Talicni_Tom

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Mar31.html

what happen with the freedom of the press?

in america if you speak out against the government you are unpatriotic and "if you're not with us, you're against us". If you're against us you're a terrorist. Exactly the same principle is used by saddam husein.

__________________
p4 2.4b abit be7 768MB ati radeon 8500 128MB

SH4President

The first casualtie of a war is THE TRUTH.

raid517

Well there is a lot of conservatives that will love the fact that he is gone.

They will positively be creaming themselves over this news.

Q

Xp2000

It is a crock of crap. He shouldnt have been fired. What revera did was far worse.
That fool got on the ground and drew a map in the sand of where our troops were.
Thats just plain stupid. He wasnt even fired. I think that peter shouldnt have went to iraq tv but
he said nothing that we didnt already know.
Its sucks.

Smoothdrive

No April foolsday joke ?

__________________
GA-7VRXP, AMD2000+, 256MB PC-2700 DDR, Radeon 8500LE, 2x Maxtor 740 (40GB) stripe set, AGNeovo X-150.

JavaFox

"Freedom of the press" in America means that the government shall not infringe on the right of the press to say what they want. But if reporters want to make waves by saying that Allied war plans are failures, and the Big Wigs at NBC aren't particularly fond of alienating their audience (more Americans support this war than supported the first Gulf War), then firing him makes perfect sense. Corporations will always have a right to silence their employees. It's just the government that can't silence the press.

raid517

And NBC isn't deeply sympathetc to the govenment stance? Aren't some of NBC's board members close buddies with Bush and co? I winder, have you seen much criticism of the war, or of Bush's policies on NBC lately?

Q

bluelight

Some of the major news agencys has refused to sell ad space to the peace organisations.

Fox and Cnn are a couple of them.

These are examples of...freedom of press and

and....what happens when free enterprise and its rules totally rules a country.

Another example of what happens when a country is ruled by its enterprises and not by its people is this Pearle business.

Pearle isnt the only one....and the rest of them....will stay where they are.




Bluelight

JavaFox

I don't really watch NBC. The Big Three have a big reputation for being left-leaning in this country, but at any rate, are you saying that corporations should not be allowed to fire people?

JavaFox

What are things like in your country?

Seems to me that not selling adspace to cause with which either you or your audience does not agree is pretty free to me. Google doesn't sell adspace to gun manufacturers. I'll bet you don't disagree with that, though.

raid517

And you think they should? Or that at least gun advertising should be encouraged?

Q

raid517

Well like everyone these days I have access to pretty much all the world's press and media (sigh... the downside is this war has got me watching TV again) through satelite television and the internet - and I can certainly say I have hardly heard any criticism - no wait I'm not even sure I've heard any at all - of this govenment's foreign policies.

The one time someone does speak out they get sacked. Hardly an encouragement for others to speak out is it?

Indeed Dan Rather came to England 4 or so months ago and gave an interview in which he clearly stated his disgust that young journalists in America were actively being discouraged from speaking their minds. The reason he came here? Well even a national institution such as Dan Rather felt unable to speak openly in his own country.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0517-01.htm

The Conservative response? Pretty typical really. Dan Rather is a leftist anti-American agitator. Simply saying that appears to be enough to convince many Conservatives of the case against him. Now even arguing for the cause of free speech in America is seen as anti-American.

It has been pointed out on these theads before by certain Consevatives how the truth is irrelevant in the end game. Case and point a new foundation of misinformation is now being laid by this govenment. They are now saying they are not so sure they will find any WMD. So they have laid the ground for a get-out by saying that Saddam Husein has seen the futility of using them and has smuggled them out of the country and into Syria.

Now there's a nice convienient excuse to go for Syria next.

I think freedom of the press has been another sacrifice America has made in this potentially never ending 'war on terror.'

Q

JavaFox

Yes, well, good job at dodging the question.

Many of us on the right have a lot of contempt for Mr. Rather. If he feels as if he cannot speak his mind, that is no fault of the government. And that's what freedom boils down to: the government cannot impose its will on the media. And that is largely what we have in this country.

The thing you don't understand, Raid, is that American, by and large, stand in solidarity during this tough time. Most of us support the administration in this endeavor. I know this is not the case in most of the world, but you need to understand how things are in these United States. Therefore, when somebody comes out against the war --or what is perceived to be against the troops-- it will be unpopular. And, consequently, the networks respond.

It isn't a government-imposed opinion. What these men say is against the grain of popular American opinion. Going against that is going to, of course, be unpopular. At any rate, I hardly think what you're saying is true, being an inhabitant of the US. CNN readily accepts anti-American rumors as if they were al Jazeera. Newspapers across American have headlines like "Americans are Bogged Down."

If you think that American opinion is being squelched by the government, I can only conclude that this is because you don't live here. I do admit that there is force that is acting against anti-war rhetoric -- but it is market-based, not government-based.

raid517

Well like I said, I have access to all of the same meda as you do - and that's not how I have seen it. There is a lot of evidence of suppression of freedoms and of free speech in the US. Freedom of the press is becomming a victim too it seems. Americans bogged down is hardly an anti-war statement. When even senior journalists feel they cant speak openly in your coutry what is that? It certainly isn't freedom. Nice to see you bought in on the ant-American Dan Rather ticket. I put it there for you to pick up because I was sure more complex arguments wouldn't interest you. Anti-Americanism is just a blanket term for the right for virtually anyone who doesn't agree with them. It is the policy of 'for us or against us' gone mad.'

Well you keep watching whatever TV channel you like to watch (let me guess, Fox? It certainly wouldn't suprise me. No negative anti-Republican news on there) and I willl watch watever new I choose to watch and we will draw our own conclusions. The only think that will differ is that I won't be looking at the news through nationalistic rose tined spectacles. I support my govenment and I support our troops and hope they kick Saddam's but to Kindom come, but I certainly havent forgottent how to be critical, or objective about the potential pitfals that may lie ahead.

Q

JavaFox

Well, simply put, if you think that the freedom of the press in America is dying, it is only because you are not here. I certainly do not know much about the British press, and I cannot expect you to have much knowledge of ours. It's actually quite amusing that someone would be so alarmist.

Whatever his views on the war may be, I have disliked Rather for some time. If you ever get the chance, perhaps it would interest you to read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg. Goldberg, a 30-year veteran of CBS, has some very telling stories about the kind of bias that exists within our elite media. He was practically ostracized for telling his story -- and not by the right, either. Perhaps if you familiarized yourself with Mr. Rather, his ruthlesness, and his mindless partisanship ("I think Bill Clinton is an honest man") you might dislike him too.

But probably not. Because only "mindless patriots" could possibly dislike a senior left-wing journalist.

raid517

Ahh... No JF... It is you who are attempting to detract from the value of the subject by diviting it along partizan lines. So what if he is left wing? (Although I think that is stretching things a little). What have his political affiliations got to do with anything? Are only right wing journalists allowed to speak their mind?

As for not being informed I get the New York Times and the Washington post maybe two or three times a week. They are on sale in my local News agent, as I only live a short distance away from an American military base. (Doesn't everyone?) I also regularly watch ABC, CNN and sometimes Fox, though understanably from my perpective I find Fox a bid hard to take at times. Mind you their simplified perspective of the world certainly seems to appeal to some.

I don't know how in the age of the internet it is impossible to appreaciate the international press. Personally for me, it is one of the main things I use it for.

And I know you like to quote the British press too JF when it suits your purpose, so I don't nuy that you are unaware of it either.

You have access to Google just like everyone else.

So you disliked Rather? Would you still nonetheless openly defend his right to speak his mind? And would you also therefore deplore his apparent feeling that he had to leave the country to speak his mind freely.

You say this is all about market forces? But if that is the case it is trully horrendous. Are you saying that no one in America has any values or principals beyond that of the market? You make Americans sound like Ferengi (remember Startreck?) only ever interested in profit and what they can make out of the deal. I'm sure there are many Americans out there who would object to this ideal. Yes America has pulled together while this terrible war is conducted. Bush has unprecidented support. My message is simple, enjoy it while it lasts...

Q

Falstaff

Peter has apologized for poor judgement, But he has been in trouble before, with lots of organizations, while his collegues endure. I watched him during the gulf war from my ship, when we fired a missle, half an hour later it zoomed over his head, making him duck. we cheered and cheered, and watched CNN a great deal more, ha ha..He had a reputation for being a pompous ass, he could get an interview with anyone, but his credibility suffered. News people somehow become institutions in the U.S. and Peter was criticized for bad reports in the past, it was along time coming, someone will take his place of course, He was no Edward R. Morrrow, but you could always count on him on being near the front. Now the field is open again, more oppurtunities for younger folks to take the torch, just as left wing, just as antiwar, just as unobjective, and we will watch them too..life goes on. And who knows Peter will write a book about it...who cares....I still remember him hitting the ground on his face in 1991, ha ha.....

__________________

raid517

Well no... Younger people may come up... But will they be so keen to speak their minds? Perhaps not...

Q

BWX

It is more about principal than marketing, NBC is very liberal- the proof is that they hired someone like Peter Arnett in the first place.
It seems hard for you to believe that the government doesn't control every aspect of every business in America, this simply is not the case. People in the US don't want to hear some idiot reporter lying about the current situation of the war to benifit the Iraqi regime and hurt the coalition troops.. That is why he got fired, people would not stand for it out of principal and would boycott NBC if they continued to air these kinds of things. It was a business decision, but it was also to cover their own ass.

No one in the government had anything to do w/ him getting fired. We do have freedom of press. It is obvious by some of the things you see on TV here.

*edit- oh, it is Star Trek, not Startreck

raid517

Mmm I don't remember saying there was direct political involvement in this. Just that there is a political atmosphere right now that prevents people/journalists fro speaking their minds. If you were honest you would admit that you are happy he has been silenced. If you truly cared about freedom of the press and freedom of speech you would have defended his right to say whatever he wants. Why not for example, simply move him to a new assignment?

The right do not like dissent, just as they do not like protest. Indeed from where I stand the American neo-Consevative right represent pretty much everything they claim to be fighting against. Peter Arnett was against and he paid a price.

The govenment might not hire an fire journalists (although it chose its crop of embeded jouralists for this war) but it can certainly bring the right kind of pressure to bare. For us or against us is all you need to say.


Q

raid517

Mmm... Like I even care???

JavaFox

You're confused, Raid. If Arnett's right to speak were being infringed on, then I'd defend him. I'd defend a Nazi's right to speak in this country. But his right was not being infringed upon. He said what he wanted to, and he can continue to say what he wants to. His right still exists, unscathed.

But there are always consequences for what you say. You have to understand that saying "the war plans have failed" is something very unpopular in America right now, for better or for worse. And it is within NBC's rights to shield itself from negative press by firing someone they deem to be radical and errant.

Is Peter Arnett's right harmed? No. Arnett can continue to say exactly what he has been saying. He can post it on websites. He can stand in Times Square and shout it. If someone'll have him, he can say it on TV. Or he can publish a book. But the right to do those things does not guarantee that the audience will be happy with the message.

There may not be an audience at all.

BWX

What does the "neo- Conservative right" - (please define) have to do with this? Nothing, they aren't the ones who fired that guy are they. Whoever you speak of.
There you go again saying the government has some mystical power over the media and who gets hired or fired, they don't, we don't live in Iraq, remember? All of the people who you see speaking out against the protesters against the war and such aren't saying they disagree with the right to protest, they are arguing what is being protested, a very big difference. You think that protesters should be protected from being arued with? Show me one quote by anyone you say is a "neo conservative right" that says we should not be allowed to protest at all under any circumstances. Or have dissent. That is another ridiculouse argument. Just go ahead ang say it, you would love it if the coalition lost the war wouldn't you? It sure sounds like it to me.

BWX

You care enough to compare all Americans to the most loathsome characters of the program, I though you might want to know how to spell it correctly.

raid517

Like you should be handing out spelling lessons to anyone... And anyway it was JF who said it was the corporations who governed people's ability to speak freely and report the news in the US. I said I thought a lot of Americans would probably disagree with that.

Q

raid517

Like I said I didn't claim there was any direct political involvement. But this govenment has suceeded in creating an atmosphere where speaking out publically against it is very difficult. "For us or against us!" Remember? Anybody who says they are against them is instantly necklaced with the burning tire of anti-Americanism. Who wants to live with that label for the rest of their careers?

As for wanting the coalition to loose the war? Well all I wish is they had never started it. But as I have claerly said several times, since UK troops are involved, I hope they are among the first to put a bullet in Saddams brain.

But this is a typical crude trick of the right. They classify all dissent as either being anti-American or traitorous. It is a dirty nasty accusation and has no foundation whatsoever. I am quite certain where my loyalties lie. And they are not with Saddam or any of his ilk. Clear enough???

Q

JavaFox

Yes, yes. We've heard this before. In these times, nobody wants to cross the Bush Administration for fear of being branded anti-American. Give liberals some credit, Raid. They have been critisizing Bush openly, even voted against authorizing him to go to war. Liberal newspapers, columnists, and thinkers have come down against this war every chance they had. Are these people "branded" for the rest of their lives?

Not really.

Anyway, if "the right" always uses this tired tactic, you'd think the American people --or at least left-wingers-- would give it little regard. But, no, it's some sort of supernaturally powerful force that squelches all sort of non-conservative thought!

Give me a break.

raid517

So your saying that senior reporters stepping out of the country to voice their concerns because they feel unable to do so in their own country is ok? Or that they say many younger journalists are afraid to speak out for fear of damaging their carreers? Is that really freedom of the press? This fever pitch of fear and patriotism has been carefully cultivated by this govenment. You tell me to give the liberals more credit? Well maybe I will when I hear one of them stand up and say Bush's policies have gone too far. The left in America seems to have lost its footing. I think September the 11th may have changed the American political map beyond all recognition. I think there is genuine fear about the repercussions of saying the wrong thing right now. I think this govenment is doing everything within its power to feed on that fear.

Like I said, I read/watch the same press you do. That is the impression I have formed. It may not be yours, but what the hey.

Q

BWX

It was one word a proper name, different than common words- And I do pretty good without a spellchecker.

Anyway, people can report anything they want, but the people are really the ones who govern what they will tolerate and listen to. Everything is "governed" by ratings-- that the people decide. If they see a lying reporter on TV, NBC knows that they will got lots of hate mail and veiwers tuning the channel, simple as that.

raid517

I'm not sure if that happend. There wasn't time for it to happen. As soon as he made his comments he was saked. If what he said was uncomfortable, why not just move him to a less sensitive department?

Q