Wednesday, April 02, 2003

Arnett v. Geraldo II

This letter to Medianews sums it up:

I'm not a journalist and I'm not in anyway associated with the media. I'm just a poor lawyer trying to get out from under my student loans. That said, what about Geraldo? Most of the stories linked to deal with Peter Arnett and most of the letters deal with Peter Arnett. Most of the stories in the papers and television, and most of those linked to on my Yahoo! homepage coming from AP and Reuters deal with Peter Arnett? What about Geraldo? Where's the journalistic outrage? Where's the big network firing within hours of the military expressing outrage? Where's all of the journalistic ethics experts denouncing Geraldo and demanding his head?

I know that FOX is not a real news network. I know that Geraldo Rivera is not real reporter. But he was still in Iraq, working for FOX, giving troop positions and details of troop war plans. Peter Arnett does an interview with Iraqi television giving his opinion on the war and stating what many in the US, including General Wallace, are saying, and he's gets fired. But the Pentagon demands Geraldo leave Iraq, and he says all is fine and refuses to leave. FOX won't comment. And still all anybody discusses is Peter Arnett.

Perhaps Arnett shouldn't have given the interview, but is that really any worse than what Geraldo did? He didn't give troop positions. He didn't discuss war plans. He just gave an opinion. Yet Arnett's crucified and out of a job while Geraldo still's playing in Iraq with a job. Where's the outrage here? Or is that just too much to expect when it comes to a laughable organization like FOX News and a laughable "reporter" like Geraldo Rivera?

via Hesiod I see that a senator wants Arnett tried for treason. Fine - Geraldo first.