Reporters are not supposed to inject themselves into the story - Rule #1 I learned in J-school. He’s supposed to be a reporter, not a mouthpiece. Him granting an interview was entirely inappropriate for the job-description of reporter regardless of whether it helps or hurts Iraqi morale.
How about the following representative sample?
Doesn’t it do your heart good to know that Baghdad Pete is a board member of the Committee to Protect Journalists, currently attempting to locate the two Newsday reporters and a freelance photographer–who is likely in deep shit indeed, since she’s Al Gore’s former photographer and had a bunch of White House phone numbers in her address book–detained, imprisoned, or god knows what by the Iraqi government. Yep, have no fears, families of missing journalists, Baghdad Pete is on the case.
A word or two about all those expelled journalists might have been appropriate too.
Nope, the poll numbers are still about as solid as can be: the American public firmly supports this idiotic endeavor.
“Because”? “Because”?!? Dude, I think Dubya is a dangerous twit who couldn’t think his way through a game of Tic Tac Toe, but even I don’t think his concern about civilian casualties is that it might upset the French.
“For that reason”? What is this guy, a journalist or a mindreader? For all the proof we have of whose ordnance that was, and given the Iraqi inventive to play up civilian casualties, Arnett could just have easily said that it was an Iraqi missile “for that reason.”
And of course, none of that even touches on the inexcusably unbalanced reporting on the progress of the war. Yes, Pete, the Bush Admin seriously miscalculated the willingness of the Iraqi soldiers to fight. Now tell the nice people of Baghdad just how well the war is going for Iraq. What are we up to, 60 US/British casualties, versus unknown thousands of dead Iraqi soldiers and thousands more POWs? Huge swaths of land and cities wrested from Saddam’s control? None of that worth mentioning, Pete?
Feh. Idiocy of the highest order, and a completely justified firing by MSNBC/National Geographic.
CNN.com has obligingly turned up with an actual transcript of the interview.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/30/sprj.irq.arnett.transcript/index.html
I would really, really like to know how accurately Mr. Iraqi TV Host translated all this into Arabic for the viewers at home. Apparently the only actual questions he asked were, “Let us start with a question about the general image that you look now in Iraq” and, “What have you seen until now, have you been to some of these places where civilian casualties have been seen during these two days?”
Other than that, the entire interview is just Peter running off at the mouth. Excellent interview technique, BTW–Mr. Iraqi TV Host evidently knows his stuff. Just sit there with an expectant look and let the Guest say whatever he wants.
There’s a huge difference between “the war” and “the advance”. Sure, the advance has slowed due to heavier-than-expected resistance. But the war continues. Even if US troops were in full retreat, the war would be continuing – as long as the intention was to regroup and counterattack.
And I heartily endorse minty’s comments, above.
Even the part where I say Dubya couldn’t figure out the end game for a round of Tic Tac Toe, Bricker? 
Not the French, perhaps, but he would be risking some of the reluctant support that he has gotten from some other countries. It would also really piss of the Muslim world and undercut his own claims that this is a “liberation” rather than an invasion.
Other than that, I guess the rest of what you said was fair enough. The only comments I had heard (via a synopsis on a talk radio show) were that the US had “failed” in it’s initial plan, that we had been forced to delay our advance on Baghdad, and that there was dissent back home, all of which seemed objectively true to me. His claim about the missile in the Baghdad market place does seem pretty suspect (unless he’s telling the truth and the US is lying, but I think the chances of that are pretty remote. I’m paranoid and mistrustful of this administration, but I think they really are trying to minimize civilian casuaties. Hussein is even less trustworthy, and bombing his own market would be precisely his style).
I hadn’t read the whole transcript and I jumped to conclusions. (There was no link in the OP) and maybe Arnett’s comments were more borderline than I had originally thought.
I still don’t think he’s really helping Hussein by making them, though. The US is obviously not going to lose. It’s just not going to be as quick or as clean as Bush expected, and he may not get the images of cheering Iraqi people chanting his praises that he was so eager for.
Er… I heartily endorse Minty’s substantive comments. 
And actually, I don’t think Bush is either an intellectual giant or a drooling simpleton. But that’s for another thread.
Although I don’t think of myself as overly biased, I’m more generally pro-administration than not, and so for me to hop on the Arnett basher wagon is no great persuader. When you agree that Arnett acted wrongly, I think it’s easier for an unbiased observer to conclude that there’s merit to the claim. So to the extent that the tic-tac-toe comment adds persuasive power to your substantive commentary, I endorse it too!
- Rick
There’s another possibility, albeit a very small and remote one. I think it’s worth throwing out there.
Considering the environment and the lost journalists, it is possible that Mr. Arnett found himself under a lot of pressure and coercian by the Iraqis to give such an interview and say such things.
It’s remote because I don’t think Arnett needs help or coercion to be a putz, but I thought I’d throw it out there.
I agree that this possibility seems unlikely, but hypothetically, would it change anyone’s mind if it was true. If a reporter is threatened or coerced into making public statements which seem to support the enemy, should that reporter by fired or villified, or does that reporter have a responsiblity to take a bullet in the back of the head rather say what the enemy wants him to say?
(It’s not precisely analogous, but I’m reminded of the radio address that P.G. Wodehouse was forced to give in Germany during WW II, something that he stll receives some criticism for)
It was a stupid move on his part, demonstratiting that he considers himself to now be more of a commentator/pundit than a reporter. It was entirely appropriate for NBC and MSNBC to cease employing him in the capacity of reporter.
What it will mean for his future carreer as a commentator/pundit is simply conjecture, but I would imagine a short-term benefit and long-term drag.
Defend him of what charge?
Saying stupid things? Yeah, I’ll defend him. As a nation that values free speech, even supposed journalists have a right to say whatever they want.
If he believes what he said, or if he was coerced, I have no problem with his comments. In either case, he has no credibility regarding his reports from Baghdad for me.
That said, they appear blatantly stupid, and completely unethical.
I do not question NBC’s decision to fire him one iota.
Now, if the adminitration applied pressure to NBC, I’d have a real problem with that. But I sincerely doubt it happened, or that any such pressure was necessary.
My sentiments exactly. After that whole CNN fiasco, he was probably keeping his fingers crossed for a Gulf War II to get back in the business.
In the interest of fairness: Just 2 days before his Iraqi TV appearance, I heard Lt. Col. David Hackworth praise Pete Arnett for his bravery and valor in Vietnam. Hack recounted a story that while Arnett was covering the war, he took command of a platoon of soldiers after their lieutenant was mortally wounded during an intense battle. Strange.
Don’t shed any tears Peter Arnett. I’m quite certain NPR, the Village Voice and Al-Jazeera have all contacted his agent by now.
I won’t weep for him, but I don’t believe what he said should lead to his termination. NBC took the easy way out, IMOH.
Um, if Arnett was threatened or coerced into making those statements, all he had to do when he got home was call up NBC and say, “Hey, Mr. Iraqi TV Host turned out to have a studio full of thugs named Vinny and Tony, and they all had automatic weapons, and just before we went on the air, Mr. Iraqi TV Host sez to me, he sez, 'Vinny and Tony over there sure hope you ain’t gonna say anything, you know, nasty about us, and that you’re gonna, like, tell the Iraqi people how incompetent your President really is, and how the war’s not popular back home, and stuff like that, 'kay?”
But he didn’t. Instead he came home, didn’t say anything to anybody about it, and when it turned out that folks back home were offended, he simply apologized. No mention of how “Vinny and Tony made me say those things”.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/31/sprj.irq.arnett/index.html
And I think it’s fascinating that at first NBC defended him, but then–watching this unfold through GoogleNews–first there are the “Journalist says U.S. war plan has failed” hits, and then come the “Arnett’s remarks on Iraqi TV criticized” hits, and then finally there are the “NBC severs ties with journalist Arnett” hits. It’s like, “Oops, we didn’t realize people might have been offended, guess we’d better fire him.” Classy guys, those NBC Suits.
And here’s the bottom line–ratings.
http://www.courier-journal.com/features/columns/dorsey/2003/dorsey20030331.html
They thought having him interviewed on Iraqi TV might be good for the ratings, but dropped him like a hot potato when it turned out that it wouldn’t.
Which is little different from how they treat their entertainment talent, or any other network for that matter.
And btw, if he were coerced, I doubt that story could safely come out until he is out of Baghdad.
Failing? Wow. I must have missed that report.
Were we forced back from Baghdad? Sustained more casualties than we inflicted? Cowed by the venomously effective Iraqi Air Force?
Arnett got exactly what he wanted…publicity for a new book or a tour of the lecture circuit.
No one should doubt NBC/MSNBC/National Geographic Explorer considered the Administration’s clout and pressure if swift action wasn’t taken. Weighing Arnett’s lack of youth and eye appeal the decision must have been swifter than the time it takes to arrange Arnett’s combover.
That’s what corporations do. The interview is so congratulatory and synchophantic that I can’t see any other way to deal with it.
NBC is very lucky that they didn’t list Arnett as an employee, although they were trumpeting his exclusive status pretty hard. That would have made things messier.
He’s lost all integrity as a journalist, he’s stirred up a shitstorm, and he’s inserted himself into the story. You fire him every day of the week and twice on sunday. Case closed.
Frankly, I doubt even that.
He could still be picked up by some news agency in hopes that the Iraqis would allow their toady access that they would deny to anyone less willing to roll over for them.
If anyone could line up an interview with Saddam himself (assuming the Unpleasant One has not yet made the trip to Paradise to claim his seventy-two virgin camels), it would be our Boy in Baghdad.
Wonder if the Iraqis care about his mea culpa.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes. Absolutely. Maybe Arnett had the right, as an American, to freedom of speech. Or maybe he has given aid and comfort to the enemy and has committed treason. I am still on the fence about that. But he has no constitutional right to a job at NBC and they are well within their rights to can him if that’s what they choose to do. Regardless of anything else, Arnett stupidly permitted the Iraqis to use him as a propaganda tool, and he should have known better.