The well-known US reporter, Peter Arnett, was recently fired by NBC for accepting an interview with official Iraqi television and speaking inappropriately. The US and Iraq are in a state of war but even so in the course of the interview, Arnett criticized US military action and praised the spirit of the Iraqi people and the performance of their media officials.
During the first 1991Gulf War the 24-hour news channel CNN made a name for itself. As CNN's special correspondent in Baghdad, Arnett became a household name in the US. Now, with the current Gulf War already underway, CNN is facing competition from the BBC, Fox News, and Arab stations like Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya. Meanwhile, Arnett has been working for NBC and the National Geographic Channel as one of the few US reporters allowed to remain in Baghdad by the Iraqi authorities. But this lapse of judgement on Arnett's part cost him his employment. It has also raised important questions about the boundaries of journalists who are covering nations that have enmity with their nations. In the world of journalism, it is controversial for someone like Arnett to accept a television interview as a reporter.
A similar issue was discussed several months ago in Taiwan's journalistic circles. Generally speaking, there is less controversy over a reporter accepting a television interview if his role is to provide analysis and the topic is one on which he has reported in the past. But as soon as he transgresses beyond the role of analyst and becomes too outspoken or goes so far as to violate the principle of adhering strictly to his area of expertise, he will inevitably incur criticism. Regulations at The New York Times stipulate that reporters appearing on television may only discuss the news issues they cover is a prime example of measures that could be used by media firms to prevent this.
When the experienced journalist Arnett appeared on Iraqi television, the focus of the interview was naturally within the scope of his professional expertise. If he had objectively analyzed the war, there would have been little controversy.
But Arnett not only spoke disparagingly of the US and praised Iraq; he even claimed that if US strategists had read his reports, they wouldn't have underestimated the strength and determination of Iraq's military. With these statements, he went beyond the analytical role of an observer and became a subjective and arrogant critic. This transgression harmed his credibility as an objective war reporter and provoked antipathy among many people in the US.
When Iraqi authorities invited Arnett to appear on television, they were naturally hoping to benefit from the reputation of a well-known journalist and win a propaganda victory, and when Arnett accepted the invitation, he hoped to make closer connections in Baghdad to pave the way for future reporting. But Arnett's transgression harmed his credibility, offended the US, and he lost most of his work. He still maintains a position at Britain's Daily Mirror.
Under the US Constitution, giving "aid and comfort" to a wartime enemy can be considered treason. Walter Cronkite, the most trusted news anchor in US television, wrote in The New York Times that Arnett's lapse of judgment was a calamity of his own making.
The sole enemy faced by democratic Taiwan is China, but, because of problems of national identity, there is frequently a failure to distinguish between friend and foe. Taiwan's news world is also frequently less than praiseworthy in its exercise of self- discipline. In addition to watching the war, Taiwan could benefit from reflecting Arnett's plight and its implications for media professionalism and national interest.
Lu Shih-xiang is CEO of the Foundation for the Advancement of Media Excellence.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
When I visited Taiwan last summer, I called on the nation to use its status as a technology superpower to build superweapons. It is obvious to me as I return a year later that Taiwan is now answering that call. By 2030, Taiwan envisions a domestic drone hub, capable of producing large quantities of drones per year. The nation continues to tighten cooperation across the private sector, scientific researchers and the elected government, on creating new and innovative production avenues for defense, while efforts to become central to the “democratic supply chain” are only increasing. Anduril is seeing all of these positive
Singaporean former Prime Minister and current senior minister Lee Hsien- Loong(李顯龍) last month stood on Chinese soil and told Beijing that Singapore cooperates because of “shared interests”, not because of common “ethnic descent,” a significant statement that has upended China’s cognitive warfare tactics of “ethnic nationalism.” Along with using its military buildup and economic growth to expand its international dominance, China has long deployed ethnic politics to promote the idea that all ethnic Chinese around the world, regardless of citizenship, share a tight bond with the Chinese motherland, by which it means the regime of the People’s Republic of China (PRC)
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) in San Francisco on Tuesday last week said if she had not met with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), she would have been “just a plain” and “even negligible” KMT chairperson, bluntly signaling the role she is playing in her visit to the US — Beijing’s messenger from Taiwan. Cheng and her delegation arrived in the US on Monday last week for a two-week visit across five major cities. Her party said the group is scheduled to meet with US lawmakers, officials, policy experts and businesspeople. Before departing, Cheng said her trip
In 1935, the German Reich led by the National Socialist Party officially created the Nuremberg Race Laws, a “legal cage”, for German Jews, stripping them of citizenship, criminalizing their personal relationships, barring them from public life, and transforming them into stateless subjects and isolating them from the rest of society. Similarly, in March 2026, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) National People’s Congress adopted the “Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress” law, which represents the most significant shift in Chinese domestic governance since the era of Mao Zedong (毛澤東). Ostensibly designed as domestic legislation to manage China’s 56 officially recognized ethnic groups,
RSS