Article - Speaking with the Enemy by Walter Cronkite
Under the Constitution, giving "aid and comfort" to a wartime enemy can lead to a charge of treason. So far as I know no one has yet suggested that Peter Arnett be charged with that capital offense. But it seems that Mr. Arnett hangs by a rope of his own weaving.
Mr. Arnett, of course, is the former reporter in Baghdad for NBC and National Geographic who was fired for giving an interview to state-controlled Iraqi television. In the interview he criticized the American military effort and praised the morale of the Iraqi people and the cooperation of Iraq's information ministry - this latter despite the fact that many American correspondents have been ejected from the country and, indeed, two of them are missing, last heard from in Baghdad.
There is no excuse for Mr. Arnett's lack of judgment, and he has apologized for it. However, journalists - especially those who have had to deal with foreign governments at times of extreme tension - will recognize a motivation in his acceptance of the interview. They can recognize it without excusing it.
There is an adage concerning a reporter's dealings with the secrecy that surrounds most government activities, not only here at home but to a greater extent in countries that do not share the American concept of freedom of the press. The adage is this: A reporter is only as good as his sources.
Clearly Mr. Arnett, in granting the interview, was cozying up to sources he depended on for, first, their tolerance of him in Baghdad and, second, any information he could get: about Iraq's military posture, its claims of combat successes and techniques, and the morale of its populace.
In this regard, Mr. Arnett was a valuable correspondent in the enemy's capital. As long as he pleased and even seemed to sympathize with his Baghdad sources, he was permitted to broadcast to America. It is even conceivable that his inside look was of some value to our own military.
Mr. Arnett was an honored reporter for The Associated Press in Vietnam; he won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage. He earned respect from his colleagues for his extraordinary courage and daring and for his knowledgeable dispatches. His admired modesty suffered somewhat after he became a TV reporter and won acclaim for his bravado in staying in Baghdad in 1991 to report for CNN. He even said in his interview last weekend that if U.S. war planners had listened to his more recent broadcasts they would have known of the strength of the Iraqi Army and the devotion of the Iraqi people.
His long experience makes it all the more difficult to understand how he could have been so grossly irresponsible in granting that interview. He besmirched his reputation, offended a nation and lost his job - justifiably so - even though he will still report for The Daily Mirror in Britain.
But Mr. Arnett's firing is more than a personal setback. With him gone from the airwaves, Americans have lost an eye on Baghdad that had proved a valuable addition to our knowledge of a mysterious enemy.
Walter Cronkite was anchor of the CBS Evening News from 1962 to 1981.
Mr. Arnett, of course, is the former reporter in Baghdad for NBC and National Geographic who was fired for giving an interview to state-controlled Iraqi television. In the interview he criticized the American military effort and praised the morale of the Iraqi people and the cooperation of Iraq's information ministry - this latter despite the fact that many American correspondents have been ejected from the country and, indeed, two of them are missing, last heard from in Baghdad.
There is no excuse for Mr. Arnett's lack of judgment, and he has apologized for it. However, journalists - especially those who have had to deal with foreign governments at times of extreme tension - will recognize a motivation in his acceptance of the interview. They can recognize it without excusing it.
There is an adage concerning a reporter's dealings with the secrecy that surrounds most government activities, not only here at home but to a greater extent in countries that do not share the American concept of freedom of the press. The adage is this: A reporter is only as good as his sources.
Clearly Mr. Arnett, in granting the interview, was cozying up to sources he depended on for, first, their tolerance of him in Baghdad and, second, any information he could get: about Iraq's military posture, its claims of combat successes and techniques, and the morale of its populace.
In this regard, Mr. Arnett was a valuable correspondent in the enemy's capital. As long as he pleased and even seemed to sympathize with his Baghdad sources, he was permitted to broadcast to America. It is even conceivable that his inside look was of some value to our own military.
Mr. Arnett was an honored reporter for The Associated Press in Vietnam; he won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage. He earned respect from his colleagues for his extraordinary courage and daring and for his knowledgeable dispatches. His admired modesty suffered somewhat after he became a TV reporter and won acclaim for his bravado in staying in Baghdad in 1991 to report for CNN. He even said in his interview last weekend that if U.S. war planners had listened to his more recent broadcasts they would have known of the strength of the Iraqi Army and the devotion of the Iraqi people.
His long experience makes it all the more difficult to understand how he could have been so grossly irresponsible in granting that interview. He besmirched his reputation, offended a nation and lost his job - justifiably so - even though he will still report for The Daily Mirror in Britain.
But Mr. Arnett's firing is more than a personal setback. With him gone from the airwaves, Americans have lost an eye on Baghdad that had proved a valuable addition to our knowledge of a mysterious enemy.
Walter Cronkite was anchor of the CBS Evening News from 1962 to 1981.