Re: Petah Ahnett

["Dan Billings" <billings@suscom-maine.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Weil" <kc1ih@mac.com>
To: <mlaurence@mindspring.com>; <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Petah Ahnett

> So, someone in his position has to give up his rights to voice an
> opinion based on real, front-line observations?  So, let's just get
> to hear the opinions of all the armchair warriors and pundits safely
> at home.

First, Arnett, or any reporter in Iraq, only has their one perspective of
the war.  Arnett is inside the city and has no idea what is going on with
the Iraqi Army and the Republican Guard, other than what he is told by the
Iraqi government.

Second, a reporter does give up his right to publicly offer an opinion on
events he is covering.  To me, Arnett's actions would be like a reporter
covering a City Council meeting getting up and offering his or her opinion
on the matter being discussed.  A reporter should not become the story.

The reason Arnett was fired was the forum he choose to offer his opinions,
i.e. Iraqi TV.  If he had given the same interview to the BBC, he wouldn't
have been fired.  Plenty of people have made similar comments on TV
networks.  I think NBC made a business decision to avoid becoming the
official network of the Dixie Chicks.

I think we would all be better served if we went back to a system where
certain people were reporters and objectively covered events and other
people were commentators and offered opinion and/or analysis of events.  So
called reporters spouting off on talking head shows has really blurred the
lines.

-- Dan Billings, Bowdoinham, Maine