Arnett fired

033103 | NBC

[dep]

"It was wrong for Mr. Arnett to grant an interview with Iraqi state television," said NBC in a statement. NBC, MSNBC, and National Geographic have all fired him.

Arnett on live, apoligizing to "NBC, MSNBC, National Geographic, and the American people." He then goes on to say that all he said in the interview was "what we all know.

[Leisler]

MYOB.

[Congressman Billybob]

Nope, my friend. Arnett's visa cannot be revoked.

He was born a New Zealander, but became an American citizen about 20 years ago. So we can't refuse to admit him into the US. However, quite a number of complications involving lawyers can occur after he gets back. (I don't think he'll come back for quite a while.)

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, now up on UPI, and FR, "The A-MAA-zing War Wizard"

Latest book(let), "to Restore Trust in America."

[Beck_isright]

I'm sure he'll stay away too. There are about 250,000 families of US servicemen and women that would like to meet him in a dark alley.

V

[Beck_isright]

I would like to comment again on this subject regarding your post#351. The line is quite distinct. If the government refuses to allow the broadcast of Arnett's garbage, then and only then is it censorship. If the citizens (i.e. "customers") of the NBC networks rise up and demand an end to it, then it's an economic reality that his job be terminated. It's no different than if a football player sucks or if a tv news show finishes last in the ratings. The player will be cut or the tv show ended.
Arnett made another poor judgement as did the execs with NBC by gambling on his ability to just report instead of becoming part of the propaganda arm of an enemy nation. It is tantamount to treason but I'll leave that one to the lawyers. But the reality is if FR were shut down by the government, then it's censorship. If FR is shut down by protesters and lack of interest, then that is just an economic reality.
I object to censorship. I also object to alleged "unbiased" media types making propaganda films for our enemies. Arnett crossed the line and instead of paying the economic price of a consumer backlash, NBC took the correct action. This is very black and white with zero middle IMHO.

V

[valleygal]

I wouldn't put him in the same class as Arnett either. He has been very supportive of the troops and very gung ho. Dh and I have been very surprised. But last night he was blabbing all kinds of things. Even said where we were going next.

You can bet family members of our troops that saw it had a fit.

I just heard on the radio the 101 is going to escort him to the Kuwaiti border. Right now he's giving a live report and saying it's not true.

[Flint]

He would be a shoo in for Daschels publicity staff.

[VRWC_minion]

I pretty much agree with your comments but my concern is the effect that Arnett's firing has on other reporters in future situations. If the average reported will be afraid to say what he perceives is true if it isn't the current "group think" then that has an effect on what you and I will hear in the future.

So, its the future self censorship that will be affected that concerns me. I agree in truth Arnett was not censored. Part of me really wants to dance in the streets thinking Rather and Jennings might think twice before opening their mouths but part of me knows that is dangerous also.

[valleygal]

No they didn't! I just hear Geraldo live on FOX and he said he had just heard about the report and that it's not true. Said he's even deeper in Iraq.

He said his former network NBC/MSNBC are "rats" and just making up lies about him!

[Beck_isright]

Actually a true professional will continue on and take his chances, but stick to reporting facts. The problem is the new "media" has been indoctrinated in so much left wing bull cookies, that they are slanting every report (a la CNN) with every utterance. Censorship will only be an issue on the battlefield if you ask me.

On that subject, did you hear Drudge's tape of Rather in Europe? Holy cows, that will set you off, comparing the "neo-totalitarian regime in Washington" to "mid-1930's Germany"! I thought Drudge and Pat Buchanan were going to have a stroke last night!!!

V

[Congressman Billybob]

I have read a bunch of your posts and am compelled to respond. I practice First Amendment law in the US Supreme Court, and expect to be on the winning side with my 17th brief there, to be filed in the Campaign Finance "Reform" case. With that said....

The First Amendment "freedom of the press" has been correctly interpreted to apply to the forms of "press" unknown to the Framers, namely broadcast media. Therefore, under the Amendment the GOVERNMENT has no right to tell NBC, MSNBC, and National Geographic what they can or cannot broadcast or print. Are you with me so far?

The Amendment, however, does NOT say "freedom of employment for members of the press." NBC, etc., are NOT the government. They have every right to fire any of their employees at any time. And being private corporations, they have an obligation to their stockholders to fire someone (Arnett, for instance) if they conclude that they will lose market share, big time, because of something that employee has done or not done. Do you follow that?

So this NBC-Arnett thing has zip to do with "freedom of the press" and has everything to do with garden-variety free market capitalism. Got it now?

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, now up on UPI, and FR, "The A-MAA-zing War Wizard"

Latest book(let), "to Restore Trust in America."

[VRWC_minion]

Of course this was an economic decision and perhaps I overstated my concerns about freedom of the press. I agreed that this isn't a first amendment issue but I disagree that our concerns about the press end at the government or at the board of directors.

My issue is that a mob mentality was brought to bear on a member of the press who from what I can tell accurately restated positions and reports as given by our own news in a televised interview and for that he was fired.

The 1st amendment protects us from the Gov't but it doesn't protect us from ourselves. My questions go to what our actions and expectations should be of our reporters in general. Where do we as a people draw the line for tolerance of differing points of view by the press ?

[My2Cents]

Let's see...Arnett went from CNN to MSNBC, and then to the National Geographics Channel. Who's he going to work for now? The Pennysaver?

[happygrl]

The press isn't supposed to present a "point of view."

It's supposed to report facts.

When the press continually Slants the news, it is our duty to protest.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Now lets get back to work on the Columbia professor who is a terrorist shill.

It is my understanding that de Genova is untenured. When he is up for tenure, alumni donors ought to let it be known how they feel about his retention. This has nothing to do with academic freedom. If a scholar seeking tenure at an American institution of higher learning were to demand that the Dred Scott decision be enforced and the property rights of slave holders respected one would not hold out much hope for his achieving tenure. I think the same test can be applied to de Genova.

[South40]

EXCELLENT!!

Now let's work on getting his citicenship revoked!

[dancusa]

Baghdad Pete is now a free agent.Arnett can go work for a network that will appreciate his reportial skills.Palestine Peter Jennings can hire him for ABC.Arnett certainly fills ABC shrill anti-american editorial line.

[stands2reason]

He's a New Zealander, I think, so all this talk about treason is misplaced...

[JustPiper]

Amen!!! It was obvious after Arnett's stint with CNN, he has become an Iraqi sympathizer!

[VRWC_minion]

The press isn't supposed to present a "point of view."

That is the point. He wasn't reporting, he was being interviewed.