Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP - Archives

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Soka University Japan - Transcend Art and Peace
Created: March 31, 2003
Latest Update: April 1, 2003
jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu

Peter Arnett and Iraqi TV

Site Copyright: Jeanne Curran and Susan R. Takata and Individual Authors, March 2003.
"Fair use" encouraged.

I have more to put up on this soon. Consider thinking about it in terms of one-sided and two-sided arguments. jeanne

Reporter Tells Iraqis His Work Aids Antiwar Effort By Elizabeth Jensen, Times Staff Writer. March 31, 2003. At p. A14. "National Geographic and NBC defend Peter Arnett's comments to state TV in Baghdad." Backup.

NBC, MSNBC fire Peter Arnett

Peter Arnett, Back in the Minefield By Howard Kurtz, Washington Post Staff Writer. Monday, March 31, 2003; Page C01.

" The correspondent portrayed himself as a minority voice, saying: "Clearly, the American war planners misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces. And I personally do not understand how that happened, because I've been here many times and in my commentaries on television I would tell the Americans about the determination of the Iraqi forces. . . . But me, and others who felt the same way, were not listened to by the Bush administration."

"NBC spokeswoman Allison Gollust said that "Peter Arnett and his crew have risked their lives to bring the American people up-to-date, straightforward information on what is happening in and around Baghdad. His impromptu interview with Iraqi TV was done as a professional courtesy. . . . His remarks were analytical in nature and were not intended to be anything more."

"But Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, called the interview "more evidence that Peter Arnett is an agenda-driven reporter" who is "primed to believe the U.S. military is going to fail" and that "people resisting us must have a heroic aspect to them. And he's saying these things on Gestapo-run TV. It's incredible."

" A White House official said Arnett was "coming from a position of complete ignorance. He's never designed a war plan or implemented a war plan. His judgment is suspect. . . . For him to state that to the Iraqi people is, I'd suspect, a certain level of pandering."

" . . . .

From Peter Arnett, Back in the Minefield By Howard Kurtz, Washington Post Staff Writer. Monday, March 31, 2003; Page C01. Online.

Reporters on the Job Christian Science Monitor. "Reporter Philip Smucker, who was escorted from Iraq by the US Marines, arrived safely in Kuwait on Saturday. His phones, computer, and notebooks were returned."

"About 65 percent supported the US military's decision. About 35 percent opposed it. Readers on both sides felt passionately about this event (read some of the letters we received).

"Many of those that supported Smucker's removal argued that the US military is fully justified in removing any potential threat to the safety of its soldiers. A number of readers mentioned that the commanding officer on the scene has an overarching duty to protect his troops, and order Smucker out. For the record, a US general who was not in the field ordered Smucker's removal. About 10 percent of the readers said they saw no value in any field reporting from Iraq, whether it came from embedded or non-embedded journalists.

"Those that opposed Smucker's ouster frequently argued his case on the grounds of free speech and the quality of his work in Afghanistan. Many said that contrary to the official reason for his removal, the actual intent was to muzzle a source of information that might contradict the Pentagon's spin on the war."

March 31 reports from Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: Behind the Homefront

"REPORTER KICKED OUT OF IRAQ BY U.S. The Pentagon confirmed that freelance journalist Philip Smucker, working for the Christian Science Monitor and The Daily Telegraph of London, was kicked out of southern Iraq by U.S. forces Wednesday after they concluded that he released too much information about troop positions in a live interview on CNN. Smucker, who last summer was called "the best newsman in Afghanistan" by one media journal, last talked to editors on Wednesday while he was dealing with military officials who were displeased with the CNN report. As of Friday, when he was still presumably being held incommunicado in military custody for the trip back to Kuwait, he had not been able to contact his editors.

"We have read the transcript of the CNN interview and it does not appear to us that he disclosed anything that wasn't already widely available in maps and in US and British radio, newspaper, and television reports in that same news cycle," Monitor editor Paul Van Slambrouck wrote in a column in Friday's paper. "We are disappointed Smucker has been removed." From Behind the Homefront. March 31, 2003.