"Why can't you ever write something about the postive aspects of war, goddamn??". This was thrown into some journalist's face by American general Willamson.
"The only way to change things here is to convince the American people that our actions in this country are necessary."
A colleague of Williamson, general Norton, to the same journalist: "It doesn't matter if it's right or not! You scared the homefront, and I won't tolerate that!"
This happened some fourty years ago. The generals are already forgotten, the journalist was Peter Arnett, correspondent for AP (Associated Press) in Vietnam. In his Vietnam-memoirs, he wrote: "We couldn't close our eyes for the reality of the battle-field, nor could we ignore the failure of American policy."
Last Monday, 69-year old Arnett was fired by NBC. He had told Iraqi television that the first American attack-wave hadn't turned out as hoped. Although not an earth-moving conclusion, America was in shock... NBC didn't want to stand up against Pentagon pressure, and fired its reporter.
This wasn't the first time Arnett pissed off the Pentagon. "War as usual", that's how one could describe the relationship between Arnett and the military governments. During the Gulf war, he's been called a colaborator. In the 1960's, someone wrote in a memo to President Johnson that "the problem Arnett could harm the US more than an entire batallion of VC."
Long before CNN made him world-famous (or was it the other way around?), Arnett already was a professional war-correspondent. praised by his colleagues, libelled by authorities. Although most people still think he's American (yeah, I'm also talking about most people in this thread), his New-Zealandian nationality has been used to make him look anti-American. Most people called him the 'icon' of superficial journalism during the Gulf War, comparing his 'superficial journalism' to the journalism during the Viet Nam war, not knowing Arnett was there.
In Death in the Ricefields by Peter Schol-Latour and in Without Honor by Arnold Isaacs, Arnett is described as "one of the most experienced and respected" from all of the Vietnam-journalists. In 55 days. The Fall of South Vietnam., Alan Dawson calls him probably the most respected newsman ever stationed in Vietnam, a combat veteran and an expert at getting around..
In 1962, Arnett joined AP in Saigon. Arnetts' story on Vietnam focused on the battle against military propaganda. "The authorities couldn't understand why we didn't praise the American prestations as the press had done during WWII and the Korean war", he writes about 1962.
When in 1965 he was the first to write on experiments with chemical weapons by the US government, President Johnson ordered the FBI to find something to mute Arnett.
In 1981, Arnett left AP for CNN. 18 years later he had to leave CNN after he made a contribution to a documentary about chemical warfare in Vietnam. "The only reason for my resign, was that the Pentagon and the conservative right-wing didn't like my journalism. CNN wanted to get rid of me, so they could continue their patriottic presentations."
Peter Arnett has my respect.
Quote:
Originally posted by KorpDeath
And then to add insult to injury he comes out and publicly apologizes only after he gets fired from every network he works for, that's real sincerity if you ask me
His only mistake was to go work for networks that don't like freedom of speech, networks that don't like the truth, networks that are in the hands of those he fulminates with reason against.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dublix
What surprises me is NBC hailed him as some kind of ultra worthy reporter when they hired him. His comments are d*** near treasonist to me.
That comment only tells me how much you know about Arnett. It'd surprise me if you knew that he worked in Vietnam, that he's not even American,...
Quote:
Originally posted by Proactive
Except for this, mr Arnett's analyzis of the current situation is exactly the same as those we see on BBC every day. Which means this is a common opinion that many commentators share.
Note: Arnett was immidiatly hired by another newsprovider after being sacked. I think an English newspaper.
Indeed, Mr. Arnett's analyzis of the current situation is not exactly a secret, although some people wouldn't mind if it were. All non-embedded journalists share his point-of-view.
Congratulations to that English newspaper that hired him.
Journalists like Arnett will never be without a job. Too many people love the truth.
Quote:
Originally posted by iNViCTuS
Even if what he said was correct, and I am not saying it is, it is still WRONG. Whether your for or against the war or the administration, it is a time to stand behind your country and it's allies. IMHO Arnett deserves to be sentenced with treason and the endangerment of allied lives.
Stand behind "your" country and its allies?
Note to Invictus and the doofus who gave him positive antipoints: Mr. Arnett ain't American.
Quote:
Originally posted by cheyenne1212
Number One I think that Peter Arnett stepped out of bounds on this one. What he said is very untruthful. OUr War plans have not failed. We are not having to regroup. At this very moment while I am typing this our troops are within 18 miles of Baghdad. I also believe what he said might also help to covince more people to come over and fight for Saddam
which would be more loss of life which is what we do not want. This War is only against the regime in Iraq.
I am glad that he is no longer working for NBC, or National Geographic. Maybe since he's got a job in Britain he won't come back here.
For God's sake... Rommel once said that war ain't about weapons, it's about logistics. And logistics is something the American army underestimated. Yes you have troops within 18 miles of Baghdad. And your troops are hungry if you hadn't noticed yet. The supplies can't follow the troops, which is why you have to regroup. Even CNN acknowledges this (see link by PowerToad5000).
