[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 ?

[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.

[SendShaqtoIraq]

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.

[Redbob]

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?"