The Problem With Vietnam Essay, Research Paper

The Problem With Vietnam

Wartime in the United States has ever placed force per unit area on the authorities and the citizens of the state to supply support by whatever agencies to the state of affairs. During World War II, that support was propagated by the authorities in the signifier of censoring and a strategic public dealingss program to keep the public sentiment in favour of the cause. Glorification of America & # 8217 ; s engagement in the war helped America maintain the image of & # 8220 ; a cause worth contending for. & # 8221 ; Technology and de-censorship would subsequently transform America and the universe & # 8217 ; s image of war, which had been formed by such propaganda as seen during WWII, into the truth approximately war as seen in the media & # 8217 ; s coverage of the Vietnam War. During this period, uncensored media coverage helped to morph American positions about military struggles everlastingly every bit good as altering the media & # 8217 ; s function in war.

World War II was a clip in American history of nationalism. However, that nationalism came a monetary value to the American public harmonizing to The Censored War, written by George Roeder. He discusses the impact that censoring had on the American populace, and how prevarications and propaganda gave the citizens of America a false position of war. By portraying engagement in the war as heroic, utilizing such propaganda as postings picturing fallen GI & # 8217 ; s as Christ-like figures ( Rodeder 33 ) , the US authorities formed the position for the populace, instead than leting them to develop their ain sense of world. Photographs of dead or hurt soldiers were withheld from the populace in order to maintain public sentiment on the side of the authorities. Pictures of dead or hurt American soldiers were kept in a file dubbed & # 8220 ; the Chamber of Horrors & # 8221 ; , non to be released for public sing until many old ages after the wars end ( Roeder 1 ) . Withholding of information during this war angered many people, doing them experience as if they had been lied to, which in fact they had. However, the impudent side to the censoring, the side that is non frequently seen, is the fact that this helped to interrupt down many barriers in the state, including race, gender and even spiritual. Its effects on the result of the war can non be measured by traditional agencies, but so it created an ambiance of pride and trueness for one & # 8217 ; s state. World War II may hold been a censored war, but that censoring may hold so won that war. Harmonizing to Philip Knightley & # 8217 ; s The First Casualty during World War I, censoring was so tight that even studies of a gift of vino instances to American military personnels by the French were non reported for fright of doing the American & # 8217 ; s expression unsavoury ( Alter 38 ) .

An after consequence of World War II & # 8217 ; s extension can be seen in the enormous imperativeness coverage of the Vietnam War. Feelingss of misgiving and treachery toward the US authorities could really good hold been why Vietnam had so much coverage. American citizens wanted the truth, experiencing that they had been lied to for so many old ages. The truth was what was received thanks to Television ( Alter 38 ) . Nicknamed the & # 8220 ; Living Room War & # 8221 ; , images of decease and devastation could be seen first manus. Uncensored images filled the Television screens as 1000000s of Americans watched their state conflict communism in a foreign land. For the first clip, many people could see the truth about war. Their thoughts of war being no longer being shaped by the authorities, but now being shaped by the images they saw, thanks to the media.

President Lyndon Johnson understood the impact of telecasting on the populace. After his surrender in 1968, he said & # 8220 ; As I sat in my office, I thought of the many times each hebdomad that telecasting brings war into the American place & # 8230 ; who knows what consequence those graphic scenes have on American opinion. & # 8221 ; ( Neuman 170 ) President Johnson, who people called the & # 8220 ; inadvertent President & # 8221 ; because of the fortunes of his presidential term, knew that the impact of telecasting was taking off favour for the war attempts. He cited several times about how telecasting & # 8217 ; s consequence was bing the US the war. Upon his surrender, Johnson credited the media, specifically telecasting images of the war, for gnawing public sentiment and coercing his determination to go forth office ( Neuman 172 ) . The point in which Johnson conceded that the war was lost, harmonizing to Neuman was when Walter Cronkite voiced his resistance to the war. Johnson was heard to state & # 8220 ; If I & # 8217 ; ve lost Cronkite, I & # 8217 ; ve lost the American people & # 8221 ; ( Neuman 173 ) .

Johnson was non entirely in his feelings about the consequence of the media on sentiment. Television critic and writer of Living- Room War credited telecasting with trivialising the Vietnam War by & # 8220 ; sandwiching & # 8221 ; it between commercials, soap operas and quiz shows ( Neuman 172 ) . This type of trivialization had a direct impact on the populace. Now that American & # 8217 ; s could see the truth about war, their thought of war was something that the media used as amusement. A 1967 study taken by Newsweek, found that the huge bulk of viewing audiences said that televised images of decease really made them more militant on Vietnam. This consequence of telecasting brought the viewing audiences in, and gave them a ground to remain. Images of decease are atrocious, but the public seems to look away in disgust and at the same clip yearn for more.

Another outstanding figure during the undeclared Vietnam War was General William Westmoreland. Westmoreland, a commanding officer during the war held belligerencies toward the imperativeness & # 8217 ; engagement in the war. He felt that the media misreported the events of the war, and even went every bit far as to action CBS for libel for describing that he & # 8220 ; underestimated the size of the enemy in studies to the White House and Congress ( Neuman 173 ) . & # 8221 ; Westmoreland understood the demand for public support during wartime, and credited the media, non merely telecasting for taking that off from their attempts. He besides credited the political leading for non beat uping the support needed, by neglecting to convert the populace that there was a cause to be won ( Neuman 173 ) . Harmonizing to Mightier than the Sword, by Rodger Streitmatter, many media and political experts have argued that by conveying grisly images into the American Living Room, telecasting intelligence played a cardinal function in turning the American populace against the Vietnam war, and, finally, in rushing the terminal of that drawn-out struggle ( Streitmatter 187 ) . It is no happenstance that so many political, and even members of the media attribute the loss of the war to the loss of public favour. Television played the portion of the adversary during the war, rat

her than the functioning the good of the people. Although this can be argued either manner, most facts point toward the impression that uncensored media cost the war for the state. This strengthens the statement that censoring of wars of the yesteryear, nevertheless cruel or fallacious, did function as a valuable manner of maintaining public favour. Numerous bookmans and members of society have made this point. Harmonizing to Streitmatter, Edward Shills, writer of the book The Vietnam Legacy, writes, “Television gave the American people graphic images of certain facets of the war in Vietnam, which they could ne’er hold gotten from reading newspapers and periodicals. It made them see the war as nonmeaningful devastation of lives and landscapes” ( Streitmatter 188 ) . The book describes in item how in fact the media shaped the beliefs about the war for the populace. Between pages 191 and 193, Streitmatter gives premier illustrations of this. He writes about how the goriest images were what the imperativeness sought out during the war, non to uncover the truth about the war, but to acquire higher evaluations for the webs. He discusses how one web executive told his newsmans to “concentrate on supplying in writing images of American soldiers engaged in combat- preferabley mortal” ( Streitmatter 192 ) . This type of selective intelligence coverage can be described as being no different than the censoring of old wars, merely now the censored stuff was that which showed nationalism.

Not everybody believes that the media swayed public sentiment, Daniel C. Hallin, writer of the Uncensored War says Media and Vietnam disputes the theory that media during the sixtiess and 1970s shifted toward & # 8220 ; an oppositional relation to political authorization & # 8221 ; ( Hallin 68 ) . Hallin uses as his statement a sample of newscasts between 1965 and 1973, asseverating that telecasting coverage was rather favourable to disposal policy before the Tet offense of 1968, but that is grew significantly less favourable after that point. It is true that journalists were more likely to be critical in the late sixtiess and 1970s than they had been in early 1961 when the New York Times agreed to stamp down narratives of the Bay of Pigs invasion. However, Hallin insists that no significant alteration in journalistic political orientation took topographic point. He discards the impression that media coverage reflected society, saying that the increased negative coverage can non be truly attributed to a alteration in the class of events. Alternatively, he allows that this displacement in coverage must be explained as a response to a prostration of elect consensus on foreign policy. Hallin farther contends that as an establishment establishment, telecasting reported the deficiency of consensus about the war as once it passed from the kingdom of bastard into the kingdom of legitimate contention. Whatever the cause for swayed coverage, Hallin & # 8217 ; s statements agree that telecasting & # 8217 ; s consequence was seen, and that consequence well skewed the public & # 8217 ; s impressions of war.

The media besides underwent drastic alteration during this war. As discussed earlier, and contradictory to what Hallin feels, the media and journalistic political orientation did so alteration from dedicated to the populace, to dedicated to the dollar. Now that war could be broadcast so often, the media rode the curtails of this war up the evaluations charts, and straight to the bank. James Boylan, in a concise intervention of the last one-fourth of a century outlines the alterations in the imperativeness from pre-Vietnam to the present. Boylan & # 8217 ; s article, & # 8221 ; Declarations of Independence, & # 8221 ; ( Columbia Journalism Review November/December, 1986 ) argues, unlike Hallin, that institutional political orientation underwent alteration throughout the period, at least for print media. This alteration in political orientation can be seen otherwise through the eyes of each member of the media. Some media members saw themselves as & # 8220 ; cheerleaders & # 8221 ; during wars of the yesteryear, believing that the authorities & # 8217 ; s control limited them from describing on the existent intelligence. Other members contest that they became biased, describing merely those narratives that would acquire them praise from their employers. In such a instance as the Vietnam War, it seemed inevitable for a displacement in media describing to come approximately. Taking off censoring and replacing it with illimitable images allowed the imperativeness to slowly impetus from intelligence to scandalmongering coverage or nonreversible coverage. This consequence had been a long clip coming in the epoch of muckraking and xanthous news media. Now this type of imperativeness could be streamed via orbiter into the life suites of Americans.

Vietnam was the first war fought on Television, and viewing audiences have been in the forepart row of all time since. More than three decennaries subsequently, on-the-spot and in-your-face coverage has become ever-present and seemingly it & # 8217 ; s a good thing. Many believe that this type of coverage will ne’er let a WWII sized struggle to go on now that parents have seen war for themselves. This would halt them from leting their kids to take part. The world is that the coverage of the Vietnam War changed America & # 8217 ; s attitude towards war, towards world and stripped nationalism from wartime struggle. This may non look of import, but this war created an unmeasurable spread between the authorities and the people.

838

Roeder, George H. ( 1993 ) The Censored War. ( New Haven and London, Yale University Press )

Alter, Jonathan. ( 1991, Febuary 11 ) . War in the Gulf: Does Bloody Footage Lose Wars. Newsweek Pg.38

Neuman, Johanna. ( 1996 ) . Lights, Camera, War. Ch.11, Television and the War in Vietnam. Pg.169 ( New York, St. Martins Press )

Streitmatter, Rodger. ( 1997 ) . Mightier Than the Sword. Ch.12 Vietnam War: Bringing the Battlefield Into the American Living Room Pg.187. ( Colorado. UK. Westview Press )

Hallin, Daniel C. ( 1994 ) . The Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam. ( New York, NY ) .

Boylan & # 8217 ; s ( 1986 ) . Declarations of Independence, & # 8221 ; Columbia Journalism Review, November/December.

Plants Consulted

Graves, Nelson ( 1996, October ) . Vietnam seeks topographic point on universe & # 8217 ; s newsstands. Reuters

Foster, Gaines ( 1990, January ) . Coming to footings with licking: Post-Vietnam America and the post-Civil WarSouth. Virginia Quarterly Review. Vol.66, pp 17.

Braestrup, Peter. ( 1983 ) . Large Narrative: How the American

Imperativeness and Television Reported and Interpreted the Crisis of Tet 1968 in Vietnam and Washington. ( New Haven, CT: Yale UP.

William M. Hammond, Reporting Vietnam: Media and Military at War. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1998.