Closed Thread Icon

Topic awaiting preservation: peter arnett (Page 1 of 1) Pages that link to <a href="https://ozoneasylum.com/backlink?for=14163" title="Pages that link to Topic awaiting preservation: peter arnett (Page 1 of 1)" rel="nofollow" >Topic awaiting preservation: peter arnett <span class="small">(Page 1 of 1)</span>\

 
Lacuna
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: the Asylum ghetto
Insane since: Oct 2002

posted posted 03-31-2003 15:50

For those of you who don't know, read this: CNN

I don't know why I'm posting about this excatly, except that it really ticks me off and I don't understand why it happened??
How is it that an American reporter gets fired for doing an interview and speaking his mind, in a country we've invaded under the title "Operation: Iraqi Freedom"? Is it just me, or is there something seriously wrong with that?? He didn't lie, he was truthful....he didn't bash anyone, he stated the same things that LOADS of politicians have said, yet he's getting fired??

I don't get it....


__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 03-31-2003 17:11
quote:
The statement went on to say that Arnett's "decision to grant an interview and express his personal views on state-controlled Iraqi television, especially during a time of war, was a serious error in judgment



That seems like enough justification to me, personally.

He is entitled to his opinion, certainly. But going on television in a nation we are at war with to air his opinions of the poor job of our nation...at war with theirs...just seems like a really stupid thing to do. He is not just a private citizen, he is representing other organizations. Anytime you are representing other organizations, you have an obligation to protect their interests as well (of course, the simple solution in such a case is to simply not put yourself in the position of representing other orgganizations )

He's lucky we live in an age where all he got was fired. A hundred years ago ro so, he may have gotten shot =)




Lacuna
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: the Asylum ghetto
Insane since: Oct 2002

posted posted 03-31-2003 18:40

yeah...ok...i suppose i can understand about representing other organizations...but those organizations gave him permission to give interviews...granted, they told him to use his best judgment....which obviously he didn't, but what he said wasn't all that bad (i don't think). i didn't realize that it was a secret that things weren't going the way they were planned, especially when military personel and government officials have been on the news saying the same thing....i realize Iraq doesn't get CNN...but the rest of the area does.

i dunno...it just irked me is all. i'm not exactly sure why either.....

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 03-31-2003 21:00

Actually, I'm quite torn on the issue...though DL does have the 'poop' on the official side - a contract is a contract, after all.

However, he did do something very brave (and, yes, stupid)...he attempted to report the truth as he saw it.

Basically, he reported the things I have been saying...only it got him fired (and you will notice, that the network first carried his report, then dumped it). Is censorship riding high times here? Yes.

Point is, we need to question the policies of the Bush administration...for in questioning, we either support the policies, by presenting them fully (and thus, remove any doubt from the nay-sayers), or expose them for what they are - lies, smoke, and mirrors...I think the reaction says it all. Not that he was fired (though that does send a rather strong signal to the rest, doesn't it? Toe the line...or else), but that the story was dumped.


WebShaman

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 03-31-2003 21:29

I thought one of your highest priorities was protecting the lives of our service men and women fighting right now. How can that be true when you make excuses for Arnett whether he intended to or not, handing a gift to Iraqi propoganda machine? This is not the time to be trashing the administration's actions. That time ended the moment our people crossed the border and will begin again as soon as things have been secured. It's a question of timing not whether or not it can be said at all. The "opposition" should not be in favor of our people dying in the streets as one Columbia University professor has wished for, but rather in favor of getting them back home safely and then resuming the political attacks. I should have thought this was an understood convention for free countries engaged in war but nothing surprised me anymore.

quote link: http://www.boston.com/dailynews/087/nation/Columbia_teacher_calls_for_a_m:.shtml

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-31-2003).]

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 03-31-2003 21:46

I think the key factor, as Bugs talks about, is that this was done on Iraqi television.

We are at war with Iraq. He's an american citizen. He's on Iraqi television, talking about this.

In other times/places he'd be executed as a traitor.

All that happened was he got fired.

He should be happy.

{{edit for clarification - I don't think there's is anything wrong with *what* he said. As bugs said, it's a matter of timing as well as a matter of common sense. }}



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-31-2003).]

Lacuna
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: the Asylum ghetto
Insane since: Oct 2002

posted posted 03-31-2003 22:04

what's the difference in arnett giving an interview aired on Iraqi television....and our government officals giving interviews, knowing they will be rebroadcast and seen in the Arab world and Iraq??
that's the bit i don't get....

sorry for being so thick about this.....but i really don't understand

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 03-31-2003 23:59

Lacuna, the difference is that the media is not completely independent during war time (not that it is otherwise but certainly more so). Media is the chief vessel for propoganda. Propoganda is actually part of the war effort... for both sides. Believe it or not, the course of a war can be altered by who has better propoganda and for Arnett to contribute, again either knowingly or not, to Iraq's propoganda benefit will only lengthen the current war, which in turn can cost x number of lives lost on *both* sides.

I know it may sound very terrible that the media is used by governments to spin the facts in their favor but it is the way of things and it has always been the case. Whether it's right or wrong doesn't change the fact that it just is. This is not to say that you will not be able to know the truth of what's happening. Be very thankful that you live in a society where you have access to more information than you can possibly take in any 24 hour period. This allows you the freedom to wade through the propoganda from all news sources and hopefully triangulate your way closer to the truth. The Iraqi people, and huge portions of the Arab world as well, do not have this privilege.

Peter Arnett was only allowed to remain in Baghdad because he was deemed useful to Hussein. All the other journalists are getting kicked out because they were starting to report things that contradicted their propoganda efforts. Personally, I can't believe he wasn't aware that they only saw him as a tool. (I can't help but think of DarkGarden ha!)

Anyway, if you think our war time propoganda is bad, consider the fact that Iraq is a totalitarian regime. That means they *totally* control what is broadcast... i.e. zero freedom of the press. If they don't like what you broadcast, if you're an Iraqi they torture or kill you, if you're a foreign journalist they kick you out. Interestingly enough, they kept Arnett around after they had kicked out, even CNN. That should tell you something and it should have told him something but I'm really wondering whether or not he overcompensated his "neutrality" by not wanting to commit the cardinal sin of partiotism to the point that he actually cozied up to Saddam.

He said in a recent TV Guide interview, "The Iraqis have let me stay because they see me as a fellow warrior. They know I might not agree with them, but I've got their respect." This blows my mind because having the respect from a totilitarian regime can mean only one thing usually.

That is speculation on my part of course because I can't read his mind but he was either doing that or was incredibly short sighted in the matter. He did say he was embarrassed so maybe he just screwed the pooch once again.

Asked what the future held for him, Arnett said: "There's a small island, inhabited in the South Pacific that I will try to swim to." I wish him godspeed

Suho1004
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Seoul, Korea
Insane since: Apr 2002

posted posted 04-01-2003 00:48

DL is spot on. Mr. Arnett had a contract with CNN, and CNN had every right to fire him. As DL also said, he is lucky he only got fired...

The U.S Constitution defines treason as follows (Article III, Section 3, Clause 1):

quote:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.



As Bugs pointed out, Mr. Arnett's statements were fuel for Iraqi propaganda. And his comment about the Iraqis seeing him as a "fellow warrior" sure doesn't help his case either. Call me a radical, but I believe Mr. Arnett's actions fall well within the definition of treason as presented in the Constitution. He'd better start swimming.

[Edit: I want to add to this, just to show you how seriously I take this sort of thing. They had anti-war protests here in Korea, just like they did everywhere else, and my wife asked me if I wanted to go. I refused--not because I supported the war, but because my presence at the demonstrations (which had heavy anti-American overtones) could be misconstrued and would certainly be picked up by the media. For better or for worse, I love my country, and I will do nothing to disgrace it in the international community. And frankly, people who do so make me sick. OK, I think I'm finished now. Time to cool off...]

I'd also like to comment on this (from Bugs):

quote:
if you think our war time propoganda is bad, consider the fact that Iraq is a totalitarian regime. That means they *totally* control what is broadcast... i.e. zero freedom of the press.



Exactly. I can't speak for Iraqi propaganda, but I can tell you for a fact that North Korean propaganda (to which I had a good deal of exposure to in the past) is a hundred-fold worse than US propaganda. It's the kind of stuff that you read and you aren't sure whether they are joking or serious, because nobody could be that absurd, could they? Yes, yes they could. I would imagine that Iraqi propaganda would be along similar lines...

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 04-01-2003).]

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 04-01-2003 00:54

Lacuna - it's really very simple.

We're at war with Iraq.

An american citizen goes on tv in Iraq basically badmouthing america.

There's a very big inherent problem right there.

{{edit - after re-reading I realized my statement there sounds a bit condescending...it's no tmy intention. Just saying that it is probably more simple than it seems...}}



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 04-01-2003).]

Lacuna
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: the Asylum ghetto
Insane since: Oct 2002

posted posted 04-01-2003 02:01

DL, WS, Bugs and Suho: THANK YOU....i get it now! woohoo!!! break through!!!! i suppose when looked at in that light...it is indeed different. thanks for that bit of handholding there i bet you were scared that i was almost a lost cause huh?! lol

and DL....it doesn't sound anymore condescending than it does any other time don't worry about it!

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

brucew
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: North Coast of America
Insane since: Dec 2001

posted posted 04-01-2003 02:22

If I could throw in another point of view...

Let's set aside the issues of war, treason and propaganda for a moment and look at it strictly as an employment issue.

1) Peter Arnett worked for NBC.
2) He was interviewed on a competing network without permission of his employer.
3) The exact same thing would have happened if he'd given the identical interview on CBS or ABC.

As for freedom of the press, sorry I forget who said it, but it summarized the point perfectly. "Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one."

Mr. Arnett does not own NBC, so it's not his freedom of the press at issue. NBC owns the press, so they get to say what he can and cannot say and to whom he can say it.

Further, at every place I've ever worked, my freedom of speech stopped when I clocked-in because from then until I clocked-out, I was a representative of the company.

As a war reporter, he's never off the clock. Therefore, it's not his freedom of speech at issue.

It's strictly an employment issue. Full stop.

Everything else is icing on the cake for NBC so that they don't look like spoilsports for getting in a snit that he spoke on another network.

bitdamaged
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: 100101010011 <-- right about here
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 04-01-2003 03:49

Mr. Arnett while a Pulitzer prize winner has been suspect as a journalist since the first Gulf War. There's a lot leading up to this firing outside of this one act, however his credibility as a journalist has been suspect for years, he was accused of being a puppet for Hussein since the first Gulf War.

Also it should be noted he wasn't fired for reporting the news. He was fired for being the news. Note reporters are supposed to be interviewers not interviewees.




.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

NoJive
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: The Land of one Headlight on.
Insane since: May 2001

posted posted 04-01-2003 03:56

<lol> So if Arnett's actions are treasonous (sp?) You'll need another amendment to your constitution to deal with Heraldo. =)


Ahh.... 2nd thot... just shoot him. Wait a minute... maybe he'll find Sadam's vault where he keeps all those virgins and icecream for those martyrs.


[This message has been edited by NoJive (edited 04-01-2003).]

Suho1004
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Seoul, Korea
Insane since: Apr 2002

posted posted 04-01-2003 04:08

I saw on Leno last night (it is broadcasted a day later over here) a funny sketch about fake military acronyms. The one for Geraldo was T.F.B.S. = Target For Both Sides.

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 04-01-2003 06:08

I actually enjoy Geraldo's shenanigans. I figured it was a choice of hating his guts or having him be a source of entertainment. I went with the latter after having tried the first for a while

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 04-01-2003 07:57

Bugs, I never said that he didn't have consequences to pay...and he paid for them. I also was not supporting what he did on Iraqi TV. I was supporting his report, which is a different matter...namely, this part : he was sacked by the American NBC TV network for saying the initial war plan had failed.

And yes, I do firmly support our men and women in uniform, don't ever forget this. However, because of the wrong tactics and strategy, lives have been lost. I do firmly believe, that we must question such...

I also hope that in the Bush administration, sense has returned, and better tactics and strategy are installed. I firmly believe that Rumsfeld is the wrong man for the job - he has demonstrated, time and again, his incompetence. He must go - or he must be run-around.

On another note, Mr. Arnett is working again

quote:
The Daily Mirror, a UK tabloid newspaper which opposes the war, says it has hired veteran reporter Peter Arnett - a few hours after he was sacked by the American NBC TV network for saying the initial war plan had failed.

--BBC News

Well, that didn't take long...

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-01-2003).]

Lacuna
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: the Asylum ghetto
Insane since: Oct 2002

posted posted 04-01-2003 08:40

off topic: is it just me or is donald rumsfeld the sneakiest, slimest lil bastard ya ever did see?! i just don't like the looks of him.... bad juju happenin there!!

ok...back on topic: to address bruce's post, as far as i know, he did have permission to give interviews. it is my understanding that alot of the arab press is interviewing american press....and it's fairly normal. that's what he said in his interview with matt louer this morning anyways....

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 04-01-2003 10:31

Well...he's a shrewd politician...you have to give credit where credit is due. However, his tactic in Iraq has failed miserably. Now, he's trying to 'rescue' as much from it, as he can...that means backpedaling...and Mr. Bush with him. I sincerely hope that they find a way to 'rescue' his tactic and combine it with Overwhelming Force, to save lives amongst our troops. I think that might trun things around...for at the moment, the advance has stagnated. Our troops are still not in Baghdad, and March is done...we are now in a new month. I'm sure, that the longer this takes, the more critical certain factions will be of Mr. Rumsfeld...the question is, when will it become too dangerous for Mr. Bush? When that has arrived, or happens, then no amount of political savvie will save his behind. He'll get the blame from the Bush administration, and will be axed, a 'sacrificial lamb', so to speak...so the Bush administration can say 'It was his fault'...that's normal dealings, in the White House. However, if a way is found to combine the two tactics, and it happens smoothly enough, it could be enough to silence the other factions...we will see.

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 04-01-2003 21:31

You've got to love this: Fox News, military reach deal on Rivera

GrythusDraconis
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: The Astral Plane
Insane since: Jul 2002

posted posted 04-01-2003 21:53

I'm a little curious... how did the media come to know the initial planning stages of the war? How would they know how long it was "supposed" to last? And how do they know the military failed? I mean out and out failed? Even if the Government officails had decided that the waar is going to be "this" long, they sure as hell wouldn't tell the public that. The truth is that the media has no idea how far from projections the military action is. They are making assumptions based on the tidbits of information that Fleischer, Rumsfeld and Franks are letting them have. They ran with a story and with information that is only partially accurate (so far as we know) and unprovable because the information is classified or, at the very least, not being given to them. The media is the cat that turned the public on to the idea that this was going to be a slam bang affair. Now they are accusing the military and political officials in charge of this "action" for things not going the way they should.

This isn't to say that severe mistakes in estimating didn't happen in the planning stages of this war, but the media is tanking us with misinformation as fast as the government is.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 04-01-2003).]

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 04-02-2003 05:08

The tactic 'failed', if you will, the moment that Turkey decided not to allow coalition ground troops to start from Turkey, thus shutting down the Northern Offensive. The Bush administration thought that they had a deal, and went ahead with the attack from the south...only to find out that Turkey was not co-operating...and for a time, even held up the airspace...

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 04-02-2003 05:39

I think as long as you keep that word in quotes, I'm not going to complain too much BTW, I'm doing my best to listen and learn, WS. So keep explaining the military angle as you get time, I'm reading your explanations carefully

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 04-02-2003 07:43

Well, I say failed, because it did not accomplish it's main objective - to get Saddam quickly. It did manage to bring our troops into position in the south quickly...but the North is still a shambles...though it is slowly starting to become something. Without many fronts around Baghdad (from many different directions), Saddam and the Republican guard has it 'easier'...not that they have it easy, but easier as compared to how it would be if totally surrounded.

Also, the rapid advance was not well thought out - it was throught that resistance would be light, and that the Iraqis would welcome the troops...however, Saddam apparently planned for that. There have also been pretty critical problems with supply...but I think those are being worked out, now.

In end effect, I still believe that (and it does look like) Overwhelming Force is the way to go. Saddam is holed up in Baghdad...you are going to need a huge amount of force to get him out. Heavy armor, the more, the merrier. Devastation of the enemy in and around Baghdad. Then comes the not-so-looked-forward-to house-to-house...The more numbers, the more force, the less casualties.

Let's face some facts - the Iraqis have put up more resistance than expected...a lot more. They've also used tactics, that quite frankly, came as a surprise (and shouldn't have, considering that we have been studying and containing Saddam for 12 years now! Someone did not listen to Intelligence reports.) The initial thrust petered out, the Northern front has yet to get going (and the Kurds haven't yet entered the war...they are not moving until the Americans arrive there in force...they are not stupid, apparently).

All in all, despite what one has been hearing in the media, there have been considerable problems encountered with Rumsfelds tactic. We really should of had a half-million troops, and heavy armor there before starting the war - as I've said before, Saddam is not going anywhere...he's holed up in Baghdad, and content to stay there. A much slower approach forwards with the main elements (in massive numbers), with 'lightning strikes' of forward special units would probably have worked better...but we will never know, now.

At any rate, the current tactic has stalled...and will not go forward. It has been changed, apparently...or is in the process of changing...that gives me hope. It would appear, that the front line is being held stable, in wait for the troops that are now coming in from Turkey (and that shows you that the idea behind the tactic has already failed) through the Suez, and then through Kuwait - which, of course, takes time...which is anethema to a 'blitz' type of tactic. However, a 'blitz' tactic in this case could never have succeeded...because Saddam was content to wait in Baghdad, surrounded by his Republican Guard. This means that no fast attack would have succeeded in removing him (by going by his troops, etc). So, it makes sense, to use Overhwelming force, here...and that from the beginning, because the 'blitz' tactic has had no real advantage, in that sense. Also, it was very mis-understood (or ignored, more like it) the kind of control that Saddam has on the Iraqi citizens, and how strong it really is.

What really needs to be asked here, which apparently everyone is ignoring, is 'what was the purpose of Mr. Rumsfelds tactic?' and 'What exactly was (or is) Mr. Rumsfelds tactic?' Here is where you will get no immediate answers, because the Bush administration is loath to give them - now, why is that?

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 04-02-2003 08:28

You tell me I honestly don't look for conspiracies around every corner. It's kind of like the same way I interpret scripture. I read the most obvious meaning into a passage first. If there is good reason to go beyond that reading and look for an alternate interpretation, that's when I move on but if the surface reading does the trick go with it. Perhaps Rumsfeld believes his tactics will be proven in the end. The war is not over yet and it will have to be analyzed with the benefit of hindsight and all of the information that we are not privy to at the moment. It will be very interesting to see if he really screwed up or whether he actually has good reasons. I have a feeling we just won't be able to answer that question yet.

I'm hearing on the news right now that we're poised to take Baghdad in the next several hours. I have also heard reports that the Pentagon still thinks Baghdad is going to crumble from the inside. We can only hope. Thanks very much for you analysis. I think I am understanding your views much better now than before

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 04-05-2003 05:31

So since I'm on a posting pics I get in email kick...

« BackwardsOnwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu