http://www.nbc4columbus.com/news/2074832/detail.html

Journalist Peter Arnett will no longer report for NBC News and MSNBC because of remarks he made on state-run Iraqi TV.

NBC on Monday retracted its defense of Arnett.


Arnett (pictured, left) went on state-run Iraqi TV on Sunday and said in an interview that the first American-led war plan has failed and U.S. strategists are now trying to "write another war plan."

Arnett was covering the war from Baghdad for NBC and its cable stations.

NBC News President Neal Shapiro spoke with Arnett via telephone early Monday morning in an attempt to fully understand the circumstances of Arnett's interview on Iraqi TV. After their discussion, NBC News issued the following statement:


"It was wrong for Mr. Arnett to grant an interview to state-controlled Iraqi TV -- especially at a time of war -- and it was wrong for him to discuss his personal observations and opinions in that interview. Therefore, Peter Arnett will no longer be reporting for NBC News and MSNBC."

NBC said Monday he wouldn't be reporting for "National Geographic Explorer," either.

Arnett told an Iraqi interviewer that the first war plan failed because it misjudged the Iraqi resistance and determination.

Arnett said the U.S. is reappraising the battlefield and delaying the war for up to a week while writing another plan.

The interview was broadcast in English and translated by an Iraqi anchor wearing a military uniform. NBC said Arnett agreed to an interview after attending an Iraqi briefing. NBC also said that Arnett's reporting has been "outstanding" and that he was simply offering an analytical answer to a reporter's question.

On NBC's "Today" show, Arnett said he was sorry for the statement, but added, "I said over the weekend what we all know about the war."

He also said he wanted to apologize to the American people for "clearly making a misjudgment" and said he would leave Baghdad.

NBC had earlier defended Arnett, saying the interview was a professional courtesy and that his remarks were analytical.

Arnett drew criticism while covering the Gulf War for CNN from the first Bush administration, which suggested he was conveying Iraqi propaganda.

I hate it when people misquote the whole "freedom of speech" thing. The main point of the first amendment is to keep the government from restricting fair and honest reporting of news. Stating one's opinions in a media venue of an enemy country, let alone discussing what the military strategists are going to do in their war with said country, is by no means covered under the article of the First Amendment.

I can't wait to see what happens when people realize that if the American citizens in Iraq, acting as human shields, return home they can be tried and executed for treason.

We're not at war with Iraq.

We aren't? Since when?

Since Congress hasn't declared war.

On a second note, you're wrong. The Constitution protects any right to share or broadcast opinions as well as facts. The only things you can say that aren't protected under the freedom of speech are slander, or words designed to incite or encourage illegal activities, including, say, telling soldiers to "kill their officers". However, saying that our troops are failing is not encouraging enemy troops, although it may be encouraging to them.

Agreed!

Congress did give the president the go ahead on this war. So yes we are at war.

BTW, this reporter did say that he was against the war and was intending to undermine the war effort. He is no different than Tokyo Rose or Axis Sally, both of whom were American citizens "opposed to the war" so to speak.

But isn't that true?

Using the amazing mind trick known as memory, I can see through the mist of propoganda to the plan that was first announced, the plan was to "shock and awe" the iraqis into laying down their arms and targeting saddams location with up to 40 cruise missiles, the whole shebang was supposed to be over in about six days.

Perhaps they haven't, but Iraq has declared war on us. That makes them an enemy of the country. Just because we haven't reached the point in time where Congress has to sit down and hold the vote does not invalidate the fact that we have troops in a combat situation over there.

True. However, that Constitutional right, by logic, would only extend to such broadcasts overseen by the U.S. Also, if it was deemed that anything he said could be used by Iraq against our troops, i.e. sensitive information about tactics or location, that would also be held against him. Rather like that other journalist who was taken out of there...Smucker, or somesuch. Although in that case the guy was drawing out a map in the sand showing the position of the troops he was with for the camera...

That was Geraldo, and he wasn't fired. He's still with that unit.


I'm not aware that he revealed any sensitive information that would endanger our troops. If he did, that would not be protected under the Freedom of Speech amendment, and he should be prosecuted for it.

if the news agencies are like any other corporations than they more than likely had him sign some kind of confidentiality agreement, being a technician for hp there are certain things i can't say or do in refrence to them as a representative, to do so would be a violation of that agreement leaving me open to termination...so yes we do have free speech, but work places that deal with confidential information often times have these contracts...

Wasn't there some guy over in Iraq reporting for Fox who was telling where all of the American Troops were located?

I ask..while others have already answered and talked about it..

*sighs*

Remind me again why I'm so stupid?

You're right. There was some other journalist who was kicked out whose last name was Smucker, who was in the same situation, giving out sensitive information during his broadcast.

Tell it to the British. From what I've heard, he's been hired by a news station in the U.K. to do war coverage for them.

Hired by the Daily Mirror, a Leftist rag that has came out in opposition to the war in Iraq.