View Full Version : Peter Arnett

03-31-2003, 02:08 PM
Maybe the United States really is turning into a Nazi type state?!? Peter Arnett was fired by MSNBC and National Geographic after doing an interview with Iraqi TV. I bet this was done per requests of the Pentagon. I thought there was something called freedom of speech in America...


If this can happen to a reporter, makes me wonder how badly the Pentagon is going to come up on us artists... If you protest the war or do any art about it, maybe that will come to be known as a form of terrorism?!? Geesh, think of the repercussions that this sort of thing could have. The other day on msn messanger, a person that I worked on a game project with several months ago in England had some very nasty things to say about the U.S. being the worst terrorist on the face of the earth for Heroshima and Nagasaki. Thinking about this conversation, I begin thinking about the Native Indian population's treatment and how Presedent Bush is somewhat similar to a king as his father was Presedent during the first Gulf War. I think also of a number of other things related to all of this... and the consequences that may come about because of them. I am not oppossed to the war and support our troops. My Little Brother is now in Kuwait, but this sort of thing begins to make you think...

03-31-2003, 02:36 PM
The fact is, the American public was so disgusted with Peter Arnett, that NBC made a "Financial" decision. Plain and simple.

If you have a personal agenda with President Bush, you should try and find better ground to attack him on.

Even my liberal friends, (yes, I have many), were disgusted with Peter.

The fact that he would give the enemy, reason to think they should keep fighting, which WILL result in more dead Americans, Coalition forces and even Iraqis, was reason enough to consider his actions self serving and insulting to the rest of us.

I just put him ahead of Geraldo Rivera as the #1 disgrace to Journalism.

03-31-2003, 04:05 PM
mastermesh get a life.

03-31-2003, 04:55 PM
United States really is turning into a Nazi type state

What the hell does the U.S. Govt, Pentagon or any other entitiy have to do with his (Arnett) dismissal????

Geeze, that was about the most useless post I have seen yet,,

Get a grip on civics and the free enterprise system

04-01-2003, 03:55 AM
I canceled my subscription to National Geography today.
My 2 cents.

04-01-2003, 07:02 AM
Reason I mention the Pentagon is that they haven't liked Arnett for quite a while... http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/apr1999/cnn-a22.shtml


Here's an html version of part of the interview: c.com/news/2003/03/0326_032603_arnett.html+peter+arnett+pentagon+nbc+ fired+2003&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

and here:


The important parts seem to be:

You can buy the Iraqi side of this story or not, that the prisoners were not interrogated and not executed. But for the U.S. to instantly claim that that there had been executions was jumping the gun a little


I'm really relying on the Iraqi officials to be with us for the first part of the battle. There is a lot of criticism about these minders, but they also have a protective role in parts of town where there are crowds and people who are suspicious. They help us through.


I get a perverse pleasure out of being here. CNN dumped me, and I think unfairly. Tailwind was almost a deathblow to my career, no doubt about it. (In 1999 Arnett was fired by CNN after delivering a report that U.S. forces used nerve gas on U.S. defectors during the Vietnam War. The story, dubbed Tailwind, was later determined to be untrue. Arnett defended himself by saying that he was only the story's narrator, rather than the reporter behind the story.) I've known all my life that you cannot afford to make a serious mistake in credibility in journalism. You are dead if you do. I felt that I had to dig myself out after Tailwind and I had to consider how best to redeem myself. That I am here in Baghdad is an irony. I never envisaged myself being in action again like this. It was inconceivable that I would be working with Tom Brokaw and the rest of the guys....

But if it turns out to be a vicious battle and many people are killed I don't think the people will be happy about an American arrival.

If somehow this can happen without fighting, it is conceivable that the Iraqis in Baghdad, a town of business people and educated folks, will say, "Hey, how are you doing?"

But if there is fighting and people are dead on the streets, I don't think there will be flowers and music.

The last thing the U.S. and Britain wants is this fighting.

If they can destroy the Republican Guard and force some capitulation here, I've got to think that a friendly welcome is in the cards.


He's got another job now though..

04-01-2003, 01:35 PM
Peter Arnett was *in* Viet Nam during the Indochinese War; he should have known better than to lend his voice to that Tailwind piece. Except, during that war, he again undermined the morale and ability of the U.S. to win, by more successfully brainwashing the folks back home with his lying reports.

What he said in that interview was untrue. It bore no relation to the reality of the war, and could serve only one purpose; to provide aid and comfort to the Hussein regime. Even in his apology he asserted that "everybody knows" the truth of his lies. The fact is, there was no pause, there is no bogging down. The fact is, we're beating hell out of the Hussein regime forces wherever we meet them. The fact is, the only non-military resistance we've met has been offered up at gunpoint. While the people are bullied out of greeting us with open arms, they are not rushing to the barracades, either. Thus far, every account of civilian resistance has either been soldiers out of uniform, or civilians threatened into fighting us. Completely different from what Arnett said. He reported lies and opinions as facts, which gave aid and comfort to the enemy. As Arnett is a naturalized U.S. citizen, that's treason.

Being fired, he got off easy.

And Geraldo should be out on his ear, too. I never liked him ever since he incited a riot on his TV show. But I tolerated him, because he seemed to support the troops. Well, clapping our guys on the back and telling them they're wonderful, and then giving battle plans and positions to the enemy ain't supporting the troops.
Given his track record, his was most likely a screw-up. Given Arnett's track record, his was intentional.

As for the Pentagon, if someone trips you and lies about you and harasses you, you're not going to like them, either.

04-01-2003, 05:09 PM
Peter Arnett was censored, not for giving the Iraqis information, but for the effect that his statements will have on U.S. domestic opinion.

His statements didn't give the Iraqi's anything they didn't already know. British and Australian military commanders (coalition partners) said similar things. The Iraqis could have broadcast statements from coalition partners if they wanted to influence their population.

As for "supporting the troops", the troops will do their job regardless of what news is broadcast back home. I hope the troops come home alive, but this is not a football game. They don't need people cheering them on. Supporting the troops should not involve the censorship of "bad" news reports. Buy some rose-colored glasses if you want that!

More important is the right of the American people to receive accurate news, whether good or bad.

Arnett didn't give away any strategic information that was not already known. NBC initially defended Arnett's statements as being accurate. Only later, under pressure, NBC changed its tact, and sacked the guy.

Also, the arabic news outlet, al-Jazeera, had its website domain name withdrawn. Same reason. Control of public opinion.

04-01-2003, 07:36 PM

Reread my message. It lays out the situation plain and simply.

As you pointed out, he didn't give away any military secrets, so no need to censor him.

If you're right about soldiers not caring about morale at home, then there would be no need to censor, either.

But, you're wrong.

The moral is to the physical as 3 to 1.
-Napoleon Bonaparte, on the importance of morale.

We learned a harsh lesson during the Indochinese War what harm false propoganda unchallenged could cause.

04-02-2003, 01:54 AM
america, home of the free indede


04-02-2003, 11:06 AM
Arnett didn't give any more info than any other reporter... actually several other reporters before his interview had said that the US military may have to revise some of their tactics, etc.. and this is proven to be true by the fact that TONS more military personal have been called into action in and around Iraq... Arnett just said the same thing a little more bluntly. He's right, the military plan could have been a lot more solid. To me, any U.S. life lost is one too many, and makes this war campaign a lot less successful than it should have been.

This whole thing just goes to prove that the news media is the real brain washer...

04-02-2003, 11:32 AM
he made inapropiate comments on Iraqui State sponsored TV people!!!

With his comments he provided "aid and comfort to the enemy" and there is no argument about that. In my opinion it toon too long before he was fired. He should have been firen 5 minutes after the interview.

04-02-2003, 12:33 PM
Aaah, USA the land of free speech....like China ;)

Man are you naiv. What did you expect he should say ? He was invited by their TV and they gave him a chance to say something. He didn't give away any secrects and he was polite to the Iraquis and gave a good picture of an US American, instead of calling Iraquis idiots or telling some dumb propaganda stories. They respect him so he respects them, a simple rule for journalists to survive, sometimes even for Peter Arnett ;)

Jim Capillo
04-02-2003, 04:18 PM
Arnett is an idiot. He is no better than most of the clowns that pose as "journalists" on TV today. Why the hell is he GRANTING an interview TO Iraqui TV? He is supposed to be the one asking questions, not answering them.

Most would hope a journalist with any semblance of integrity would keep an open mind and report the facts, just the facts. Problem is, Arnett (and many like him) start to believe their own press and develop an over-inflated value of self importance. These people aren't deep thinkers, they become shallow, obsessed with their "fame".

This is all based on my experience as a shooter/editor at an NBC affiliate. There are very few who don't have huge egos and diagnosis of self-importance, even at that level. It is worse on a national/world level.

Just consider Geraldo......

04-02-2003, 09:10 PM
Soo much for freedom of speech....

Get our troops out of there!

04-02-2003, 11:34 PM
Jim, you are so right. I spent 18 years at the NBC affiliate here. After about 1980ish, most of the reporters were far more concerned with sensationalizing a story to make themselves better demo reels, then reporting anything resembling the true facts of the news.
I was always amazed what they would do to get the "Good" stories.

Peter and Geraldo fall into the National Enquirer category. Hardly Journalists.

04-02-2003, 11:48 PM
Just 5 minutes after posting the last message, I heard that Geraldo got busted by the Military for reporting detailed info on what the military was doing. I think they kicked him out of Iraq.

Need I say more about the self serving tactics some of these reporters use?

Check Mate!:D But it ain't funny!:mad:

04-03-2003, 11:12 AM
Can someone who has actually read the First Ammendment to the US Constitution explain to me how this is a violation of free speech?

04-03-2003, 11:37 AM
It was NBC's decision to fire him, not the governments. Besides, wasn't Arnett's credibility already tarnished even before this incident? He seems to be the only journalist who loves to go to enemy media outlets and rant.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It has to do with the consequences. Anyone has the right to say whatever they want. But then others have the right to respond.

04-03-2003, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by JohnD
It was NBC's decision to fire him, not the governments. Besides, wasn't Arnett's credibility already tarnished even before this incident? He seems to be the only journalist who loves to go to enemy media outlets and rant.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It has to do with the consequences. Anyone has the right to say whatever they want. But then others have the right to respond.

Exactly. Thank you John.

04-03-2003, 03:21 PM
NBC actually was going to go to bat for Arnett, it was not till it was deluged with messages from the American public that they switched their policy,,,,,,,,,

that is freedom of speech, dipped in democracy with a sprinkle of "we aint taken your sh*t".

Jim Capillo
04-03-2003, 03:45 PM
and they, my friend, are the ones who pay the bills at NBC.