Guest hardyz1 Report post Posted March 31, 2003 Arnett fired He did an interview with Iraqi state TV and said that America's war plan had failed due to Iraqi resistance and that a new plan was being drawn up. Apparently, NBC tried to defend him at first, then let him go due to complaints. They should've dropped him immediately. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mad Dog Report post Posted March 31, 2003 They should have fired him immediately for such careless reporting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tim Report post Posted March 31, 2003 Seeing as you can see half the world's media saying exactly the same thing on any other media outlet (whether it's true or not) I don't see what the big deal is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Hogan Made Wrestling Report post Posted March 31, 2003 In a somewhat related story, Geraldo Rivera has been kicked out of Iraq by the US military for drawing future wars plans in the sand during a TV broadcast, which violates US military rules: Military expels Rivera from Iraq Particularly funny is Rivera claiming it's not true and trying to blame MSNBC, while the Pentagon has already gone on record confirming the story, according to CNN. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted April 1, 2003 The free speech police STRIKE AGAIN~! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Powerplay Report post Posted April 1, 2003 The free speech police STRIKE AGAIN~! ... Tyler, they fired him because of complaints. He has every right to say what he wants, but if the people don't want him... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Galactic Gigolo Report post Posted April 1, 2003 In a somewhat related story, Geraldo Rivera has been kicked out of Iraq by the US military for drawing future wars plans in the sand during a TV broadcast, which violates US military rules: Military expels Rivera from Iraq Particularly funny is Rivera claiming it's not true and trying to blame MSNBC, while the Pentagon has already gone on record confirming the story, according to CNN. Sadly, this happened at 8:00, two and a half hours after Conan O'Brien is taped. : : holds two fingers up to his face : : "This is my Geraldo impression." Can't wait to see tomorrow night's. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted April 1, 2003 The free speech police STRIKE AGAIN~! ... Tyler, they fired him because of complaints. He has every right to say what he wants, but if the people don't want him... Eh, still doesn't make much sense. Someone gets axed because the public sentiment is "NEGATIVE IS UNPATRIOTIC AND TRAITOROUS~!" Maybe we're being our own first amendment worst enemies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Powerplay Report post Posted April 1, 2003 The free speech police STRIKE AGAIN~! ... Tyler, they fired him because of complaints. He has every right to say what he wants, but if the people don't want him... Eh, still doesn't make much sense. Someone gets axed because the public sentiment is "NEGATIVE IS UNPATRIOTIC AND TRAITOROUS~!" Maybe we're being our own first amendment worst enemies. Again, Tyler, you can express whatever you want, but when you do it on T.V, the people watching you have every right to complain. So works the majority, eh:D? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted April 1, 2003 That's why I said that we're being our own worst enemies by pissing on the first amendment, really. This goes hand in hand with Donahoe (intentional misspelling) getting canned for being too anti-Bush. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon Report post Posted April 1, 2003 The thing is, ideally the media isn't supposed to represent America and it isn't supposed to have a pro-American bias. But obviously ratings and money say otherwise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted April 1, 2003 The thing is, ideally the media isn't supposed to represent America and it isn't supposed to have a pro-American bias. But obviously ratings and money say otherwise. Yeah, and ideally, Faux News is supposed to be fair and balanced. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted April 1, 2003 This goes hand in hand with Donahoe (intentional misspelling) getting canned for being too anti-Bush. I thought it was because his ratings were sucking canal water. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted April 1, 2003 Actually, not really. It was MSNBC's highest rated program. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted April 1, 2003 Phil Donahue? I thought he was getting like 0.01's or something absurd like that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted April 1, 2003 Donahue's ratings were higher than Chris Matthews Hardball show. If viewers don't like something on TV, naturally they should just turn the damn channel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted April 1, 2003 *starts writing complaints about EVERY FOX NEWS ANCHOR* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vern Gagne Report post Posted April 1, 2003 Actually, not really. It was MSNBC's highest rated program. That's really not saying much. Considering how poor MSNBC's ratings are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted April 1, 2003 Regardless, you don't fire someone for poor ratings when their show is the top one on your network. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vern Gagne Report post Posted April 1, 2003 The thing is, ideally the media isn't supposed to represent America and it isn't supposed to have a pro-American bias. But obviously ratings and money say otherwise. Why is such a big deal if the media has a pro-American bias. I watch Fox News, and it's not like they don't discuss the negative aspects of the war. They just have a more pro-military, pro-American attitude. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted April 1, 2003 If the news has a pro-American slant, it's really no better than propoganda and should be treated as such. Really, the news is supposed to be neutral and unbiased in everything, but we, of course, don't have such a station in the US. It may be nice to watch a station that is so pro-USA, but you are, by default, not going to get the whole story. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vern Gagne Report post Posted April 1, 2003 It may be nice to watch a station that is so pro-USA, but you are, by default, not going to get the whole story. Would I be getting the full story watching the extremely negative ABC news. That doesn't mean ABC is anti-american, just that there reporting tends to report the war in a negative matter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted April 1, 2003 I said we don't have an unbiased station. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Powerplay Report post Posted April 1, 2003 I said we don't have an unbiased station. Tyler, there isn't an unbiased station in the world. Everyone slants one way or the other. That is how the world is and how it always will be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon Report post Posted April 1, 2003 The thing is, ideally the media isn't supposed to represent America and it isn't supposed to have a pro-American bias. But obviously ratings and money say otherwise. Why is such a big deal if the media has a pro-American bias. I watch Fox News, and it's not like they don't discuss the negative aspects of the war. They just have a more pro-military, pro-American attitude. You can do whatever you want. There are, i'm sure, media outlets that are less biased towards America out there, but no one watches them. Because for the most part, the American public doesn't seem to have much of an interest in the media as an independant institution. I think it's a bit of a shame myself, because a good journalist strives to be something more than someone's pr team, but there's nothing to be done about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted April 1, 2003 It's somewhat like history; if you want to get the real scoop, you have to look at what other countries are saying. You're never going to get a straight answer from any station inside of your own country since they have larger biases. It's always curious to watch how everyone else reports our news, and realize how different people see it. Perhaps they are biased as well (obviously France, etc.), but tremendously less so than local news stations. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted April 1, 2003 Also, when people interject their opinion to the news - pro or anti-American - the source is muddled even further. Thus, I don't watch much of Faux News. That and, of course, because they're blatantly conservative. Agendas are, perhaps, formed by bias; however, when everyone in the world knows what agenda a reporter has, it's not even worth watching that program primarily. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon Report post Posted April 1, 2003 Bias is, of course, on some level, impossible to eliminate. But that doesn't mean one throws in the towel and becomes an advocate, unless that's the sort of journalism you're aiming for. The mainstream media, however, has not embraced this approach and they claim they try to cover the news fairly and without an agenda. It makes it pretty disheartening when they're this transparent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Hogan Made Wrestling Report post Posted April 1, 2003 For a station that's so pro-war and pro-America, you would think Faux News wouldn't give away US military plans on the air for all to see. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted April 1, 2003 The problem with the tv networks coverage of this war is, they are so quick to report ANYTHING that MIGHT BE SO, just to get a ratings edge. Fox did it when they claimed they were the FIRST to break the story on a "chemical weapons plant", then about fifteen minutes later it turned into a "chemical plant, not sure what kind of chemicals though" then ten minutes later the story was dropped altogether. Fox was not the only guilty party, I believe CNBC also picked up this story shortly after Fox, and both dropped it and it hasn't been heard of since. Networks need to slow down, and get their facts straight first. Hell, I would rather watch them play with model jets as if they were the soldiers rather than hear 10 NewsFlashes a day have to be re-edited and dropped because it was irresponsible journalism. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
