Arnett sacked

Post #93,197 by rcareaga 3/31/03 10:34:42 AM Reply	Arnett sacked [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57979-2003Mar31.html\|http://www.washingto...79-2003Mar31.html] He said, in part: "It is clear that within the United States there is growing challenge to President Bush about the conduct of the war and also opposition to the war. So our reports about civilian casualties here, about the resistance of the Iraqi forces...help those who oppose the war..." Lies, vile lies! cordially (from on the road), "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
Post #93,200 by Brandioch 3/31/03 10:45:43 AM Reply	Damn Liberal controlled press. "It was wrong for Mr. Arnett to grant an interview to state controlled Iraqi TV \ufffd especially at a time of war \ufffd and it was wrong for him to discuss his personal observations and opinions in that interview," Shapiro said in a statement. Why?
Post #93,205 by bepatient 3/31/03 11:00:53 AM Reply	Because his job is to report. And clearly this is not what he was doing. Pretty simple really. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #93,229 by CRConrad 3/31/03 12:40:11 PM Reply	If he did it off the clock, is it any of their business?
Post #93,283 by ChrisR 3/31/03 3:25:26 PM Reply	Why? It was wrong because it would cost the network revenue to retain (and defend) the contract of this individual. Since the affair in question was editorial content not delivered in the said network, the network is free to disparage the individual without having to worry about the effect on its content delivery. IOW, why defend the individual when the publicity concerns a matter for which the network has no stake.
Post #93,226 by drewk 3/31/03 12:30:22 PM Reply	Tough call, IMO Looking at what he actually said: "It is clear that within the United States there is growing challenge to President Bush about the conduct of the war and also opposition to the war." Factual. Some might debate the level of disagreement, but this isn't really too controversial. "So our reports about civilian casualties here, about the resistance of the Iraqi forces . . . help those who oppose the war. . . ." This is editorializing. To state it as fact on Iraqi state TV, it will be presented as fact. I have to believe he knew that. "The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance. Now they are trying to write another war plan." Opinion. Again this will be presented as fact on Iraqi TV. And again, he had to know that. The correspondent portrayed himself as a minority voice, saying: "Clearly, the American war planners misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces. And I personally do not understand how that happened, because I've been here many times and in my commentaries on television I would tell the Americans about the determination of the Iraqi forces. . . . But me, and others who felt the same way, were not listened to by the Bush administration." Opinion. It is also possible, and I would suggest more likely, that American war planners did know this, but that they played it down in an effort to win support for the war. He and I seem to be on different sides of the "incompetence vs. malice" debate. (I'm not comforted that I'm the one coming down on the side of "malice".) Yesterday, NBC spokeswoman Allison Gollust defended the veteran reporter, saying that "Peter Arnett and his crew have risked their lives to bring the American people up-to-date, straightforward information on what is happening in and around Baghdad. His impromptu interview with Iraqi TV was done as a professional courtesy. . . . His remarks were analytical in nature and were not intended to be anything more." This is totally bogus CYA material. To call it "professional courtesy" suggests that Iraqi state run TV is a professional news organization. That would be akin to a reporter offering "professional courtesy" to the CIA or KGB. Nothing he said would be a problem if he said it on U.S. TV. Iraqi TV could then air the very same footage. The fact that it was done specifically for Iraqi TV serves no purpose but to lend it legitimacy. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #93,231 by CRConrad 3/31/03 12:44:27 PM Reply	Your last sentence seems a bit loosely tacked-on... Da DrooK: Nothing he said would be a problem if he said it on U.S. TV. Iraqi TV could then air the very same footage. The fact that it was done specifically for Iraqi TV serves no purpose but to lend it legitimacy. ...given that it doesn't follow from, but directly contradicts the preceding ones: Didn't you just say that it was airing it on American TV first that would have "len[t] it legitimacy"? Confusedly yours, [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575\|Ashton Brown]
Post #93,234 by drewk 3/31/03 12:58:58 PM Reply	Nope U.S. TV has a whole genre of shows dedicated to facing off two people with opposing viewpoints against each other. For someone to say what he did on U.S. TV wouldn't be unusual at all. And since we know that Iraqi TV would have no qualms about airing snippets from those shows, the only possible reason to do the interview for Iraqi TV is to give it a sense of legitimacy to the Iraqi populace. If they showed clips from U.S. TV with subtitles or voiceover, the skeptical Iraqi could easily doubt the translation. For an American reporter to actually do an interview for their channel seems much more "real". In that light, what he said sounds like it was intended to stoke Iraqi morale. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #93,252 by CRConrad 3/31/03 1:46:10 PM Reply	Uh... Yeah, I've always wondered how the **** anyone... could vote for Pat Buchanan, after he spent fucking YEARS on "Crossfire" demonstrating what a stupid fucking Neanderthal Nazi he is... Sure, Mike Kinsley always came off as a bit of a wimp in comparison -- but then, who wouldn't, compared to fucking Attila the Hun?!? And at least Kinsley has shown that he HAS more than two neurons to rub together; see, e.g, [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39936-2003Mar27.html\|Our Kind of Law (Washington Post)] (only available for about ten days more; then it goes into their for-pay Archive). So, uh, yeah: I'm reasonably familiar with that kind of program. But I still don't think there's any such complex "lend it legitimacy" reasonings behind this whole thing as you assume; FWIW, it seems much more likely to me that they just asked the guy if he would mind answering some questions on air, and he felt he couldn't very well say no -- after all, he wanted people to answer his questions. And your opinion of "the skeptical Iraqi" is somewhat insulting, BTW: People fucking SPEAK ENGLISH nowadays, or at the very least, they know someone they trust who does. There would be no issue of "easily doubt[ing] the translation"; at least, much LESS so than the issue they get having it done by their own: "So, is this just some total nutjob; a 'deserter' or 'traitor' saying anything Saddam wants him to? Or is there someone just outside the picture holding a gun on him?" Given those possibilities, which I'd think would be the first to occur to your "skeptical Iraqi", anything copied from Yank TV would probably seem more credible to him, not less. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575\|Ashton Brown]
Post #93,281 by drewk 3/31/03 3:14:31 PM Reply	Question, then If his views are so readily available from the "more credible" U.S. sources, why did they bother interviewing him on their official channel? To the extent that the Iraqi government believes the channel is effective at all, it is as propoganda. Well, I guess that's just my opinion, but it seems to be supported by the coverage they offer. In any case, if the reporter believed the same thing about that channel, he had to know anything he said would be used purely for propoganda purposes. If he didn't believe that to be the case, why didn't he say so in his defense? If he had done the interview with Al-Jazeera this would have been a much closer call. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #93,284 by CRConrad 3/31/03 3:35:52 PM Reply	On the issue, I can only say, "Dunno". But, as an aside... ...it's "propaganda", dammit! And this goes for several of you others, too, not just Drew. You know who you are... I hope! [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575\|Ashton Brown]
Post #93,290 by SpiceWare 3/31/03 3:58:05 PM Reply	wish we spoke like Jim DiGriz Esperanto is phonetic afterall. Didn't realize esperanto was used in [link\|http://www.kafejo.com/lingvoj/auxlangs/mentions/reddwarf.htm\|Red Dwarf] Note: For those who don't know - Jim DiGriz is [link\|http://www.iol.ie/~carrollm/hh/n02-01.htm\|The Stainless Steel Rat]. Reload the page for various covers of the book. Darrell Spice, Jr. [link\|http://www.spiceware.org/cgi-bin/spa.pl?album=./Artistic%20Overpass\|Artistic Overpass]\n[link\|http://www.spiceware.org/\|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
Post #93,495 by bepatient 4/1/03 11:52:46 AM Reply	He still doesn't get it.... ...in the half dozen interviews I've seen since...he still claims "I was only stating things that everyone already knows"...about failed war plans, et al. He long since stopped reporting and started op/ed'ing...which is NOT what he was getting paid for. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #94,111 by scoenye 4/3/03 1:10:28 PM Reply	He's working for us now... One of the Belgian TV stations signed him up for the duration of the war. Or until the last non-embedded journalist is arrested and deported. "I'm sorry," the sergeant said. "But the chick was in the way."

Welcome to IWETHEY!