SOCIAL IMPACTS OF THE MEDIA

DURING THE VIETNAM WAR

 

Patrick Blute

AP English & AP American History

 Mrs. LeVangie & Mr. Houston

March 2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOCIAL IMPACTS OF THE MEDIA DURING THE VIETNAM WAR: OUTLINE

 

I.                    Introduction

a.       Background

                                                               i.      “Horror of War”

                                                             ii.      Hollywood Manipulation

b.      Thesis Statement

                                                               i.      The Vietnam War was a controversial and consequential international struggle manipulated by the media in television, print, and films.

II.                 Extent of Television on War Coverage

a.       The “Living Room War”

                                                               i.      News Sources and their Popularities

                                                             ii.      Limits of Censorship

b.      Major Incidents Covered by the Media

                                                               i.      My Lai Massacre

                                                             ii.      The Tet Offensive

III.               Impact of Television on War Coverage

a.       Walter Cronkite: Most Influential Newscaster

                                                               i.      CBS, ABC, NBC Battlefield Invasion

                                                             ii.      February 27, 1968 News Broadcast

b.      Lies and the Media

                                                               i.      Westmoreland Scandal

                                                             ii.      Media vs. Official Fact Discrepancies

IV.              Other Media Influences and Results

a.       Major Newspapers/Magazines

                                                               i.      Newsweek

                                                             ii.      TIME

                                                            iii.      New York Times

b.      National Media Depictions of Minorities

                                                               i.      African Americans

                                                             ii.      Asians

V.                 Effects of the Media in Modern Vietnam War Films

a.       Emotional Catharsis

                                                               i.      America’s Indefinite Commitment to the Media

                                                             ii.      Reality versus Entertainment

b.      Depiction of Veterans

                                                               i.      Platoon

                                                             ii.      The Viet Nam War Veterans Oral History Project

VI.              Conclusion

a.       Televisions

b.      Newspapers

c.       Feature Films

 

 

SOCIAL IMPACTS OF THE MEDIA DURING THE VIETNAM WAR

 

            Media coverage during and after the Vietnam War displayed incongruence in data collection, biased broadcasts, adulterated footage, and questionable information that would ultimately turn America against the cause in Vietnam. “It brought the ‘horror of war’ night after night into people’s living rooms and eventually fired revulsion and exhaustion…any war reported in an unrestricted way by television would eventually loose public support” (Hallin The Museum of Broadcast Communications, 1). These sentiments of filtered facts and corrupt broadcasts during the war were mirrored in the feelings of veterans and their portrayal in post-war films. “[This same] lack of military assurance and moral certitude is expressed in numerous Vietnam War films and other Hollywood stories” (Selig, 1). Overall, the growing American contingency on media coverage and the constant exposure to the atrocities of war fervently evoked the American people to oppose it. The Vietnam War was a controversial and consequential international struggle manipulated by the media in television, print, and films.

            Coverage of the Vietnam War pushed the limits farther than World War II, the only other war fought during the growing dependence on televised news (Kattenburg, 2). Not only were the technologies in television promulgating change and growth, people were gaining a sense of greater dependence on this media source. The Roper Organization for Television Information conducted a survey in 1964 and 1972 (roughly at the beginning and ending of the war) to discover where most people got their news information. “In 1964: 58% television, 56% newspapers…in 1972, the last year Vietnam was a major news story…television led newspapers 64% to 50%” (Hallin The Uncensored War, 106). This documented evidence lays a foundation as to why the Vietnam War gained the popular title of the “Living Room War”. Michael Arlen coined this term in 1965 after President Johnson sent a significant portion of American Combat Troops over to Vietnam (Hallin The Museum of Broadcast Communications, 1). His reasoning for calling the war the “Living Room War” was the constant fixation of the American public on their ‘living room’ television set. They were exposed to all of the atrocities of war up close and personal:

Each evening the networks would show film of the fighting that was, at times, gruesome…the film was neither censored nor subject to any systematic scrutiny by government…In each night’s TV news and each morning’s paper the war was reported battle by battle, but little or no sense of the underlying purpose of the fight was conveyed…a serious demoralization of the homefront (Simon, 3).

            Since the media had free reign to air footage of any nature without heavy censorship, the public was exposed to sights of the dead, wounded, and coffins being unloaded (Simon, 2). Many viewers of the “Living Room War” remember specific images illuminated in their memory. These images highlight intense showings of human brutality, such as an image of a Viet Cong terrorist being beaten and executed in a street in Saigon during daylight hours (Simon, 2). The main goal of these brutal images was to invoke the American people with a ‘democratic national identity’. These images did not highlight civilians being killed; they focused only on the perseverance of the American spirit and the positives that American interventions were bringing about (Selig, 1). Making sure that empathy for the American cause was displayed vicariously on the news, was essential in maintaining support for the war:

If the cameras denied the America cause, they could not depict the cause of the faceless adversary who to the very end was generally ‘pictured’ by the press as a fanatical, pitiless ideologue who had to be brutally dealt with because the bloodbath would be far worse if and when the Americans left (Macclear, 227).

            To achieve the desired effect of this American patriotism, the media focused on several major incidents during the war – most specifically the My Lai Massacre and the Tet Offensive. As alluded to previously, the media felt the easiest and fastest way to evoke emotion for these two events was to show intense and disturbing images of the enemy. “The press, by its nature is rarely beloved – nor should that be its aim. Too often it must be the bearer of bad tidings. Vietnam…conveyed vivid scenes of domestic protest and battle field gore” (Henry, 3). In the My Lai Massacre of March 1968, American soldiers slaughtered hundreds of Vietnamese civilians (N/A, A1). Although this act may be deemed unnecessary or even cruel, the televised broadcasts manipulated the coverage to valorize America’s liberation of Communist territory:

The unique nature of a television war…had been very much a two-edged sword. While television measured the horrors of modern war, a democratic people measured what they saw against what they knew of themselves, and a great many would believe the merciless nature arose from the enemy (Macclear, 227).

            Reports of the same caliber during the My Lai Massacre, insinuated that the real story of the war was ‘American boys in action’. They wanted to praise their troops for skillfully utilizing technology in the war. They also wanted to praise their soldiers for their consistent commitment to the cause ahead. This can be seen in their military expeditions – one of which included a search-and-destroy mission to burn the thatched huts of Vietnamese civilians (Hallin The Museum of Broadcast Communications, 2). It should also be noted that prior to the My Lai Massacre and the unwarranted glorification of American soldiers, CBS and NBC increased their broadcasts from 15 minutes to 30 minutes in 1963 – ABC followed suit in 1967 (Huebner, 2). This allowed for more coverage of American soldiers and warranted the downfall of media support during the Tet Offensive (N/A, A1):

In 1968, during the Tet Offensive, viewers of NBC News saw Colonel Nguyen Ngoc Loan blow out the brains of his captive in a Saigon street. And in 1972, during the North Vietnamese spring offensive, the audience witnessed the aftermath of errant napalm strike, in which South Vietnamese planes mistook their own fleeing civilians for North Vietnamese troops (Hallin The Museum of Broadcast Communications, 1).

             By the time the Tet Offensive became an active agent in the war, the major broadcast journalists were growing less interested in portraying the valiance of American troops. They wanted the American public to understand their opinions after having been exposed to some of the most dangerous and controversial warfront broadcasts of their career. A crew of cameramen, soldiers, and executives along with a highly equipped Jeep dolly escorted most journalists during battlefield reports. One famous journalist, Walter Cronkite, was consistently embodied as a news anchor with an abundance of information. His position as a major news broadcaster for the duration of the Vietnam War kept him as a pivotal influence on people’s opinions. The reports that Cronkite and other journalists did on location in Vietnam had a special importance for American broadcast stations (Huebner, 3):

 On Thursdays, the weekly casualty figures released in Saigon would be reported, appearing next to the flags of the combatants, and of course always showing a good ‘score’ for the Americans. Television crews learned New York wanted ‘bang-bang’ footage…it was a dangerous assignment: nine network personnel died in Indochina, and many more were wounded (Hallin The Museum of Broadcast Communications, 2).

            Walter Cronkite’s influences on the American sentiments of the Vietnam War are best demonstrated in his February 27, 1968 broadcast. The show he hosted, ‘Report on Vietnam’, showed official death counts that were ridiculously exaggerated to evoke great American sentiment by adding dead civilians. As a news anchor, it was Cronkite’s job to read these reports, however miscalculated they were (Cohen, 1). In his most famous broadcast – Walter Cronkite said, “For it seems now, more certain than ever, that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in stalemate” (Simon, 2). This statement shocked viewers and it was deemed the first time a newscaster influenced the end of a war (Hallin The Museum of Broadcast Communications, 2). News broadcasts, besides portraying personal journalist opinions, also played host to discrepancies between government and mainstream media reports:

The qualitative difference of accounts from official versus media sources…[stated drastically different opinions about the importance of Vietnam. It was considered a] sold/worthwhile ally (1961-1963), re-stabilizing after internal turmoil (1963-1965), recovering (1965-1968), and capable of holding out (1968-1972). Media accounts [stated] doubts to viability (1961-1963), unraveling (1964-1965), weak (1965-1968), and not capable (1968-1972) (Kattenburg, 265).

            Although this excerpt from Kattenburg’s book is a vast generalization about the discrepancies between the media and official reports, it gives insight into the existence of a discrepancy. The crucial battles, My Lai and the Tet, also fell subject to these incongruities. Early wire service reports grossly exaggerated successes during the Tet Offensive and minimized defeats. When the Tet occupied the Embassy Building, different wire reports sent their respective companies inconsistent messages about victories and losses (Herring, 191). The validity of these battle reports were either proved to be false or later rephrased to indicate an alternate outcome (Sheehan, 45). But these reports did not yield the intense fervor of the American people, like the outcry against General Westmoreland’s policies during the Vietnam War:

Televised accounts of the bloody fighting in Saigon and Hue made a mockery of Johnson and of Westmoreland’s optimistic year end reports, widening the credibility gap, and cynical journalists openly mocked Westmoreland’s claims of victory (Herring, 191).

            In 1982, nearly 15 years after the war ended, CBS started piecing together a documentary entitled The Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Depiction. This documentary specifically targeted General Westmoreland, the former commander of the American military forces, to be part of a conspiracy geared toward misleading the public and President Johnson about the power and strength of the Vietnamese forces. The host of this documentary, Mike Wallace, interviewed Westmoreland and thoroughly embarrassed him on live television. Westmoreland sued CBS for $120 million for the on-air conspiracy theories. “The general did not win his suit, but he did not conspire either” (Sheehan 695). This case brought mainstream attention to the validity of major broadcasting claims. “Are reports scrupulously accurate, or will they reshape a quote, ignore a fact, even concoct an anonymous ‘source’ in order to make a point? Why are there so many leaks” (Henry, 3)?

            While television had a more significant popularity over other news sources, newspapers and magazines still had their fair share of involvement in the Vietnam cause. “By 1965, there were print journalists in Vietnam representing four magazines (Life, Look, Time, and Newsweek), two wire services (Associated Press and United States International) and several newspapers…” (Huebner, 4). Just as news broadcasters were interviewing men on the battlefield and tabulating the losses and victories, magazine and newspaper writers followed suit. “In April 1965, just a few weeks after American ground forces arrived in Vietnam, Time ran a cover story called ‘What’s in Viet Nam: A Gallery of American Combatants.’ The piece emphasized professionalism, skill, and teamwork” (Huebner, 4). With the constant antagonism from the media to note changes in the war, the written media also showed disdain for the current situation in Vietnam:

A few newspapers joined the New York Times in warning of the cost of ‘lives lost, blood spilt, and treasure wasted, of fighting a war on a jungle front 7,000 miles from the coast of California (Herring, 133). A number of major metropolitan dailies shifted from support of the war to opposition in 1967, and the influential Time-Life publications, fervently hawkish at the outset, began to raise serious questions about the administration’s policies (Herring, 174).

            The change in sentiment towards the war in the late 1960s did not stop the goal to regulate American opinions of minorities in the war effort. Asians, particularly the Vietnamese, were depicted as the enemy, falling susceptible to the evils of communism (Huebner, 3). African Americans however, post-Civil Rights Movement, appeared in the press as dedicated, brave, skilled, committed, and able to do their duties as American soldiers. In the past, these same soldiers were portrayed as embittered veterans in a land that repulsed them (Huebner, 7). In the discussion about ethnic stereotyping during the Vietnam War, it should also be noted “the American public, though influenced by the media, appeared unwilling to commit itself to an indefinite engagement for undefined ideas” (Kattenburg, 265).

            But the Hollywood version of the Vietnam War played host to a style, different than the one utilized in news broadcasts. “Oscar Wilde, a literary figure of the nineteenth century, said that when art develops a purpose it becomes propaganda. This is as good an observation as can be made for the Vietnam War in film” (Puzzo, 2). John Puzzo, the creator of The Viet Nam War Veterans Oral History Project, served in the 4th Infantry Division during the war. Because of his personal history as a veteran, his opinions on the Vietnam War films have immense credibility. “The impact Hollywood has had on shaping the veteran cannot be downplayed…significant, corrosive, hallucinatory, anti-war…anti-American, shameful, insulting, and not accidental” (Puzzo, 2). The film industry had a steady stream of Vietnam War related films decades after the war that manipulated historical information for the purpose of conveying a story (Selig, 3). “This concern with authenticity should go beyond noting the obvious distortions that are commonly mentioned, like the geographical distortions of The Green Berets or the cultural distortions of The Deer Hunter” (Selig, 2).

            One of the major distortions that can be noted is the transformation from a major failure into a victory – at the expense of mocking the government and the veterans of the war effort. “The Hollywood Vietnam War film is Oedipal most significantly in the way it constructs a male subject who progresses from innocence and adequacy to knowledge and power” (Selig, 2). With the constant influx of Hollywood special effects and movie script glamour, the majority of veterans involved in The Viet Nam War Veterans Oral History Project feel their history is being manipulated:

America also had to endure the tap dance of murders, atrocities, toxic sergeants, incompetent officers, and confused soldiers in Platoon (Best Picture Oscar 1986). It is a sumptuous feast for all haters of ‘Viet Nam’…Platoon so openly degrades the American soldier that a member of the Vietnamese Politburo, Bui Tinh, openly praised it (Puzzo, 1).

            One of the most impacting lines in a film about the Vietnam War came from Hanoi Hilton, where the commander of the Vietnamese prison camp says, “The real war is in California, Washington DC, and America’s cities, and what you do not win on the battlefield, your journalists will win for you on your doorstep” (Puzzo, 2).

            Television, newspapers, magazines, and scripted films all made different speculations about the Vietnam War. In the televised accounts of Vietnam, the “Living Room War” influenced a generation of Americans on the atrocities of physical fighting in living color (Hallin The Uncensored War, 106). The increased involvement of the American people in the day to day fighting was exampled in the My Lai Massacre and the Tet Offensive – two of the most influential military strategies acted upon by Westmoreland. Unfortunately, the unscrupulous media attacked Westmoreland for being a conspirator during the Vietnam War – trying to keep important information from President Johnson and the American people (Henry, 3).

            With mirrored reports in the written media, Americans were constantly being bombarded with questionable information. The sources were truly inadequate in backing up specific ideals and generating a unified cause to fight the spread of communism in Vietnam (Henry, 2). The film industry, devoted only to entertaining the masses as opposed to upholding historical accuracy, disgraced certain veteran organizations with their portrayal of life in Vietnam during the war. Overall, the media’s involvement in Vietnam not only influenced the outcome of the war – it changed the way wars in the future would be addressed to the general public. “Satellite-born images from jungle to family den, now produced a collective image: [Vietnam] was not freedom’s plateau, but the folly of an older generation” (Macclear, 199).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WORKS CITED

 

Cohen, Jeff. “The Myth of the Media’s Role in Vietnam.” FAIR 05 06 2001: 1.

 

Hallin, Daniel. The Uncensored War. 60. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 

1986.

 

Hallin, Daniel. “Vietnam on Television.” The Museum of Broadcast Communications

(1984):

 

Henry, William. “Journalism Under Fire.” Time 12 Dec. 1983: Center.

 

Herring, George. America’s Longest War. 2nd. New York, NY: Random House, Inc.

1979.

 

Huebner, Andrew. “Rethinking American Press Coverage of the Vietnam War.”

Journalism History (2005).

 

Kattenburg, Paul. “The Vietnam Trauma in American Foreign Policy.” 1st. New

Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1980.

 

Macclear, Michael. The Ten Thousand Day War: Vietnam, 1945-1975. New York, NY:

St. Martin’s Press, 1981.

 

N/A, N/A. “Is It Prime Time for Vietnam?” New York Times. August 2, 1987, Late

Edition: A1.

 

Puzzo, John. “Viet Nam and Hollywood.” Ichiban1. May 2 2002: 1-2.

 

Sheehan, Neil. A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam. New

York, NY. Random House, Inc. 1988. (CLAMS Source – 959.7 She)

 

Selig, Michael. “What We Won’t Learn from the Hollywood-Style Vietnam War Film.”

History and Subjectivity. Volume 4. 1994.

 

Simon, Dennis. The Vietnam War. 2002. Southern Methodist University. 23 Feb 2007.

http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-Viet2b.html

 

Return to Menu