30.01.2013 Views

UPDATED - ColdType

UPDATED - ColdType

UPDATED - ColdType

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

children being killed like this, but we had no<br />

choice.”<br />

Past is not past<br />

EMBEDDED: WEAPONS OF MASS DECEPTION<br />

IT was in search for context that I reached back<br />

into a book on my shelf, “The Powers That Be,”<br />

by the great Vietnam War reporter David Halberstam.<br />

In it, he writes of two incidents. The<br />

first occurred in the spring of l965, a spring like<br />

the one we are living with. Two journalists for<br />

the Associated Press, a wire service that specializes<br />

in playing it straight down the middle,<br />

reported that the US was using poison gas. The<br />

reporters had multiple sources. There was a big<br />

flap. President Lyndon Johnson personally went<br />

on TV to deny it. The Military was enraged.<br />

Another story appeared by one of the same<br />

reporters on the bombing of a village with a<br />

great cost of civilian lives. The military was<br />

really pissed off by that one because it quoted an<br />

American lieutenant who said, famously, “we<br />

bombed the village in order to save it.”<br />

“That quote in many ways defined the war, and<br />

is its defining epitaph. The reporter on both stories<br />

was one Peter Arnett.<br />

Halberstam wrote that reporters like Arnett<br />

were never invited on the Sunday talk shows<br />

because networks like CBS considered themselves<br />

a consensus medium. “In the early days,<br />

much of the film seemed to center on action<br />

rather than the more substantitive qualities of<br />

the war. An emphasis on what the television correspondents<br />

for CBS themselves called ‘bloody’<br />

or ‘bang-bang.’ There was a group of younger<br />

correspondents who felt that that somehow the<br />

network was always managing to sanitize the<br />

war.”<br />

148<br />

How far have we come? By l991, Peter Arnett<br />

said he had covered 17 wars. Now, he is fighting<br />

one of his own.<br />

The resurrection and<br />

crucifixion of Peter Arnett<br />

LAST week, TV Guide ran a column on the resurrection<br />

of Peter Arnett. It discussed how this<br />

Pulitzer Prize winning one-time AP reporter outraged<br />

the American right-wing for his reporting<br />

during Gulf War I but was getting it right this<br />

time. No sooner had the piece appeared than<br />

Peter’s resurrection imploded, turning into<br />

another crucifixion, perhaps a self-crucifixion.<br />

One minute the man was on top, reporting every<br />

other minute from Baghdad, the envy of all the<br />

networks who couldn’t or wouldn’t have their<br />

own man in the hot spot. The next minute, he<br />

was being run out of town on a rail, fired, disgraced,<br />

and apologizing all over the TODAY<br />

show for his “misjudgment.” (He has since been<br />

hired by the Daily Mirror in London, which features<br />

as its headline today: “Fired By America<br />

for Telling the Truth.” Arnett writes he has not<br />

apologized for what he said.)<br />

What Arnett says now<br />

WRITING in the Mirror, Arnett explains his<br />

stance: “I am still in shock and awe at being fired.<br />

There is enormous sensitivity within the US government<br />

to reports coming out from Baghdad.<br />

“They don’t want credible news organizations<br />

reporting from here because it presents them<br />

with enormous problems . . .<br />

“I’m not angry. I’m not crying. But I’m also<br />

awed by this media phenomenon.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!