Well I dont even think he his a good reporter. I find him uninspiring and dull, let alone shallow. There are much better reporters about there and I cannot imagine him stepping into David Dimbelby's role or whoever at the BBC.
I agree. I could never understand why there was so much fuss about his Iraq war coverage. Perhaps he could re-invent himself as a goalpost?
Well I dont even think he his a good reporter. I find him uninspiring and dull, let alone shallow. There are much better reporters about there and I cannot imagine him stepping into David Dimbelby's role or whoever at the BBC.
I agree. I could never understand why there was so much fuss about his Iraq war coverage. Perhaps he could re-invent himself as a goalpost?
I think one reason there was fuss about his reporting - especially in the US where he was also broadcast - was that he remained in Baghdad throughout the conflict (as did Sky and ITN reporters)
AIUI No main US networks retained a presence in the Iraqi capital for the full duration of the conflict - so just by remaining and reporting he was pretty exceptional to the US viewers.
I think his non-macho look and style also resonated with a large part of the audience. I think his relatively unassuming nature also allowed him decent access to Iraqi civilians - where other reporters may have been intimidating.
Well, I think Peter Arnett remained throughout for NBC-National Geographic. He was sacked after "liberation day", I think.
AFAIK, Omaar's reports weren't viewed by as many in the US as the Chater reports from Sky, which appeared on Fox and CBS. Forget not that the Fox network (broadcasting FNC) had the second highest audience figures across the nation during their coverage of the war.
ABC had their own stringer in the capital - who was pretty awful - and so Omaar didn't get that much exposure.
Of course, noggin, the conflict is still going on, so he hasn't remained for the duration at all!
Of course, noggin, the conflict is still going on, so he hasn't remained for the duration at all!
That's a bit pedantic - Bush has claimed the "hostilities are over" ... it's just some of the Saddam sympathisers seem not to have heard him. As far as the Amercian government are concerned, these people are terrorists to all intents and purposes.
Of course, noggin, the conflict is still going on, so he hasn't remained for the duration at all!
That's a bit pedantic - Bush has claimed the "hostilities are over" ... it's just some of the Saddam sympathisers seem not to have heard him. As far as the Amercian government are concerned, these people are terrorists to all intents and purposes.
Heh, if I'm being pedantic you're being simplistic.
Just because Bush says it's over doesn't mean it is.
Of course, noggin, the conflict is still going on, so he hasn't remained for the duration at all!
That's a bit pedantic - Bush has claimed the "hostilities are over" ... it's just some of the Saddam sympathisers seem not to have heard him. As far as the Amercian government are concerned, these people are terrorists to all intents and purposes.
Heh, if I'm being pedantic you're being simplistic.
Just because Bush says it's over doesn't mean it is.
One man's terrorist... etc, etc.
So are you suggesting that the original reporters should have stayed there, and should still be there?
Of course, noggin, the conflict is still going on, so he hasn't remained for the duration at all!
That is certainly one way of looking at it - though I think the "conflict" to most people would mean the period from the start of the coalition attacks on Baghdad, to the removal of the regime and the fall of Baghdad to coalition troops.
BTW - I'd forgotten about Arnett - though thought his links with NBC were not that strong? Did he stay throughout reporting for NBC? ISTR that Rageh did get a reasonable degree of exposure on ABC News - though wasn't in the US at the time.
Certainly Sky's team got massive exposure on Fox - must have been a bit of a surprise for some "fair and balanced" news to actually have got on their network for a change...
However I think Rageh's profile in the US was higher than Chater's?
Of course, noggin, the conflict is still going on, so he hasn't remained for the duration at all!
That's a bit pedantic - Bush has claimed the "hostilities are over" ... it's just some of the Saddam sympathisers seem not to have heard him. As far as the Amercian government are concerned, these people are terrorists to all intents and purposes.
Heh, if I'm being pedantic you're being simplistic.
Just because Bush says it's over doesn't mean it is.
One man's terrorist... etc, etc.
Alright - I'll be even more "simple" - we're not currently at war, and neither are the Americans.