Arnett pays a stiff price for his Baghdad boo-boo (Unusually bad argument even for a leftist)

The Seattle Times ^ | April 1, 2003 | Melanie McFarland

[Timesink]

Arnett pays a stiff price for his Baghdad boo-boo

Tuesday, April 1, 2003

By MELANIE McFARLAND
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER TELEVISION CRITIC

Having spent half of last week in the throes of fever and flu-induced headaches, returning to physical health and unhealthy levels of cable news absorption felt downright refreshing.

Then came Monday's news about NBC and National Geographic Explorer firing Peter Arnett after backing him on Sunday, and my head started throbbing again.

Arnett, who made his TV career covering the Gulf War for CNN, has had his share of journalistic boo-boos. In 1998, CNN fired him after he alleged in a documentary that U.S. commandos used sarin gas on defected American troops during the Vietnam War. He later repudiated the story.

During the weekend, Arnett gave an interview to state-run Iraqi TV in which he opined that American war planners underestimated Iraqi soldiers' determination to fight coalition troops, and that the Pentagon might be amending its plans. The Bush administration, which has come under increasing pressure from a sharper press corps in recent days, was enraged.

"The first plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance," Arnett said in an televised excerpt of the interview. "Now they are trying to write another plan."

Wait, isn't this the very topic many Americans discussed and debated at some point this weekend? Why, yes it is. As Arnett pointed out during an interview on Monday morning's "Today" show, he was simply repeating what battalions of experts have said in the Washington Post and other high-profile news outlets.

Difference is, those former generals were hired as analysts to lend their opinions. Arnett's job is, or was, to bear witness to the war as it was happening around him and report to viewers from the field.

In granting an interview to another news outlet, let alone a state-controlled news organization in a country we're at war with, he stepped out of the role of impartial journalist and into that of analyst.

He became a part of the story he was covering.

Should Arnett, a reporter who has proved to be one of NBC's best assets since the war began, have been fired? No. A slap on the wrist and a little time out of the spotlight would have sufficed.

Is someone like Arnett, who has historical perspective on Iraq and is still close enough to the conflict to grant an informed opinion, allowed to give his assessment of the situation if he also is reporting from the battlefield? No.

Then again, coverage in this war hasn't provided many shining examples of impartial journalism on the majority of American networks or cable news channels. As journalist "embeds" move through the country with American troops, they become part of the tale and reveal the war to us from that perspective. They support their military comrades along with reporting what they see.

At the same time, we're seeing a move toward flag-waving in TV news, particularly on NBC and MSNBC. Neither compare to Fox News Channel, whose nationalist news filter has attracted jeers -- and the lion's share of cable viewers.

Fox News had a romp with the Arnett interview Sunday evening when "The Big Story" host John Gibson asked if the journalist was aiding the enemy. No shocker, considering Fox's outward enmity toward Iraq. Or Gibson's on-air personality. This is the same guy who on Friday responded to a report of Iraqi intelligence agents being apprehended by saying, "You gotta watch these guys everywhere!"

But NBC's 180-degree turn between Sunday, when it defended Arnett's decision to grant the Iraqi TV interview, and yesterday, when he was fired, was an eyebrow-raiser. NBC, through MSNBC, has been focusing more on the administration's views and less on other perspectives of the war.

The firing of Arnett is another indicator of NBC's slide away from skeptical journalism and into unquestioning cheerleading mode.

Not to fret, folks. As of Monday morning, there was still at least one familiar news face in Iraq bringing us winning reports -- Geraldo! MSNBC may have reported Geraldo Rivera was ousted from Iraq that day by the military, but around 8:30 a.m. PST, he was still embedded with the 101st Airborne Division, chatting with the guys about "the Iraqi Hitler."

"Sounds to me like some rats at my former network NBC are spreading some lies about me," Rivera spat. "They can't compete fair and square on the battlefield, so they're trying to stab me in the back. . . . I'm having a great relationship with the 101st Airborne, and I intend to march into Baghdad alongside them!"

But U.S. Central Command later told CNN he was being "escorted out" to Kuwait for violating "embed" rules by broadcasting details of a future military operation.

Please pass the aspirin.

---

P-I TV critic Melanie McFarland can be reached at 206-448-8015 or tvgal@seattlepi.com.

[Timesink]

A long time ago, someone posted on FR a fascinating article offering a hypothesis that can probably never be proven, but made one hell of a lot of sense. It basic asked the question, "Why are gun control freaks so scared of honest citizens having guns when they know full well than even a total nationwide ban wouldn't do a thing about the innumerable number of guns in the hands of criminals?" The answer: Because the gun control freaks, either consciously or subconsciously, know that if they personally owned a gun, they wouldn't be able to control their own impulses to use it illegally. They know that THEY would be almost helpless to resist the temptation to reach into their drawer and pull it out the next time their spouse pushed an argument with them just a little too far, or pull it from their glove compartment the next time they got flipped off on the highway for bad driving, etc. In short, they're anti-gun because they feel the need to be protected from themselves.

Well, that's the same feeling I got reading this column. I think this writer realizes that if she were over there "dodging bombs with the big boys" instead of stuck behind her office desk watching other people do it all day, she would never be forward-thinking enough to realize that doing like Arnett did would even raise an eyebrow with her bosses, or her readers, much less get her fired. Thus, she writes a column defending Arnett becuase "there, but for the grace of God, go I."

[Naspino]

I'm sure her headache is that her profession is taking a beating. FOX is dominating television and the INTERNET is dominating what used to belong to print. Not to mention the war going well -- probably makes her dizzy just thinking about it.

[Batrachian]

This woman believes that it's equally bad for an American journalist to be pro American as it is for him to be pro Iraqi.

In short, she's a journalist first and an American second (and a distant second, at that).

[Freedom4US]

These folks have had a monopoly for so many years they got used to it. When you get to define the terms of the debate, it's really easy to win. They got stale and silly. The Internet and talk radio has changed all this. They not only don't get to define the terms of the debate, we don't even invite them, with predictable, juvenile result. Think 10 year old not invited to a party.

[WellsFargo94]

She is based in Seattle, all I have to say to her is, "Have a latte honey and simmer down".

[Free ThinkerNY]

"The firing of Arnett is another indicator of NBC's slide away from skeptical journalism and into unquestioning cheerleading mode."

The issue is not freedom of press, but treason. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy by appearing on Iraqi propaganda TV is the issue. Liberals are masters of deception.

[Timesink]

Should Arnett, a reporter who has proved to be one of NBC's best assets since the war began, have been fired? No. A slap on the wrist and a little time out of the spotlight would have sufficed.

Arnett was "one of NBC's best assets" because he was one of the only American journalists the Saddam regime allowed to stay in Baghdad. That in and of itself made him suspect, and - combined with his having already been fired once for reporting an anti-US military story that turned out to have been made up out of whole cloth - is probably what pushed the embarrassingly wishy-washy NBC management to finally decide to dump him after staying up all night trying (and failing) to find a PR argument that would allow them to keep him.

Then again, coverage in this war hasn't provided many shining examples of impartial journalism on the majority of American networks or cable news channels. As journalist "embeds" move through the country with American troops, they become part of the tale and reveal the war to us from that perspective. They support their military comrades along with reporting what they see.

Yes. Until Vietnam, this was called "journalism." Edward R. Murrow, Ernie Pyle, and even Walter Cronkite (who was a print reporter for UPI at the time) - some of the biggest icons in all of journalistic history - made no bones about traveling with, openly supporting, and even sometimes risking their own personal lives for "OUR BOYS." That was the exact term they used, "our boys!" Not "American military forces," but "OUR BOYS!" The very concept of "unbiased, impartial, objective, distanced journalism" - which is a) a total lie, as we all know, and b) a uniquely American concept for the most part - was never even thought of until at least the late 1940s and early 1950s. Back then, the vast majority of news reports were about as unbiased as, say, this column.

But NBC's 180-degree turn between Sunday, when it defended Arnett's decision to grant the Iraqi TV interview, and yesterday, when he was fired, was an eyebrow-raiser. NBC, through MSNBC, has been focusing more on the administration's views and less on other perspectives of the war.

Yes, and why is this? Say it with me slowly, dear: BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON. There are only so many times you can cover the same unwashed college students carrying - literally - the exact same banners and shouting the exact same six-word-long slogans over and over again every day, for the simple fact that their ultra-simplistic arguments have been presented dissected in their full childlike splendor thousands of times already, and every human being in America is intimately familiar with them. Events in the war, however, are actually news.

This is why you are behind a desk writing opinion pieces while others are having the time of their lives as embedded reporters; it is because you do not understand, or more likely are simply unwilling to accept, the difference.

[Blue Screen of Death]

In short, she's a journalist first and an American second (and a distant second, at that).

She's a TV Critic. It is well known that in any news orginization only the finest journalists skyrocket to the coveted position of TV Critic. Usually this exaulted position requires years of study, commitment, intelligence and dedication. Never underestimate the power of an AMERICAN TV CRITIC, it is only one step below the honored obituary writer.

[Timesink]

Never underestimate the power of an AMERICAN TV CRITIC, it is only one step below the honored obituary writer.

*snicker* Beautiful.

[Howlin]

Arnett, who made his TV career covering the Gulf War for CNN, has had his share of journalistic boo-boos. In 1998, CNN fired him after he alleged in a documentary that U.S. commandos used sarin gas on defected American troops during the Vietnam War. He later repudiated the story.

He later repudiated the story? ROFLMAO.

There's a fine piece of journalist crap.

[Howlin]

has had his share of journalistic boo-boos

boo-boos equal DEATH to our troops, dimwit.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Fox News Channel, whose nationalist news filter has attracted jeers -- and the lion's share of cable viewers.

. . . and cable viewers obviously are knuckle-dragging Neandrethals </sarcasm>

The "nationalist news filter" is not cynicism--and "objective" journalism has a powerful tendency to cynicism.

[Beck_isright]

"Wait, isn't this the very topic many Americans discussed and debated at some point this weekend? Why, yes it is."

Why no, it isn't. It was discussed on DU and the liberal media. But most of us were watching a different war. Perhaps the writer of this column should volunteer for something that they are more professionally qualified for: Human Shield for a RG T-55.

V