And other media news from the homefront

By Stephen Silver

War correspondent Peter Arnett has been fired by all three of his employers (NBC News, MSNBC, and National Geographic) after he gave an interview to Iraqi state-owned television in which he praised the "determination" of Iraqi forces and stated that the US war plan had "failed."

Arnett, as anyone who was alive during the first Gulf War remembers, reported for CNN from a hotel in Baghdad along with colleagues John Holliman and Bernard Shaw, and the image of their pictures on screen against the backdrop of coalition bombing was as iconic as any from that war. Arnett was later disgraced as a journalist (and let go by CNN in 1999) after he put his name on a bogus story about use of sarin gas by US troops in Vietnam.

But once it became clear the US was about to go to war in the Gulf once again, someone doubtless raised the possibility of recreating the "great TV" from the first Iraq war- and since Shaw is retired and Holliman is dead, Arnett was NBC's only remaining option. Then, after CNN's two correspondents were expelled in the opening days of the war, Arnett became the only Western television reporter in the Iraqi capital. All in all, it took a tremendous stroke of luck for Peter Arnett to get a second chance at a career in war reporting, and it took him less than two weeks to blow it.

As a journalist I respect Arnett's right to free speech, as well as his right to his opinions- but taking those opinions to Saddam Hussein's official government propaganda organ was, I feel, an act that crossed the line into what is unacceptable for a war reporter. And in cozying up to the Iraqi regime, Arnett not only came dangerously close to providing aid and comfort to the enemy, but he also committed the sin of bad journalism: clearly he should know better than to think the US plan has completely failed, or that the Iraqi people are more or less on Saddam's side.

Arnett's fall further illustrates a fierce debate that's been going on since the start of the war on what role the media should play. Many on the left have accused elements of the media (primarily Fox News Channel) of doing nothing but parroting propaganda straight from the Pentagon, while some on the right have accused elements of the media (primarily the New York Times) of spinning war news to make the war appear to not be going as well as it is, believing the reporting of bad news to somehow translate into a hatred of America and a secret wish that Saddam Hussein wins the war. Either way, it doesn't seem as though anybody's happy with the war coverage; indeed, in the last week I've heard more people complain about the television coverage than about the actual war.