 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
but the reason why he was fired was simply for displeasing the political status quo of the country. which makes this of paramount importance and absolutely relevant to freedom of speech.
political culture included in the mix.
he was not fired for being inacurate, sloppy in his job, teeling lies, not crosschecking, he was fired because the "lords" of the US didnt like what he said.
this can very well be interpreted as a serious curtailing of the journalistic profession.
so you only keep journalists that say lies that please you?
you could, but you're in serious want if this is the case.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
first of all, he was not in the least bit objective. so if ur journalistic integrity definition includes being objective. then you dont have a damn leg to stand on when trying to defend arnette under some guise of him being this great and impartial journalist.
and seriously stop using freedom of speech. the more u use it the more stupid you look. and the more uninformed you sound.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
spiritof1202
|
|
He was fired by a corporation. The reason was commercial, not political. People don't like what Arnett had to say (and thus won't watch that network.) The peoples reasons for not liking what he had to say were political.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
hwat he said was that the "war" was not going as planned.
and you think this is a lie?
and freedom of speech is what this is all about.
you sound more medieval by each post....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
basically the illusion of unhindered freedom of speech in the US has suffered a major blow. for those that beleived it in the 1st place that is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
if those words bother you, then you can tell it a mockery of the independance journalists should have.
eaitherway it falls under the 1st precept.
too bad for the US.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
that being solved we come to the one aspect that can exhilarate to some extend the US political culture.
and that is in times of "war" what is OK to say and what it isnt?
I imagine you dont get scenes of dismembered iraqi children by the american bombs either?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
spiritof1202
|
|
You just don't get it paiktis.
Arnett was and is free to say whatever he wants.
He is also in a competitive environment in which RATINGS matter.
What he said is unpopular to the audience in the US. It is a reporters job not only to report news, but to maintain and increase the networks ratings in doing so.
If they act in a way which reduces the networks ratings, they can EXPECT a pink-slip.
He was free to make the comment, and free to search for a new job.
I find it interesting that Peter Arnett himself DISAGREES with your viewpoint, Paiktis.... as his lawyer hasn't attempted to file a civil suit against NBC, just as he didn't when his contract wasn't renewed by CNN. In fact he apologized to the network, which implies culpability.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ahenobarb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by paiktis22
basically the illusion of unhindered freedom of speech in the US has suffered a major blow. for those that beleived it in the 1st place that is. |
What about the network's freedom of speech? Maybe they don't want to be associated with a guy who's willing to become a mouthpiece for a dictatorial regime just to get a career advancing interview with said dictator. Freedom of speech works both ways.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
spiritof1202
|
|
and NBC can choose to react how and when they want to ratings and contract obligations. Its their right as a corporation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
spiritof1202
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MarkG
quote:
and NBC can choose to react how and when they want to ratings and contract obligations. Its their right as a corporation |
amazing how easily we end up with the "it's a corporation, it's money, though luck" argument these days....
*SNIP* |
There are two sides to each argument. Arnetts continued employment with NBC required their continued happiness with his worthiness for the task he was employed for.
That ceased... and thus his employment ceased.
End of story.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
spiritof1202
|
|
the free market simply decided this matter, MarkG... it really is that simple.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
spiritof1202
|
|
Yes... in this case, absolutely acceptable. No massive protests outside NBC asking to reinstate Peter Arnett on NBC.
Come to think of it, the only protests that i've heard, have come from Greece... *smiles*
|
|
| |
|
|
|
spiritof1202
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MarkG
quote:
No massive protests outside NBC asking to reinstate Peter Arnett |
no massive protests to fire him either
|
Except the network execs that pulled the trigger of course... *grins* and they are the only ones that count in the debate of "keep him vs. fire him". They are the best placed to know the rating reactions to keeping him, and as such acted promptly and preemptively, as is their right.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
spiritof1202
|
|
its their network... not Arnetts network.
They can act as they wish.
Prove, MarkG... why they shouldn't
Why should Peter Arnett have a job for life?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
I have no fathoming how you ppl can consider arnette's firing a suppression of freedom of speech. you must have some ridiculously twisted interpretation of the first amendment.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-04-2003 22:02
|