Journalism is a field that touts the all-mighty power and importance of the First Amendment, so it becomes a sticky and ironic issue when those within the industry are criticized — or punished — for exercising their free-speech rights.

Monday, veteran war correspondent Peter Arnett was dismissed from his posts with NBC and National Geographic immediately after an interview with Iraqi TV over the weekend.

During that interview, Arnett praised the Ministry of Information and said during his years working in Iraq he’s met unfailing courtesy and cooperation. He also said the U.S. war plan had failed, questioned the accuracy of information coming from the Pentagon, said American policy is weakest when it comes to the Iraqi people and criticized the Bush administration.

An honest opinion from an honest man. But in this situation, Arnett was not an Everyday Joe. He was a well known American journalist, analyzing issues he only has access to because of the U.S. media.

Some will say Arnett, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his work during the Vietnam War, was only telling the truth from his unique vantage point as one of the few reporters left in Baghdad reporting for the U.S. media. Others will say he violated clear ethical standards.

The people that matter, in this situation, opted for the latter. NBC News President Neal Shapiro said, “It was wrong for Mr. Arnett to discuss his personal observations and opinions in that interview.”

But less than 24 hours later, the British tabloid the Daily Mirror hired Arnett, bringing him back into the media fold. At that point, despite earlier apologies for his “misjudgment,” Arnett traded in the apologetic tone for a heroic one: “I report the truth of what is happening in Baghdad and will not apologize for it,” he told the Mirror.

Arnett was skating on thin ice anyhow — he’d already been let go from CNN in the wake of a story about the United States using nerve gas during the Vietnam War that Arnett narrated, but admitted he’d not done “one stitch” of reporting for.

So Arnett really should have known better than to offer his insight to another news source. NBC expected of Arnett only the most professional behavior. Offering analysis of information he had only had access to as a member of the U.S. media in Iraq was more than a slip-up.

As a journalist, viewers expected direct, accurate information out of Baghdad from Arnett. Although he was entitled to his opinion, the forum in which he chose to share it clearly went against what his bosses expected of him.

Certainly, Arnett has the right to speak his mind, and he appears to have more free reign to do so now that he is working for a British tabloid. But it should come as no surprise to him, or viewers, that his employers booted him after the interview with Iraqi television.

Editorial Board: Cavan Reagan, Amber Billings, Ayrel Clark, Charlie Weaver, Katie List