Skip to comments.
Arnett fired
033103
| NBC
Posted on 03/31/2003 4:18:35 AM PST by dep
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380, 381-400, 401-420, 421-440 next last
To: dep
He then goes on to say that all he said in the interview was "what we all know."Some apology. The idiot got off easily, IMHO.
381
posted on
03/31/2003 9:57:36 AM PST
by
dansangel
(America - love it, support it, or LEAVE IT!)
To: nicmarlo
LOL----nicmarlo, you ROCK!!!!
382
posted on
03/31/2003 10:00:09 AM PST
by
dansangel
(America - love it, support it, or LEAVE IT!)
To: VRWC_minion
The Bazillions the networks charge for advertising is the bottom line. If everyone starts tuning to other channels, jars of peanut butter, packages of cookies, bars of soap will go unsold. Will Arnett's lies sell diapers? Can you sell an SUV right after the news tells you your country is doomed?
Zip your Nomex suit all the way to your chin and hunker down... Stupid does not go unanswered 'round here!
383
posted on
03/31/2003 10:02:01 AM PST
by
jonascord
(Fie on Marxist quotes!)
To: dansangel
ty dansy....so do you! : )
To: dancusa
Oh, come on. Three French networks have probably already emailed him job offers.
385
posted on
03/31/2003 10:09:14 AM PST
by
Yaelle
To: ChemistCat
I didn't know he was an American.
To: dep
Upon waking up this morning and hearing this news was the best I've heard in several weeks. Great news! The action to fire this schmuck was superb.
To: VRWC_minion
No, YOU lose when you have no argument whatsoever.
To: VRWC_minion
1)He stated that his reports were designed to increase the anti-American, anti-Bush sentiment
2)He did it on public television
3)Not only are there two witnesses, there are MILLIONS
4)He bolstered the morale of the enemy.
All four conditions are met.
To: M. Thatcher
No, YOU lose when you have no argument whatsoever.I stated my argument. It was wrong for Arnet to be fired because of what he said in an interview. You disagree and call me names instead of having a rational discussion.
If the benefit of a high IQ is to use logical fallacies instead of having a rational dialogue then I'd rather stick with my lower IQ. I'll at least learn something new.
390
posted on
03/31/2003 11:02:05 AM PST
by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: SendShaqtoIraq
)He stated that his reports were designed to increase the anti-American, anti-Bush sentiment Source please.
391
posted on
03/31/2003 11:02:46 AM PST
by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: VRWC_minion
Reporters aren't hired to spout their "points of view." They are hired to report the news. That means facts only.
If they want to express "points of view" they can write letters to the editor of various newspapers, or write editorials.
To: smith288
If you arent American, why not fly your country flag in your profile? :) Because I despise the country in which I live
and I don't want to be identified with it.
393
posted on
03/31/2003 11:11:30 AM PST
by
Allan
To: Allan
Canada, eh?
394
posted on
03/31/2003 11:13:21 AM PST
by
smith288
(Visit my gallery http://www.ejsmithweb.com/fr/hollywood/hollywood.php)
To: SendShaqtoIraq
Reporters aren't hired to spout their "points of view." Then a reporter should never be allowed to express his personal opinions when not reporting ? That isn't logical. The issue with Arnett wasn't his reporting. But now that you mention it, many reporters in this country made the same points and it was those points that Arnett reiteritated.
395
posted on
03/31/2003 11:21:06 AM PST
by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: VRWC_minion
Arnett wasn't fired for "stating the facts."
He was fired for editorializing, for sympathizing with our enemies, and for using his position to launch a personal attack on our President.
Per Fox news, "He said the Iraqis allowed him to stay in Baghdad because they respect him and 'see me as a fellow warrior.'"
How would you classify someone who calls himself a "fellow warrior" with our enemies?
Surely not a "journalist?"
396
posted on
03/31/2003 11:27:49 AM PST
by
Redbob
To: VRWC_minion
"It just seems to me his right to express his opinion no matter how much I hate it is his right."
He does have the right and his bosses have the right to fire him if he endangers the stockholders' investments. IMO. And he still has the right to express his opinion. He can get right back on Iraqi tv and do it again anytime he feels like it.
Agreed on Daschle.
To: VRWC_minion
398
posted on
03/31/2003 11:35:25 AM PST
by
Redbob
To: duckman
. It was treason and he should be put on trial. Yes, I agree he should be prosecuted. During WW2, "journalists" in Tokyo and Berlin who spouted similar messages on radio directed to our troops were consdired war criminals, and I believe they faced tribunals at the end of the war.
Does anyone know whether Arnett can actually face charges?
399
posted on
03/31/2003 11:46:52 AM PST
by
PoisedWoman
(Fed up with the liberal media)
To: Hazzardgate
Arnett & The Toxic Avenger Funny! But he could be Young Frankenstein's monster instead ....
400
posted on
03/31/2003 11:48:37 AM PST
by
al_c
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380, 381-400, 401-420, 421-440 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson