MSNBC and CNBC.
NBC was angered because Arnett gave the interview Sunday without permission and presented opinion as fact. The network initially backed him, but reversed field after watching a tape of his appearance. The network said it got "thousands" of e-mails and phone calls protesting Arnett's remarks.
In the interview, shown by Iraq's satellite television, Arnett said the United States was reappraising the battlefield and delaying the war, maybe for a week, "and rewriting the war plan. The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance. Now they are trying to write another war plan."
Arnett said it was clear that, within the United States, opposition to the war was growing, along with a challenge to President Bush about the war's conduct.
The London newspaper that hired him, the Mirror, is vehemently opposed to the war. "I am still in shock and awe at being fired," Arnett wrote for the newspaper.
Before the announcement of his new job, Arnett had said he planned to leave Baghdad, and joked that he'd try to swim to "a small island in the South Pacific."
Arnett also departed CNN under a cloud. He was the on-air reporter of a retracted 1998 CNN report that accused American forces of using sarin nerve gas in Laos in 1970. He was reprimanded and later left the network.
Earlier, the first Bush administration was unhappy with Arnett's reporting on the Gulf War in 1991 for CNN, suggesting he had become a conveyor of propaganda.
Arnett went to Iraq this year not as an NBC News reporter but as an employee of the MSNBC show "National Geographic Explorer." When other NBC reporters left Baghdad for safety reasons, the network began airing Arnett's reports. Arnett was also relieved of his duties Monday at "National Geographic Explorer.""Honesty" is a Casualty of this Propaganda War - just like in Viet Nam.
The American-led war effort initially failed because of Iraq's resistance.
This is a great clarification of what the left regards as "the truth". It's all so clear now...
This is a great clarification of what the left regards as "the truth". It's all so clear now...
apoppin
Lifer
Depends how you define "failure".Originally posted by: Ornery
The American-led war effort initially failed because of Iraq's resistance.
This is a great clarification of what the left regards as "the truth". It's all so clear now...
Since you think the war is going "great", you are bound to disagree.
Yeah, I know. Depends what the definition of the word "is", is.
Like I said, it's ALL so much clearer now...
What is more concerning is that he decided to give Iraqi TV an interview- not a legitimate news organization by any means- which makes you wonder about his judgement. I'm sure that was more the reason why he was fired, rather than what he said.
Regardless of your view of this journalist - its worth pointing out that the Mirror (along with the Sun and other sensationalists) represent the worst side of the British press.
Andy
Andy
apoppin
Lifer
Again I wonder if he was PRESSURED to do the interview by the Iraqis. Since he is STILL in Baghdad he KNOWS BETTER to keep his mouth shout about it.
We do KNOW some journalists were ROUNDED-UP by Saddam's forces and are now MISSING (perhaps they were the ones that REFUSED "interviews").
Exactly. The comments themselves are trivial (<--why is that point so hard for you Arnett apologists to comprehend?)...just the kind of borderline retarded buffoonery I have come to expect from ALL the media networks. *What* Arnett said is not the issue, it's *WHERE* he said it--the venue, not the verbiage, so to speak.
It's all about context, people. Not just where he made his remarks, and the spirit in which he made them, but also his conduct in the past. If this was a one-time thing I would easily let it slide, but Arnett has a long history of questionable behavior spanning decades and encompassing every war he has ever covered. Put all the pieces together and the pattern of anti-American behavior is clear. Let's be clear on that point--I do not consider Arnett's record of offenses to be unacceptable because he happens to criticize the war (that's fine), but because he has gone out of his way to *deliberately* assist the enemy (by providing propaganda to raise morale) and attack our own men and women in uniform (by fabricating slanderous charges against the U.S. military to degrade morale). He is basically nothing more than a psyops tool for opposing forces.
apoppin
Lifer
And IF he was COERCED? (into giving an interview)
Arnet DOES have a history of disagreeing with BS "official" propaganda and won't always tow the line.
I tend to think of it as "honesty".
He wasn't coerced. What could they threaten him with? Throwing him out of the country?
That not only makes him a traitor, it makes him an egotistical whore also.
Peter Arnett wouldn't know a battle plan if it rose up and bit him in the ass. We know it and whats more he knows it, making any commentary he makes on Iraqi TV pure and simple propoganda for the enemy.
apoppin
Lifer
Since you somehow already "know" (what no one else can possibly know), I will post AGAIN for others.
Threatened with DEATH or TORTURE - duh. What happened to the OTHER journalists that were dragged out of their hotels by Saddams Security? They are MISSING!
What makes you think that? Arnett has a history of pulling this sort of crap. If he has historically been very willing to do so of his own volition, why should we default to the assumption that this case is any different (other than to shield apoppin from the trauma of knowing that one of his heroes is unethical and possibly a borderline traitor, of course
)??If he was coerced then let him come out and say so publicly. Still scared of the Iraqi regime while in Baghdad? Fine, but would he not have told his employers as much in private? Surely they would not have permanently fired a Pulitzer-winning journalist if there were extenuating circumstances like that?
apoppin
Lifer
I meant coerced into giving the interview. If this was true, he knew would have to make "concessions" to stay alive.Originally posted by: exp
What makes you think that? Arnett has a history of pulling this sort of crap. If he has historically been very willing to do so of his own volition, why should we default to the assumption that this case is any different (other than to shield apoppin from the trauma of knowing that one of his heroes is unethical and possibly a borderline traitor, of course
If he was coerced then let him come out and say so publicly. Still scared of the Iraqi regime while in Baghdad? Fine, but would he not have told his employers as much in private? Surely they would not have permanently fired a Pulitzer-winning journalist if there were extenuating circumstances like that?
If I were him I wouldn't tell my employers a damn thing. Getting "fired" as a journalist is no big deal and he is probably thinking of the NEXT Pulitzer.
And we won't know 'till he is out of Baghdad. NOT MY HERO - I just prefer to withhold judgement until them.
Originally posted by: apoppin
I meant coerced into giving the interview. If this was true, he knew would have to make "concessions" to stay alive.
If I were him I wouldn't tell my employers a damn thing. Getting "fired" as a journalist is no big deal and he is probably thinking of the NEXT Pulitzer.
And we won't know 'till he is out of Baghdad. NOT MY HERO - I just prefer to withhold judgement until them.
Doesn't sound coerced...sounds like he's enjoying himself
apoppin
Lifer
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter