Amen-Moses

He was sacked!

Free speech means being able to voice your opinions, if companies are allowed to sack people for voicing their opinions then free speech is out of the window!

We have members of our government who have publicly said far worse things than he did yet noone has even hinted at sacking them (although some have voluntarily resigned rather than be associated with the bunch of morons running things but that is different).

If he had stated that he was speaking on behalf of his employers then that would be a different kettle of fish of course.

Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses

Such as?

Can we now rely on the US to sack everyone else making erroneous statements, like Ari F, Bush, Powell and Bumpsfelt?

Amen-Moses

Mr. Superbad

We Americans DEMAND that journalist blow smoke up our asses! To do otherwise is treasonous.

christ-on-a-stick

LOL Superbad... although sadly that is not far from the truth.

ExTheist

Arnet told the truth: the war is not going as planned and there is massive opposition to the war in the US. The people of Iraq already know this. Arnet need not apoligize, nor should he have been fired.

Sauron

Repealed by the Gestapo (Patriot) Act.

themistocles

BS, you work for a company, you meet their standards.

If I own a restuarant and have a racist host who won't serve blacks or does but treats them poorly, I have every right to fire that host.

Free speech my eye, this war has created new bounds of hyperbole like few events in history that I'm aware of.

emphryio

I'm sure that other journalists just starting out on their careers will look at this example and be extra careful to self censor themselves.

markstake

Arnett may have given his misguided opinion, but did not tell the truth. Or perhaps you have some evidence somewhere? Some support that is a quote from someone who would know, as opposed to theory from strategists?

In any case, whether Arnett is right or wrong (and he's wrong), his interview will likely cause hundreds or thousands of additional deaths in this war.

Although I don't expect anyone here to believe this source, at least Tommy Franks is someone who knows the original plan, knows where we are now, and knows what he's expecting to do next. I don't know how anyone could think the war plan would have been shared with Mr. Arnett to put him in such a position to speak about it with authority.

Following the plan.

christ-on-a-stick

themistocles,

I don't think anybody is saying that CNN (and National Geographic Explorer) don't have a *right*, legally, to can him. But *should* they?

Let me ask you this. From National Geographic's issued statement:

Even they are characterizing his statements as "his personal views", and the interview that *he* granted was not as representative of either CNN or National Geographic. So, my question is, how would you feel about an employer firing someone for the personal views that they expressed outside the workplace?

If he made comments they didn't like *while broadcasting for them* or explicitly as their representative, I would feel differently. However, this was not the case. This particular journalist has over 30 years of war reporting experience and has won a Pulitzer Prize among many others, and he gets fired for granting a *personal interview* and expressing his *personal views*? I'm sorry but I don't see that as something your employer *should* fire you for, even if they legally can. I think it smacks of cowardice, actually, especially considering that NBC ORIGINALLY gave this statement: - and only changed their tune after receiving heavy criticism and pressure from advertisers and consumers.

It just doesn't strike me as ethical for a (supposedly) journalistic organization to flip-flop and fire someone based on whether their personal opinions are popular with the public.