In the past few days, a great deal of attention has been given to Peter Arnett's controversial appearance on Iraq's state-run television network. In an interview Sunday, Arnett said the resistance of the Iraqi armed forces to the invasion has caused military planners to rethink their strategy, and also that a rise in the number of civilian causalities would cause the war to be \challenged very strongly.""
There is enough evidence to suggest that those assessments are, at the very least, plausible. But Arnett, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1966 for his reporting on the Vietnam War for the Associated Press, chose an incredibly curious venue for presenting his analysis. Someone of Arnett's expertise and intelligence should have known better than to provide the Iraqi government with anything beside the objective truth-which, in actuality, can be observed by the Iraqi government for itself. For that offense-and, one can hope, for no other-his relationship with NBC and the National Geographic Society came to an end on Monday.
But that is only half the story. On Monday morning, Arnett apologized for his error of judgment during the course of an exit interview-one which, unlike the exit interviews to which some of you might be accustomed, was broadcast on national television. In that interview, he also said that he was planning to leave Baghdad entirely.
But those plans changed by the end of the day, when it was announced that he would become a correspondent for the Daily Mirror-a London tabloid that vehemently maintains an anti-war editorial position. In their Tuesday edition Arnett said, ""I report the truth of what is happening here in Baghdad and will not apologize for it.""
There is, of course, a certain dissonance in that declaration, when matched against the public apology he delivered only hours earlier. But what is more important than that is the fact that any report that Arnett files with the Daily Mirror will rightly be read with a grain of salt.
In a war where the objectivity of reporting from both sides of the front line has come under serious question, Arnett's error-compounded by his continued presence in Baghdad for an anti-war media outlet-makes the situation worse. And that comes to the detriment of the general public who now, more than ever, need a source of information in which they can place full confidence.
Speaking Of Dissonance...
In the lead-up to yesterday's city elections, you may have noticed the advertisements that were placed in the two student newspapers by the campaign of Jeff Erlanger, who sought the District Eight seat on the City Council. These ads featured quotes from students, like this one from Emily Weisberg: ""Jeff will be sure that students are heard on issues like drink specials.""
Fair enough, except for one nagging detail: Weisberg is listed in the ad as a freshman. Now, I do not mean to be terribly picky about an advertisement that was, insofar as political ads are concerned, exemplary, but would it not have made more sense to find a supporter that liked Erlanger's position on drink specials who was actually-or, at least, legally-able to take advantage of them?
Now: The Other Election
On Thursday, I attended a party that celebrated the 15th anniversary of the Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group. Most of the work of WisPIRG-which focuses on issues like environmental protection, consumer protection and campaign finance reform-is done by committed student interns. And a handful of those interns, after learning that I write in this space on a weekly basis, asked me to comment on the coming student elections and, in particular, on the segregated fee issue.
My reaction to the general question was one of reluctance. In my seven years in college-four at Stanford, three here-I have come to see the people who are elected to student government as being interested in nothing beside their own profile. And no student politician here, whether from the left or the right, has made me alter that general view in any significant way.
In thinking about segregated fees, however, I have come to the conclusion that the efforts of conservative student leaders to change the segregated fee system should be vigorously opposed. For one thing, student groups-regardless of their political viewpoints and demographic constituencies-provide programming that is beneficial to students, in ways large and small. That sort of behavior should be encouraged enthusiastically. But the conservatives have endlessly railed against a fee that amounts to $1.57 per day. Changing the system may knock a few pennies off that ridiculously low price, but could scuttle several worthy programs in the process. That is, truly, penny-wise and pound-foolish.
