christ-on-a-stick

I have yet to see you MAKE that argument.

Assertion does not = argument.

Lay it on us.

Vorkosigan

You said:

• Given reason to believe that the U.S. may not prevail, soldiers who may otherwise surrender will not. Since the U.S. will continue until they win, this means more deaths on both sides without changing the end result.

This contains several unsupported assumptions. First, the US may not "win" either politically or militarily. It may tire of the war and pull out. Second, the US may not be able to continue if the UN or some other nation or group of nations can bring it to its senses. Third, the Iraqis have ample motivation in their daily observations of the war in their own country and the international press, where Arnett's observation has been made many times. You don't have much of a point, and Iraqis are likely to be far more motivated by the news of civilians getting slaughtered at checkpoints and suchlike.

Vorkosigan

vicesboy

Mark, no one has 'refuted' your argument, because a valid point was not made.

Exactly how will these words get more people killed? If Arnett's words will cause death, then by the same logic, so will President Bush's, Defense Secretary Rumsfield, Powel, Franks, and so on, etc.?

Further down that line, any reporter's words will cause more deaths (to prove this point, at this moment in time I am opening Yahoo, and viewing the news sources, the top story mentions that U.S. Soldiers killed the 7 women and children, it's from the AP), following the logic that Arnett's words will cause deaths, won't this article, which seems to simply 'state the facts' do the same?

So what is the answer, eliminate all media about the war? Don't let anyone say, anything, because it may be used as propaganda by one side or the other?

NBC obviously has the right to fire any employee they feel is not projecting the image they desire or performing the tasks they require, but I believe that COAS asked "Should they have fired him?"

IMO Mark, Arnett's views are oppsite your's and you are simply trying to justify your view by negating his. Propaganda is going to happen on both sides of this war, one person's opinions are not going to stop this nor are they going increase the amount of deaths due to the war. It is also MO that you are trying to say that the Iraqi people will fight harder, resist more or be more motiviated simply because of a journalist's remarks. Following this logic, we could solve all of the anti-war sentiment by having Arnett say a few words in support of the war! Sounds a little ludicrious when put that way, doesn't it?

Finally, to answer the original question. "Should NBC have fired Arnett for his interview?"

Sure. If NBC feels that Arnett did not perform his duties (did not get the clearance necessary) or does not project the image they expect, or even if they just don't like what he did. They are paying him, and therefor have the right to keep him on or fire him at their discretion. Of course, as long as there is no federal labor laws violated!!

Ok...just about done. I don't buy into the whole "freedom of speech argument". Arnett has the right to say whatever he wants to whoever he wants, NBC just doesn't have to pay him to do it!!

vb

markstake

Vorkosigan says:
I have yet to read any source, including Arab news sites, that doubts the U.S. will eventually prevail. The only question is the cost in lives.

The fact that Arnett's opinion isn't original doesn't change the fact that he's a (formerly) well respected supposedly objective western reporter who's words carry weight.I believe that Iraqi's will listen to Arnett when they may not trust their own state-run media. While news of civilian deaths will motivate them, Arnett lends credibility to the Iraqi media, and gives them reason to fear Saddam may survive the war intact. I believe Arnett's voice will tip the scales for many Iraqis. (Thank you for actually getting to a reasonable attempt to refute that Arnett kills. While I disagree, this is most definitely a difference of opinion rather than simply another non-responsive post).

christ-on-a-stick writes:Does an argument need to be in the form of a syllogism? I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for, but my argument most certainly is an argument. You can critique my assumptions, my inferences, etc., but saying that it isn't an argument is, well, non-responsive.

By the way, for anyone who cares, I do listen and my opinions aren't set in stone. I would rather find truth than be right in my original statements. Mine is the only opinion I've seen on this board against Arnett, and I'm willing to see the error of my ways. I'm waiting for a reason to believe I'm wrong, or for someone to point out a flaw in my thinking.

Loren Pechtel

The problem is that with a public figure like he is you can't draw a clean line between work and not-work.

If he were just a man on the street instead of who he is would Iraqi television have done the interview? No. His saying it's his own opinion and not his employers isn't enough to cover stepping that far across the line.

Loren Pechtel

Will reporters wandering around know what should be kept secret? No.

If there are reporters wandering around, how about Iraqi's posing as reporters? More problems for our forces. After all, reporters are normally equipped with the most dangerous man-portable weapon known: Radios.

Remember the head of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan was assassinated by "reporters" who were really suicide bombers.


I'm not one bit surprised at the coalition troops making life as hard as possible for independant reporters.

Loren Pechtel

More guards for the supply line would have been good but bypassing them is sound. Dividing the opposition army is normally considered good tactics.

vicesboy

Oh My Goodness,

How could they report this. This will surely upset people all over the world. Riots, terror!

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/bre...breaking11.htm

This will surely cause the Iraqi people to stand up and fight!

vb

Ronin

I just caught the end of a story on the radio that a British news agency just hired Arnett...I'll look around for any links.

vicesboy

Ronin,

It's the Daily Mirror from the UK. They have been very outspoken in opposition to the war.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/

vb