Arnett's fate: A crying shame

It appears that NBC and National Geographic have issued a joint statement against the reporter Peter Arnett and have fired him from his position after Mr. Arnett granted an interview to Iraqi television stations. According to The New York Times Arnett told Iraqi television that "now America is reappraising the battlefield, delaying the war, maybe a week and rewriting the war plan. The first plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance. Now they are trying to write another plan." I must say I am quite disappointed in the firing of Peter Arnett. It seems that the media is willing to do so much to stifle free speech. Must we thrash the world of the words that disagree with us and leave those opinions that sit ill with our designs on the threshing floor to be burned with the chaff? Is that the extent of our judicial capabilities?

I am ashamed the of intolerance in America when an American is censured for expressing his own opinions in his own time. Whether one's remarks are intelligent or proper is a different matter altogether. I do not write to defend Mr. Arnett's view, but I certainly defend his right to have a view and express it openly in the same vein that I defend Trent Lott's right to voice his racist comments. I do not support Lott's comments but he should not be removed from his position because of what he says in an unofficial capacity. The removal of Trent Lott sets a precedent whereby an American must be afraid to stand up for what he believes in for fear of loosing his job. The problem should have been that Lott was racist, not that he expressed that he was a racist. If Lott's racism affected his job performance then he should never have been installed to the position of Republican leader in the first place. But Lott's case is a matter of the past that simply highlights the present.

I understand that a company cannot be fairly asked to support a view that they disagree with. Such was the case when Bill Maher was fired from his perch at ABC for insensitive remarks involving the World Trade Center attack and the subsequent attack on Afghanistan. He made these comments on ABC's airtime, hence, ABC was fully justified in removing Maher. ABC should certainly have a right to decide what opinions their station will promote. ABC's move, unlike NBC's, was not unjust, it was simply narrow minded and disappointing. Further, I do not claim that sponsors should be required to support stations that advance views that are contrary to those of the sponsor. However, Peter Arnett did not divulge his opinion in an official capacity while reporting in front of NBC's camera. Arnett gave his opinion in an interview where he was representing himself as an American.

Trent Lott is removed from the position of Republican leader for restating views that he has long held. What's more is Trent Lott made his speech for segregation at a birthday party, not from the Senate floor. Dixie Chicks have their airplay choked because they disagree with the President of the United States. Their dislike of Bush's policy is not inherent in the songs that the stations refused to play, rather their dissatisfaction was personal comment for which they were subsequently punished. And now Peter Arnett is fired from NBC because he has expressed that the war was not going as smoothly as planned. America does not need a government to censor it, the media does a fine job (ABC, NBC) and we do quite a good job censoring each other when the media fails. I think it dreadfully shameful on NBC's part to fire Peter Arnett for what he has chosen to say on his own time.

Seth Dunipace is an ecology and evolutionary biology major from Colfax, Calif.