I’d be more concerned if the only source for news abandons any pretense of objectivity and accurately relaying the facts. Journalism is not the place for “voicing an opinion,” it’s the place for reporting fact.
NBC was well within its rights for booting Arnett just for his complete failure to maintain objectivity. The First Amendment is just a convenient crutch for those who are quick to approve of any anti-war sentimentality in the media as the “free exchange of ideas.” It would apply if the government were threatening to imprison or execute Arnett or his superiors because of his statements. It does not apply if Arnett’s rich media-magnate boss decides to fire him because his statements are not those of the government, or even (which I think is far more likely) because his statements cross the line of objective journalism into propaganda speech.
The reason it’s troubling how people so casually toss about the First Amendment is that it’s a sign that people don’t really appreciate its significance. If media monopolies are troubling and stifling freedom of speech in our society, we can set up a system to deal with that outside the First Amendment, which is there to constrain the government and guarantee our fundamental rights. There are still places where speaking out against the government can get you killed, which is far more serious than the threat to anyone sitting safely at home at his computer tapping out “Fuck Bush!” or “Support America Or Shut Up!” messages on some message board, might get banned from the board or fired from his job.
And since every war-related Pit thread devolves into accusations trying to assing everyone into “Us” or “Them” categories, I feel obligated to point out here that I’m against the war, but that doesn’t mean I’m for Iraq or against the United States. I just think objectivity is more important than opinion where journalism is concerned.