Jewish World Review April 7, 2003 / 5 Nisan, 5763
NBC's sacking of Peter Arnett over a critical analysis plays well in
NBC News has shown the world that it can take out a target in Baghdad with
the same precision as a B-2 bomber.
Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Peter Arnett woke up Monday to a flaming
pink slip from NBC News President Neal Shapiro. This was followed by a
bunker buster from his other employer, National Geographic, terminating him
What sin by Arnett warranted such swift retribution? Only the same thing
that every major American journalist has been doing for weeks: giving
analysis of the progress of the war in Iraq. The difference was that Arnett
gave a decidedly critical view, and he gave it to Iraqi television.
The termination of Arnett fuels the view of many Arabs that the Western
media present a tailored account of events; feigning objectivity while
maintaining the pro-U.S. company line.
Last week, the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq barred reporters from the
Al Jazeera satellite TV network from their facilities. The NYSE cited
security concerns, and Nasdaq said the ban was because the Qatar-based
network had aired images of killed and captured American soldiers.
Though Arnett has many fans for his coverage in Vietnam and the first Gulf
War, I have never been one of them. I have always viewed him as too eager to
criticize the U.S., particularly when he reported on CNN the alleged use of
sarin gas by U.S. forces in Laos, a story that proved to be false; Arnett
later left the network. But his interview on Iraqi TV was rather
unremarkable and understated compared with analyses by others. Consider his
- Arnett observed that the U.S. appeared to be "rewriting the war plan" and
that Iraqi resistance had caused the initial "failure" of the original
projections. This statement is virtually identical to views expressed in
forums worldwide, including coalition press conferences in Qatar.
- Arnett stated that "the American war plans misjudged the determination of
the Iraqi forces." This has been said not only by various journalists and
experts but also by American and British commanders.
- Arnett observed that pictures of the civilian wounded in Baghdad were
being used by those opposed to the war in an effort to change war policies.
This is demonstrably true.
NBC's official statements supported Arnett, insisting that
his remarks "were analytical in nature and were not intended to be anything
more." The network further said the interview on Iraqi television was
nothing more than "professional courtesy."
By Monday, however, management was faced with a rising public backlash,
fueled by its competitor, Fox News. NBC was forced to either shoot a
reporter or surrender more market share to Fox. That was a no-brainer for
management; Arnett was toast.
Arnett is guilty of terrible judgment in giving an interview to a state-run
propaganda outlet, a mistake for which he has apologized. But his comments
are within the scope of observations made by other reporters "embedded" with
the American military or in Baghdad.
In the last decade, particularly after the rise of cable news outlets like
those of NBC, CNBC and MSNBC, it has become common for reporters to be asked
for their analysis of the news. To the extent that Arnett's comments were
critical of U.S. policy, they were no more critical than other coverage has
been distinctly noncritical.
NBC management, however, is consumed by the outcome of a different war that
is going badly: the ratings war against Fox News and other competitors. NBC
would dress Tom Brokaw as a bald eagle if it would secure a better Nielsen
The U.S. image abroad would be enhanced, not reduced, by showing a
willingness to tolerate opposing views. NBC has now handed a priceless
propaganda victory to the Iraqi government, which will point to Arnett as an
example of U.S. censorship. This will only make it more difficult for our
military, which is trying to win not just hamlets and miles in Iraq but the
hearts and minds of Iraqis.
Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Jonathan Turley is a professor of public interest
law at George, Washington University. He worked for NBC as a legal
commentator, during the Clinton impeachment controversy.
. Comment by clicking here.
03/07/03: Rights on the Rack: Alleged torture in terror war imperils U.S. standards of humanity
02/25/03: How democracy could clear our snowy streets
02/11/03: Sanity and Justice Slipping Away
01/28/03: Quit horsing around, senator
01/14/03: Public Payroll: a Family Affair; Nepotism in Washington poses a threat to institutional integrity
01/09/03: DARPA and democracy
12/24/02: The 13th juror
12/19/02: Back to the admissions morass
12/10/02: Pro-Choice at Expense of Free Speech; NOW case against abortion protester may backfire
12/02/02: A cruel bait and switch for vets
11/15/02: Junk justice
11/07/02: OUR second-class soldiers
10/30/02: 'Quirin' revisited: The dark history of a military tribunal
10/22/02: Un-American Arrests: Mass detainments of the innocent may be the ultimate form of crowd control, but the tactic is unconstitutional
10/16/02: Reverse pawn shops? Broke state officials across the country have been looking for businesses to buy their assets at a fraction of their worth to pay for budget shortfalls
10/08/02: A legal tattoo hullabaloo
10/02/02: Gagged justice sets dangerous precedent
09/25/02: The Great Salmon Rose Caper
09/17/02: Reparations: A Scam Cloaked in Racial Pain
09/12/02: This country's hidden strength
09/04/02: 1st Amendment protects even the ugliest among us
08/28/02: A secret court goes public
08/20/02: I defended Ashcroft during his nomination; he's become a constitutional menace
08/07/02: San Francisco embracing states-rights
07/31/02: Who needs Jenny Craig when you can have Johnnie Cochran?
07/22/02: The meaning of justice and the madness of Zacarias Moussauoi
07/16/02: The President vs. the Presidency
07/08/02: How one woman's whims dictates the rights of millions
07/02/02: Just say 'no' to extracurricular activities
06/24/02: Missing Ted Bundy
06/14/02: DESTROYING A FAMILY TO SAVE IT
06/10/02: A comedy of eros06/14/02:
05/31/02: Beyond the 'reformed FBI' hype
05/23/02: Do we really need a Federal Marriage Amendment?
05/19/02: No "battlefield detainee" should leave home without a U.S. birth certificate
05/10/02: The perfect constitutional storm
04/26/02: 'Slave of Allah' wounds justice
04/12/02: The importance of being nameless
04/05/02: The adjusted value of justice
03/18/02: How Clinton got off: A law professor's take
03/11/02: Profiling and the terrorist lottery
03/05/02: Yes, Sharpton, there was a failure of justice
02/28/02: The Lay of the land
02/14/02: Living in constitutional denial
02/05/02: Legal Lesson for Afghanistan: War's Not a Slip-and-Fall Case
01/25/02: Sever "Jihad Johnny"'s ties to his homeland
01/21/02: "Out of sight, out of mind," but they're still prisoners
01/14/02: Your papers, please!
01/07/02: Prescription for disaster
12/18/01: Madison and the Mujahedeen
12/07/01: In the U.S., espionage crime is easy to understand but difficult to prove
11/19/01: What type of 'creature' would defend bin Laden?
11/19/01: Could bin Laden be acquitted in a trial?
10/28/01: The ultimate sign of the different times in which we are living
10/25/01: Al-Qaida produces killers, not thinkers
09/28/01: The Boxer rebellion and the war against terrorism
08/31/01: Bring back the silent Condit
08/27/01: Working out the body politic
© 2002, Jonathan Turley