Frederika Eilers
Angela Finger
Kelly Lane
Jessica Toro

Peter Arnett was laid off from NBC because of an interview that he gave for Iraqi TV. Peter Arnett however, was not stating confidential information, and was acting with in professional journalist codes. He was polite to the Iraqi and truthful about what was fact and what was his opinion. For these reasons we believe that Peter Arnett should not have been fired.

Peter Arnett in his interview made it clear that his claims were his personal opinions. He says, in the interview, “Yeah, I think American policy and strategy is the weakest when it comes to the Iraqi people.” (CNN Transcript) Arnett’s long career dealing with Iraq and American wartime relations, has forced him to look from both viewpoints. To do this he has formed relationships on both sides. Due to his challenging assignments, he has gained much insight into foreign affairs, and it is somewhat impossible for him to not have formed an opinion. The facts that he stated, were not confidential facts, therefore he only told them what the public already knew.

Arnett’s defense for his interview was that professional courtesy obliged him to cooperate. Many times in his career the Iraqi’s were very helpful in his own journalism, so he respectfully inclined to be interviewed. NBC should be grateful for his professionalism, instead NBC punishes him for his “unauthorized interview.” If he had denied the interview, the Iraqi journalists may not be as forthcoming to him in the future with their information and opinions (Arnett). Which would then affect NBC, because they would not have the valuable sources Arnett created in Iraq.

John Podhoretz writes in the New York Post “That’s because of the bizarre notion that because people make their living by interviewing other people and delivering information to the masses, they are in someway released from their obligations as citizens of the nations in which they live. Their obligation is not to their countrymen but to ‘Truth’.”(Podhoretz). This is clearly opinion, however, it follows the code of conduct set forth by the society of profession journalists. With this definition of journalism he should not be fired. But, the Code of Conduct can be interpreted multiple ways.

The other Code of Conduct standards include honest, courtesy. But also states that “Journalists should be free of obligations to any interest other than the public’s right to know.” and “Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable” (Society of Professional journalists). This voluntary code Arnett seems to comply with. For example, he is respectful to the people there and has good relationships with them, even though their government may not have the same political agendas as the United States.

Other Journalists also support Arnett’s professional ethics. Joseph Angotti, the NBC news executive, disagreed with Arnett’s dismissal. Frank Rich, columnist for the New York Times Arts and Leisure section, “praises Arnett for not sticking with the Bush Administration script.” These opinions along with evidence from the Code of Conduct, NBC’s position, he was stating opinion, he was only distributing public knowledge, and he was doing the interview out of mutual respect. These lead us to believe that Arnett shouldn’t have been fired.
Arnett, Peter. Statement to the Public. The Daily Mirror.

Society of Professional Journalists [http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp]

Transcript of Peter Arnett interview on Iraqi TV [http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/30/sprj.irq.arnett.transcript/]
Sunday, March 30, 2003 Posted: 10:06 PM EST

Podhoretz, John. Peter Arnett’s Treason. The New York Post. 2 April 2003