Peter Arnett & Geraldo Rivera Singing The Media Blues
By Bob Ditmar (04/07/03)
Veteran journalists such as Arnett and Rivera should know better than putting American lives in danger in the cause of self-publicity. Their recent actions have set a dangerous precedent that conflicts with responsible journalism.
It appears that Peter Arnett, formerly of MSNBC, and Geraldo Rivera, barely at Fox News, have become the latest “casualties” of the Iraqi liberation war, or more accurately, their own egos. Most of the reporters embedded with coalition forces in the field have done a good job of providing fair and accurate reporting while taking pains not to expose coalition troop positions and movements. Most of these journalists have been careful not to showcase or sensationalize setbacks to create an atmosphere of defeatism. At the same time they have been objectively documenting the story as it unfolds, thus far showing that coalition forces are going out of their way to avoid civilian casualties and preserve infrastructure. Despite the commendable cooperation of these reporters working with the forces, there are always a few bad apples that can ruin the pie. Peter Arnett and Geraldo Rivera are just two of the higher bad apples whose own enlarged egos and quest for self-glory have created an atmosphere of distrust and questionable journalistic ethics.
Peter Arnett is the more unbelievable of the two. Arnett has become a self-described “casualty” of “shock and awe” at being fired for his recent interview with State Iraqi Television. According to his remarks in Britain’s tabloid Daily Mirror, Mr. Arnett cannot quite come to terms with his act of providing Saddam’s regime a bit of anti-Coalition propaganda. Having been fired by MSNBC for his recent appearance on Iraqi State Television by openly declaring that the coalition war plan is not working, he is now crying crocodile tears about his recent employer’s lack of appreciation for his objective reporting from Baghdad.
Mr. Arnett believes that the world, and Americans in general, are too ambivalent about the war. He seems to think that by appearing on State Iraqi Television, a medium that is nothing more than Saddam’s Ba’athist Party propaganda mouthpiece, geared toward the Iraqi population and especially its elite military to boost morale, will somehow create a more enlightened knowledge about the war to the average American.
Maybe I am missing something, but when I last checked my cable and satellite packages, there was no offering of the Iraqi State News Channel, All Saddam, All the Time. I am afraid that Mr. Arnett’s appearance has not been sufficient in helping me gain a more enlightened knowledge of the war. It seems that Arnett has no faith in his former employer’s twenty-four hour coverage of the war, not to mention all the cable networks coverage with label names for the war (Showdown with Saddam, America at War, Baghdad in the Crosshairs), in their ability to bring me out of my ambivalence about the conflict.
I am certain it never crossed Mr. Arnett’s mind that going on Iraqi State Television and declaring the Allied war plan is failing, that Iraqis are resisting rather than welcoming their liberators, that the threat of civilian casualties (of course, attributable to all those missed targets by coalition warplanes) grows. His venomous slap at the American military by reviving the ghost of Vietnam to compare that defeat with today’s actions is a sad attempt to inject defeatism in our psyche. When Arnett argues that U.S. will bring down the firepower to bring out the regime while causing pain to civilians, he seems to misunderstand civilians are suffering because of the regime. Arnett says, “I’m not here to be a superstar. I have been there in 1991 and could never be bigger than that.” He finishes his statement by declaring “I want to tell the story as best as I can, which makes it disappointing to be fired” (1). Perhaps Arnett should remember to which audience to whom he is telling the story. But then, he may be seeking a broader audience for more fame for himself.
Speaking of seeking fame for self-glorification, Geraldo Rivera appears to have acted true to form. Rivera, reporting for Fox News and embedded with the U.S. Army’s famed 101st Airborne Division in Iraq, decided in the best interests of his career advancement to disclose troop positions and battle movements for the camera. While on camera, Rivera sketched a map in the sand to show his viewers his location and what the next military objectives were going to be. Never mind that Iraqi military commanders watch the same news sources for reliable reports from the field.
Of course the Pentagon was furious with Rivera about this open violation of the embedded journalist rules. The very fact that Rivera showed such disregard for the safety of the soldiers by openly disclosing information on camera that could help the enemy defense is beyond understanding. Mr. Rivera claims that he did not knowingly do anything or disclose anything that he believed he was not allowed. However, a veteran sensationalist journalist of Rivera’s status, with over twenty years of experience, would have known that such actions could put coalition troops in danger by Iraqi forces.
The Pentagon ordered Rivera out of Iraq and took away his pass as an embedded reporter. Rivera is trying to play it all down, stating that no friction exists between himself and the military, stating it was his own decision to remove himself from the front lines back to Kuwait.
Reckless acts and open collaboration by veteran journalists such as Rivera and Arnett create real danger to troops facing real bullets. It is one thing to face the enemy in front that is shooting back. It is quite another to face the enemy behind, busy giving battlefield information during live feeds or happily appearing on enemy television to give negative information and feedback to comfort the enemy at the expense of the audience they are there to report for.
Arnett and Rivera demonstrate everything that is wrong with a self-serving press of a liberal bias and an attention span of hours. The expectations of a weekend war and then we move on to another story has created media disappointment that the war is not already over. Because the war has not fit into most media programming schedules, they begin criticizing the war plan as a failure. Two weeks thus far without a scheduled end for May sweeps was not the 48 Hours newsmagazine or latest American Idol they had hoped for.
Despite Peter Arnett’s accusation in the Mirror, it seems that it is the news media that is ambivalent about the war, not the American people. Polls show that more than 70% of Americans support the war and are realistic in its cost and duration. 3 out of 4 Americans say they will support the war even if it goes into six months or longer because the goal is worth the costs. This is a contradiction to media expectations.
So it appears Peter Arnett’s lofty objective of taking the average American out of their ignorance of the war by making declarations on Iraqi State Television was all in vain. And Geraldo Rivera’s special geography lesson on troop positions and movements are not needed to help the average citizen come out of the dark about the war’s location. The American people seem to be on solid ground where all this is concerned. Too bad these journalists aren’t. But it is nice to know that Arnett and Rivera were looking out for their audience rather than their own self-promotion.
Given this, I am very thankful that our troops have a different outlook on what it means to look out for someone other than themselves. I am also glad that most of the reporters in the embedded program have played by the rules and reported fairly and accurately.
Time for Peter and Geraldo to go home and appear on Dr. Phil.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Bob Ditmar
