UPDATED - ColdType

eporter as they come. They used a ruse, retaining
his services through National Geographic
Explorer, which produced his first reports with
Camera Planet, the indy news organization. That
gave them plausible deniability, or so they
believed. NBC later wanted him so bad that they
rode roughshod over Camera Planet’s contract
with Arnett who was all too happy to be back on
the air after years of forced exile from CNN.
Do you remember the circumstances of his
axing there? The network repudiated a story
they investigated alleging the use of nerve gas
against US military deserters in Vietnam after a
ton of bricks fell on them from the Pentagon.
After all the top brass approved the story, they
hung some producers and Arnett out to dry. The
producers later sued for false dismissal, and
CNN, which was so righteous in distancing
themselves from the story, gave them big cash
payoffs rather than have the issue publicly adjudicated.
Arnett embarrassed the network by
admitting he had not checked out all the details
of the story himself, a common practice among
busy network correspondents who rely on producers
for most of their reporting. He became
the fall guy.
“Outstanding reporting”
speaks for itself
AFTER Arnett was targeted this time, NBC at
first made positive noises. A spokesperson said
that his TV comments “were analytical in nature
and were not intended to be anything more,”
according to a news story on MSBNC.com. “His
outstanding reporting on the war speaks for
itself,” she added. NBC then decided otherwise.
Journalists are debating the ethics of what
SURROUNDING BAGHDAD
151
Arnett did, not what ABC did. There is a discussion
between Bob Steele, Kelly McBride and Aly
Colu on the Poynter.org web site:
Aly: “I wonder what the reaction from the public,
the U.S. government and journalists would
have been if Arnett had said on Iraqi TV that the
U.S. military had succeeded in its battle plans
and that the Iraqi resistance was having no
impact on those who oppose the war in the U.S.
or on the U.S. government itself. I wonder if the
criticism cascading about Arnett now would
have been as virulent.”
Kelly: “My hope is that journalists as well as
the general public will use this conversation to
really examine what it is Arnett did wrong.
Because his sins, if you will, are common. He
revealed his personal viewpoints. He made
declarative statements that were beyond his
authority to make. He crossed the line that separates
reporters from opinion writers. Yet, I’m
hearing people call him a traitor for giving aid
and comfort to the enemy. That is hardly the
case.”
Bob: “Peter Arnett had a unique and important
vantage point for covering the war in Iraq. He
was one of the few reporters remaining in Baghdad.
He had the ability – and journalistic duty –
to report on what was happening in Baghdad. He
could tell meaningful stories. It’s a shame that he
has wasted this vantage point by stepping out of
his reporter’s role to express his personal views
on how the war is going in Iraq and how it is playing
out in the United States . . .”
The de-bedding of Geraldo
ARNETT is not the only correspondent in deep
doo-doo. Fox’s mighty Geraldo Rivera appears