Top Story

Young Journalists Use Facebook Ads to Reach Prospective Employers

1.	Social networking is banned in Baltimore courthouses 4:04 PM Feb. 9, 2010
2.	Blackberry still most popular smart phone, iPhone gains 2:24 PM Feb. 9, 2010
3.	Glitches, Delays Disrupt Plans for Virtual Border Fence 11:33 AM Feb. 9, 2010
4.	Young Journalists Use Facebook Ads to Reach Prospective Employers 5:20 AM Feb. 9, 2010
5.	What Great Bosses Know about 'No Surprises' 4:20 PM Feb. 8, 2010
More Recent Articles

Most E-mailed

Article Feedback

View all feedback

Was Arnett's Firing Fair?
(Read the Article)
Post Feedback | Feedback Guidelines | Report Feedback Abuse

Sorting options:	most recent	\| author
Display options:	expand all	\| collapse all

Page 1 of 4 [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 ]

THE WITCH HUNTERS HAVE BECOME THE WITCH.
Posted by JD KEITH 7/7/2004 1:19:30 AM

The date is July 6, 2004.Today All the major news channels are preaching the exact words Mr Arnette shoved down thier throtes over a year ago.Please exscuse me with the exception of the Holyer than tha" FOX news channel fair and balanced".Fair and balanced my festering butt whart. Thier still on the witch hunt for anyone who speakes thier mind aginst the war or the "NEW GWB WORLD ORDER". Mr Arnette had it oh so right and I believe him to be a rightious man and a hell of journalist. Let us all hope that in november we all get it right and send this" either your with us or your aginst us" YE!!! HA!!! joke of a president packing for his ranch down in whever the YE!!! HA!!! it is Texas.ROCK ON ARNETTE ROCK ON.Remember this our greatest victory is not in never falling, yet rising every time we fall.

Peter; The Truth Needs No Apology!
Posted by Barbara Costello 2/20/2004 8:56:38 PM

When you have the courage to tell the truth there are always those interests who are eagerly trying to cover up and or put a spin on that truth! In their eagerness to do this they fumble and fall and firing Peter Arnett was the biggest fumble of all!
Fumbling as their "Latest Design to Deceive" is to put out even more spin in order to cleverly, they think, divert negative energy towards Mr. Arnett in order to circumvent the evidence of truth that clearly and decisively accuses them one and all!
We even have a Republican leader who wants to try Peter for treason. To you I say, Get a life! "Stop wasting tax payers dollars with your less then patriotic behavior. Enough damage was accomplished during the clever pernicious undermining perpetrated by certain leaders during the Clinton Presidency"
Do you think Mr. Arnett told the world something it had not figured out for itself and in many instances right from he very beginning of this farce. We Americans have been slapped upside the face with one farce after another in our country over the last 20 years; no actually, going back to the assassination of Kennedy, to the present day!
Not all Americans are satisfied with "complacency"! Complacency
is a dangerous place to find ones self, especially in today's environment!
"As for the reporters who have eagerly jumped on the bandwagon to condemn Peter Arnett's remarks as unprofessional, etc.; To you I say, "Some of you have forgotten how to be unbiased reporters serving only corporate America who writes your pay check.
Peter may have been a little candid, but "Peter" also did a service to many people out here needing to know that they're not losing their minds! What they see, hear, as they try to decipher the truth from the deceitful spin, is enough to blow ones mind!

NIMBY analysts
Posted by roxanne tomco 4/23/2003 8:43:18 PM

So many critics abound. Yet, can any of you claim to be Pulizer Prize winning journalists like Mr. Arnett?

His assessment of our first failed attempt was accurate: "The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance. Now they are trying to write another war plan. Clearly, the American war planners misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces."

His final statement here was obviously full of bias (or fear, whichever way you read it), but his previous two statements were chock full of painful facts. As Aly Col�n said earlier, would we have questioned his Iraqi TV appearance, had he been verifying the "facts?"

Facts, as in, "U.S. Deals Saddam Another Forceful Blow" or "U.S. Pilots Topple the Opposition?"

Facts, indeed.

Dennis Myers
Posted by Dennis Myers 4/17/2003 10:16:09 PM

Regarding Andrew Ryan's comment: Peter Arnett had nothing to do with Time/CNN's sarin story except serve as narrator. It was reported and produced by others, mainly April Oliver and Jack Smith. Figures like Walter Cronkite have done the same thing-- lent their star power as narrators-- for years, but in this case the reporting was apparently flawed. CNN used Arnett to voice the report in order to cash in on his prestigous name, then made him its scapegoat. More corporate cowardice.

Arnett in Hanoi
Posted by Andrew Ryan 4/17/2003 3:31:19 PM

No, if Mr. Arnett covered the Gulf of Tonkin attack, his story probably would have fabricated a Sarin gas attack on Hanoi. After his reporting with Time/CNN and his failure to own up to his transgressions, Arnett should not have been allowed back on the air.

Dennis Myers
Posted by Dennis Myers 4/15/2003 12:47:31 AM

If Peter Arnett had been in Hanoi in 1964, we might have known that the �attack� on the U.S. ship Maddox was a retaliation (for secret U.S. coastal raids on the north), not an attack. The Tonkin Gulf resolution would not have been approved, 1.8 million Vietnamese and U.S. servicepeople would not have died in that war. Arnett would have been demonized as an enemy of the U.S. effort. But truth would have been served, Lyndon Johnson�s betrayal of the nation would have been exposed, so many lives would have been spared. War coverage from the other side should ALWAYS be given to the public. �Embeds� doing standups in Iraq from the tops of personnel carriers like Snoopy on his doghouse are no substitute for journalism. Small wonder that U.S. �reporters� there were so ready to turn on Arnett. The conventional wisdom is that he did this to himself, that he is his own worst enemy. Arnett�s actual enemy could not be more clearly apparent. It�s cowardice�the cowardice of Arnett�s colleagues, of NBC executive Neal Shapiro (who first supported Arnett and then caved when the heat came), of corporate ownership. When Arnett told an Iraqi interviewer that the U.S. was taken by surprise at Iraqi resistance, he was saying in central Iraq exactly the same thing that other journalists were saying a few miles away in southern Iraq. Information is not tainted or cleansed because of the location at which it is announced. Had journalism been interested in reporting this war instead of providing military unit groupies, journalists would have been in the Iraqi countryside well before the war, in touch with the people, sending back reports communicating the determination of the populace, perhaps forcing a reassessment of the dogmatic neocon view of Iraqi passivity that cost lives. How many lives were lost because the Fox Ministry of Information and other entities avoided the duty of journalism? More emBedouined reporters and fewer embedded reporters would have served us better.

The Real Reason Peter Arnett said what he said to Iraqi TV
Posted by Burt Ward 4/14/2003 1:48:12 AM

In watching Peter Arnett's "performance" on Iraqi TV, I was immediately struck by the obvious . . . Peter Arnett was saying what he believed that the Iraqis wanted to hear in order for him to remain in Bagdad as a journalist.

I don't think Arnett was keen on expressing his own views of the war. His performance was all about money . . . additional money that he could command by being one of the few (if any) remaining Western reporters allowed to stay in Bagdad and capture the hottest moments of the war.

He was stroking the Iraqi government to allow him to remain and grab the best photos and video.

I believe that in his mind he saw a great opportunity. Earning more money and feeding his ego were more important to him than the brief humiliation that our troops and citizens citizens suffered as a result of his selfish comments.

His performance may have been convincing to the Iraqis, but it wasn't to me.

Arnett apologia
Posted by H. Sarkisian 4/13/2003 10:17:48 AM

Mr. Arnett's apology turned out to be empty as he blamed others for his firing. While many journalist-ethicists discussed the problems of embedment with coalition units, I saw no discussion of what could occur to those "embedded" in Baghdad.

It is one thing to ignore the truth when one is in a hotel and given guided tours by the minions of a dictator with the probability to be able to cover the entrance of coalition troops...but at what cost?

In Arnett's case, he willingly became a propaganda tool. At the worst, he is a traitor. At best...delusional and suffering from Stockholm Syndrome!

Firing Arnett was right
Posted by Lawrence Fasick 4/12/2003 5:55:25 PM

Arnett crossed the line his firing was the right thing to do. He's washed up.

it was Iraqi TV, for chrissake!
Posted by david goodwin 4/9/2003 5:09:32 PM

if he'd given the interview to an entity that had some pretense of objectivity, thent he reaction would have been out of line. It's his opinion; he has the right to express it.
But to Iraqi TV? it's not quite treason, but its definitely giving comfort to the enemy. He might as well have taped an anti-U.S. commercial spot.
Hate to see anyone get fired, but old pete was out of line.

Firing was fair, too public
Posted by Kara Covington 4/9/2003 9:51:21 AM

Arnett's firing, in my opinion, was fair because he released vital information about U.S. military tactics.
I do not believe that the termination should have been aired. It is a business matter and should have been kept in that context.

Peter Arnett's Firing
Posted by Ron Reynolds 4/7/2003 6:46:32 PM

Regarding Iraq's former Minister of Propoganda, a more productive firing would have been a Cruise Missile on his hotel.

Crime of stupidity
Posted by Dick Smith 4/7/2003 1:53:30 PM

Reporters get fired for stupidity, Peter Arnett's sacking is a little more public than most.
Should he be prosecuted for treason? Hogwash. Maybe Geraldo Rivera should be, but apparently someone up there likes him or at least his news organization.

jrbgille
Posted by James Gillespie 4/6/2003 9:31:29 PM

Why should a reporter generally place himself in a position to be interviewed by any government when his/her profession is reporting, albeit with some opinions. Worse than bad judgment is self impotance or arrogance. If one is a reporter and an analyst perhaps you should announce when you are shifting roles which of course kills your credibility. Iraq read the reporter right and got propaganda value for his stupidity. However, what is most important is that Arnett ought to retire. James R. Gillespie

Aiding & abetting?
Posted by Jeanette clinkunbroomer 4/5/2003 2:37:36 PM

Most commentary here seems to center on Arnett's saying on Iraqi TV that U.S. war strategy had failed. Many armchair generals were saying the same thing.

What I found most objectionable in his comments was his statements that his (and other?) reports from Baghdad were well-received by anti-war interests in the U.S., and were helping them "develop" their arguments. Arnett said opposition to the war was increasing in the U.S., and Pres. Bush was losing support. The same day, a poll showed that support for the war had actually increased by 5% over the preceding week.

Arnett's comment goes well beyond analysis, and it wasn't even true. So, exactly what the heck was Arnett up to? I surfed the channels looking for repeats of the Iraqi broadcast because I couldn't believe I'd heard him correctly.

Was MSNBC and National Geographic justified in firing him? Private companies, they can do what they want. I personally wouldn't have continued to pay his salary. He came off as some type of "Tokyo Rose" or "Lord HawHaw," seemed to be encouraging the Saddam Hussein regime.

Comfort
Posted by Jonathan Green 4/5/2003 2:37:26 PM

First, I'll just mention that I think NBC fired Arnett for the wrong reason, and that said, I'm not sure that he should have been fired at all.

But I write now to address the issue of "comfort" in the context of treason. It should be mentioned that treason isn't even a prosecutable crime any longer in most states, I'm not sure about the Federal level.

Comfort isn't meant, or at least it is generally not interpreted to mean, saying something that makes the "enemy" feel better. IMHO, it would be damn near impossible to convict Arnett, which tells me he's not guilty. First of all, one must decide upon the threshold of "comfort," and whether or not Arnett's statements were intended for the regime, the government, or the people. I would argue that the statements were intended for the people, otherwise Arnett would have found a more direct conduit to the regime. If that is the case, he could only have been providing help if the people of Iraq are the "enemy," and Mr Bush has made it explicitly clear, that at the political level, the people of Iraq are not the enemy.

I think it would be a mistake to try Arnett for treason. I'm still not even sure the interview was a mistake, nor what he said. We have better stories to report than a witchhunt for someone who strikes me as a perfectly able and skilled reporter.

Jonathan Green
Editor, The Collegian Reporter
Morningside College

Not in Job Assignment
Posted by W. Sloane 4/4/2003 10:19:43 PM

Journalist Peter Arnett was working for two news organizations, MSNBC and National Geographic. His job assignment was interviewer, not interviewee.

As a representative of two American media organizations, under their payroll, Arnett should have cleared the interview with his bosses -- and stated his personal position beforehand.

An ethical question for journalists is: should American journalists (if it were possible) be embedded with Iraqi troops?

Is American Media the Newest Form of War Technology?
Posted by Jane Mikoni 4/4/2003 2:45:05 PM

As a former journalist, turned-journalism teacher, I think Arnett's firing raises troubling questions about the role of the American media in this war and long-held industry standards of objectivity. Because most Americans aren't aware of the government restrictions imposed on embedded" journalists, preventing them from reporting much of anything about the war, they are mistakenly led to believe the coverage delivered by the major media outlets in this country is both impartial and objective. In fact, it is tightly controlled by the U.S. Government's rules about what reporters can and cannot report.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but how is Arnett's interview with Iraq's state operated televison network different from the heavily censored reports provided by American "embedded" journalists? I fear the American media will lose credibility as it moves ever closer to becoming a new form of war technology, one used to disseminate the Pentagon's official story.

What troubles me most is how difficult it will be to face a new class of fresh-faced journalism students next Fall and introduce them to the concept of objectivity in the media.

arnett
Posted by methlal weerasooriya 4/4/2003 2:42:24 PM

it is absoulutly right. because he is a media person. journalist we must keep our respect. he i areal journalist.

Arnett firing
Posted by Tracy Davis 4/4/2003 12:53:06 PM

Arnett's only mistake was crossing the line between reporter and analyst. But reporters everywhere are increasingly serve as "analysts." This is a polite way of saying they are dangerously close to and often engage in editorializing. Journalists must be one or the other; never both.
Reporters always interview other reporters, especially when news slows or becomes redundant. Then we interview each other.
So no one should talk to Iraqi TV because it's the "enemy?" By assuming such, we have taken sides and become US war boosters instead of observing and reporting what we know to be true.
Granted, as state-run journalism Iraqi TV should have been avoided because it is not independent journalism, but propaganda for a government.
Perhaps such visceral reaction has come because this sounds uncomfortably familiar? I wonder what would have happened had Arnett lauded the American war plan and spoke of how smoothly thigs were going for U.S. and allied troops instead?
Tracy E. Davis

Fired? Prosecuted
Posted by Dave Smith 4/4/2003 12:15:09 PM

Arnett clearly gave aid & comfort to the enemy in time of war. He is an experienced professional journalist, and cannot claim ignorance of what he was doing.

Just to be clear, it's not *what* Arnett said that is objectionable (although I happen to disagree with him), but rather *where and when* he said it. You can't go on the TV of the enemy and say bad things about your country's war effort. It's not only wrong, it's illegal, and I think he should be prosecuted. I don't expect any jail time, but at the least he should lose his citizenship. The US needs no traitors.

Considering Arnetts history, certainly fair. He knowingly lied to get/keep access.
Posted by Vinnie Myers 4/4/2003 9:22:13 AM

Arnett is a US citizen. Has been over 20 years, according to friends I would usually believe.

If he was not to be fired by NBC, then perhaps lift his citizenship as filed under false pretences.

Then ask him if he wishes to request a green card and let him stand in line a few years.

Given the cloud of doubt around his previous anti-American remarks which were not truthful, this straw was too much for a network already under threat for bias, half-truths and partial truths. Let alone obvious lies from Arnett.

Without the previous clouds of doubt, Arnett may have deserved a larger hearing, recall to New York, contrition and rehab. As it is, it is not unfair for firing a reporter who finally admits by demonstration how he is so "successful" in the middle East.

NGS, who already has experienced the wrath of readers regarding the reporting of dubious "science" surrounding global warming/freezing. NGS cannot even think about associating with traitorous anti-American reporters.

I believe Arnett has forfetted his US citizenship. Perhaps he shouldn't be shot. At lease, not yet.

Arnett's Firing
Posted by Gerry Romenesko 4/3/2003 10:51:26 PM

Yes, Yes, Yes, not only should he be fired, but I agree with Congressman Bunning that he should be tried for treason.
Gerry Romaneski

Hell Yes
Posted by David Hunt 4/3/2003 9:01:04 PM

Of course his firing was fair. Words do have meanings. What he said were lies, Arnett is not an expert on the military plan for Iraq. If I did my job like he did his I would be fired also.

by Ted Frederickson, University of Kansas
Posted by ted frederickson 4/3/2003 6:36:06 PM

As an 18-year member of the Society of Professional Journalist's Ethics Committee, I have been very disappointed by the reaction of Bob Steele and others in the world of journalism to Peter Arnett's firing. Whether a reporter covering a war should provide opinions about that war is a debatable issue, but certainly not the most important ethics issue in this controversy. I am most concerned by what this incident tells us about whether journalists covering that war are able to act independently, as the SPJ Code requires.
When I hear NBC or ANY journalist suggesting that Mr. Arnett should not have allowed himself to be interviewed on Iraqi state television because it would give aid and comfort to the enemy, I find myself wondering what that means, exactly. Does it mean journalists covering a war have an obligation to provide aid and comfort to a designated good guy and avoid doing that with the designated bad guy? I think a strength of our democracy and our free media is that we not only tolerate hearing unpleasant truths but benefit from views that do not follow the spin desired by our own government. While I don't know whether Peter Arnett's opinion is correct or not, I know that many others share his views and it is useful to hear the thoughts of an American reporter in Iraq. Also, those of us who care about ethics frequently applaud the actions of reporters who seek out and report unpleasant truths despite the wishes of their employers. I remain convinced that NBC was upset not because Arnett expressed opinions, which Washingon reporters do virtually every Sunday, but because he openly expressed opinions in Baghdad that were politically unpopular with the U.S. government and with his own PR-conscious network. Had he applauded the U.S. war effort on Iraqi television, he would still be reporting for NBC. I find that troubling. It is clearly a warning to other journalists who hope to act independently and report important truths about this and other wars.

Page 1 of 4 [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 ]

View all feedback

See All Jobs

Add Your Resume

Post Your Job

Become a Member

More media jobs

Article Feedback

Latest Poynter Blogs (See All Blogs)