RatcliffeBlog - Mitch Thinking Out Loud

Say Goodbye, Mr. Arnett

Say Goodbye, Mr. Arnett

So, Peter Arnett, who has covered a few wars, gives an interview to Iraqi television and says the U.S. war plan is being rewritten, then is fired for it. Now, why is this right? Because Arnett is supposed to be covering the war, not granting interviews. We all know the plan is messed up, but the role of a reporter is to report facts, not offer interpretation for the propaganda of a foreign nation.

"I said in that interview essentially what we all know about the war, that there have been delays in implementing policy, there have been surprises," Arnett told NBC's "Today" show.

"But clearly by giving that interview I created a firestorm in the United States and for that I am truly sorry," added Arnett, widely known for his dramatic live reports during the bombing of Baghdad on the opening days of the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites).

"My stupid misjudgment was to spend fifteen minutes in an impromptu interview with Iraqi television," he said.

"It was wrong for Mr. Arnett to grant an interview with state-controlled Iraqi TV, especially at a time of war and it was wrong for him to discuss his personal observations and opinions," NBC said in a statement.

The real problem is that while it is true Mr. Arnett is guilty of a foolish misjudgment, much of U.S. media coverage is equally stilted on behalf of the U.S. war effort and no one is being fired for that.

Here is a good analysis of the media maelstrom from the Wall Street Journal:

But this deluge is creating a classic paradox of the information age: We know more than we ever did before, yet we may not be any closer to the real truth. Instead, the overload of scenes and dispatches are creating an illusion that each hour's installment adds up to total insight -- whipsawing the public mood from highs to lows in the 11-day-old war.

The result is already proving taxing for the war's leaders. "What we are seeing is not the war in Iraq," said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during a recent Pentagon briefing. "What we're seeing are slices of the war in Iraq. We're seeing that particularized perspective that that reporter, or that commentator or that television camera happens to be able to see at that moment. And it is not what's taking place."

One vivid indication of the public response: The stock market is fixated on this TV-driven emotional seesaw, careening from joy to despondency within hours. The day that U.S. forces began their "shock and awe" bombing campaign, the Dow Jones Industrial Average capped its best week in more than 20 years by soaring 235 points in the New York Stock Exchange's most active day of the year. Then came the weekend, packed with wall-to-wall reports of minor military setbacks and the capture of a dozen U.S. soldiers. On the next trading day, every one of the 30 stocks making up the Dow fell, dragging the blue-chip indicator down 307 points.

"Everyone is confused because no one has been through this before," says Bill Nichols, managing director for block trading at Bear Stearns Cos., surrounded by more than 20 television sets positioned around the firm's trading desk.

What is missing in this story, however, is the fact that the U.S. military intended the confusion by placing embedded reporters in the field. It provides nothing but a fractured view and that is the source of the problem -- the press went along for the ride.