Addicts to the never-ending war coverage on NBC and its cable sister stations lost out on an honest insider’s view Monday when the cocky peacock network fired journalist Peter Arnett for daring to have an opinion.
Arnett, a former correspondent for CNN during the 1991 Gulf War and Pulitzer Prize winner for his reporting in Vietnam for The Associated Press, was first defended by NBC on Sunday when news broke he gave an impromptu interview on Iraqi television regarding the success of U.S. war plans. The original NBC reaction was that the interview was granted as a “professional courtesy” and that Arnett’s remarks were “analytical in nature.”
But by Monday morning, after a firestorm of mostly Bush supporters vocalized their disgust with Arnett, all hell had broken loose. Sweating bullets, NBC News President Neal Shapiro reneged original comments and sacked the news veteran.
NBC started airing Arnett’s reports when other network reporters left Baghdad for safety reasons. He was originally an employee of the MSNBC show “National Geographic Explorer,” which also axed him Monday.
Arnett’s comments weren’t really so outlandish and his opinions weren’t anything anti-war protesters haven’t been circulating for days. In answering questions, he said that the U.S. is delaying the battle “and rewriting the war plan. The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance.”
“Clearly, the American war plans misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces,” Arnett said.
Well, duh. Few anticipated plainclothes Iraqis would pretend to surrender and then ambush soldiers. And while war planners have claimed all along the war would be difficult, Americans didn’t anticipate battles in An Nasiriyah and Basra would be so bloody — especially after all of the good news being filtered through during the first week of the “shock and awe” air raids.
But without solid journalists like Arnett in the field, Americans would never know what really went on to begin with. We would have to rely on information passing through the sieve of government public relations and “carefully phrased” statements by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the like, who may not be trained in the wiles of fair and balanced reporting.
Surely, Arnett would have never announced his personal views on the war in one of his news segments because it would taint his credibility. But in this instance on Iraqi television he was “off the clock,” a phrase in the journalism world that some editors — and apparently NBC executives — don’t particularly believe in.
Journalists face a dilemma determining when they can put down their pen and act like a regular citizen. As humans, reporters will inherently have an opinion even if they try and suppress it.
In this vein, Arnett should be commended for admitting he has a view instead of pretending he did not, further tainting his own reporting with disillusionment. Arnett was fired because he was taking questions for the enemy more than for the content of his answers.
In the end, the Arnett debacle will have a chilling effect on reporters in the field who may take his fate to heart. Journalists in Iraq will have to tip-toe around the editing process to make sure they don’t offend the Bush administration or question its war tactics.
Peter Arnett was one of the last Western television reporters remaining in Baghdad providing coverage for a U.S. network and had a working relationship with Iraqi sources that no other reporter could boast.
Perhaps for canned news junkies, Arnett was too lovey-dovey with the Iraqis to be objective, but outraged popular opinion had its way with him. Honest war coverage may never be the same.