Outline of Vietnam War

I. 1965-1967: American Support

• America enters Vietnam War
• Troops numbers increase
• Coverage is extremely favorable to U.S. involvement in war
• Brutal war images are shown to Americans, including burning of Vietnamese villages, Americans are shown how gruesome the war is becoming.

II. 1968: Support Shrinking

• Tet Offensive is portrayed in the media as a U.S. defeat, despite military personal claiming it as a Viet Cong failure. Media rejects proposal of producer Jack Fern that NBC begin a series showing Tet as a victory.
• Viet Cong prisoner is shot point blank in the middle of the day in front of everybody. Americans are shown in graphic detail the execution of the prisoner and complained that it was in bad taste to air the footage. 
• Americans tired of the graphic images showing U.S. lives being lost, begin questioning involvement in the war.

III. 1969-1971: Opposition Reigns Supreme

• Walter Cronkite, highly respected and influential journalist travels to Vietnam, portrays the war as unwinnable.
• Other members of the media follow suit and demand U.S. to pull out of the war.
• New York Times and Washington Post produce documents showing U.S. intentions for entering war were political and not humanitarian or democratic.
• American opinion shifts from semi-favorable to overwhelmingly unfavorable.
• President Johnson announces the reduction of U.S. troops, in addition to his announcement that he will not run for reelection. 

Personal Thoughts On The Media's Involvement In The Vietnam War

     In all of my blog posts, I've tried to link the events I've studied to events going on right now. After reading the chapter about television's involvement in the Vietnam War, I can't help but think of the war going on right now in Iraq. At the start of the Vietnam War, most Americans were in favor of the country's involvement, but through time, support started to dwindle, until opposition outnumbered supporters. Television had a huge role in that shift. Americans were getting tired of seeing brutal images on their tv sets night after night, with no resolve. Much like America's support of the Iraq War quickly turned sour once weapons of mass destruction were not found.
     Respected, trusted journalists like Walter Cronkite were picking sides. Americans looked at in the sense that, if someone as unbiased, impartial, and trustworthy as Cronkite felt they had to risk their reputation to speak out about the war, then they knew something we didn't, and we should follow their judgement.
      It was the first and last war televised without censorship, and judging by the outcome, we can understand why it was the last. The media drastically changed America's involvement in the war. Their portrayal that Americans were fighting a losing battle was enough to push the public to oppose the war altogether.
      Now, obviously, this is what war is. It's one side of human beings killing another side, until one party caves in. We all know that; Americans back then knew that, but being aware of what happens in times of war, and actually seeing it for yourself are two different things. People don't want to turn on their tv sets and see their own being killed every night. I don't think that is unique to the Vietnam War but rather war overall. Like I said before, this was the first time Americans were able to get this much insight into what was going on. They weren't used to such brutality, so naturally, they were going to be shocked. The media took this, rightly or wrongly, as an opportunity to put America on their side and fight for what they thought was right, which was ending the U.S. involvement in this war. If that meant they had to portray the Tet Offensive as a major win for the Viet Cong, when most military officials said, if anything, it was actually a failure, then so be it. Americans didn't need much convincing. You turn your tv on every night and see people from your country getting killed, and trusted members of the media are saying we should pull out; you're more than likely going to agree with that sentiment.
      The role the media had in this war changed the outcome of the war. Who's to say the war doesn't end differently if they spin the story differently? If they show the war effort as a success, do Americans continue to support it? Do we keep our troops in Vietnam longer? Does the war end up being considered a success? You never know. Never underestimate the power of the media. They have more pull than most people realize.

Summary On the Media's Coverage of The Vietnam War

In the mid 1960's, things were different. Thanks to technological advances, most Americans were getting their news from television sets as opposed to periodicals. Imagery was a big part of the media's involvement in the Vietnam war, and you can accomplish a lot more when your images are video clips of the actual war, as opposed to just still pictures or political cartoons. This was as raw as it gets. Horrific scenes of violence shown right there on your television set.
     In 1965, America officially entered the war by sending in ground troops and ordering bombing raids over North Vietnam. Coverage during this time was mostly favorable and Americans, although concerned about the amount of violence going on within the war, felt the war was necessary, and supported the government's stance that we needed to be there we needed to support South Vietnam in the name of democracy.
     As the years went on, so did the increase of American troops, as well as an increase in ratings for television news channels. People were glued to their sets, and news channels were providing every gorey detail of the war on a nightly basis. Some of the material was questionable, like American troops shown burning down entire villages with cigarette lighters and harming not only the enemy, but innocent civilians. American viewers started to see this war as nothing more than senseless violence at the expense of american casualties. In other words, a war that doesn't seem as just and necessary as it once did. The Tet Offensive in 1968 helped strengthen this belief, and so began the decline of American support.
     Already unfamiliar with the guerilla warfare tactics of the Viet Cong, Americans and their South Vietnamese allies were taken by surprise during the Tet Offensive, a simultaneous attack on hundreds of sites in South Vietnam including not only military sites, but villages and cities as well. The element of surprise always count for something, and not only were troops initially stunned, but their American audience back at home were also shaken up. The difference here is, after the smoke cleared, military officials saw this attack as a failure on the part of the Viet Cong, and the American public saw this as yet another reason to pull out. Unfortunately for those in government who wanted the war to continue, the media took the side of the people.
     Soon after this, the war seemed to get more violent, and senseless in the eyes of the American people. A Viet Cong officer shot point blank, execution style in the middle of a town as opposed to a battlefield is one of the most horrifying images shown not just then, but ever. Americans wanted out. They needed someone they trusted to side with them, and show them that yes, they were right for feeling how they did. Walter Cronkite became that man.
     Already one of the most influential voices of his time, Mr. Cronkite was the most respected journalist at that time. People trusted him to bring them the cold hard facts, the truth behind every story. Although they didn't know him personally, Americans shared a connection with this man on a somewhat emotional level. With all the craziness going on in this war, they needed someone there to make sense of it all. Someone to do damage control and regain the support Americans once had for the war. So when Cronkite traveled to Vietnam to see just how bad it really was, the outcome all but officially ended the war.
     Prior to him traveling to Vietnam, Cronkite was a firm supporter of the government. He trusted their judgement, just like American viewers trusted his; and although journalists are taught to just report the news for what it is, and not take sides, Cronkite jepordized his credibility and did what he felt was right on a very human level, for the sake of the country. He did this without the use of propoganda, without lies, without false information. He showed the war for what it was, and it was ugly. Cronkite looked like a somber, beaten man. A man who was ready to accept defeat and move on out. The tone of his reporting was depressing, and put the nail in the coffin of any hope the government had of gaining support from it's people. President Johnson, after watching Cronkite's piece on the war is quoted as saying "I've lost Cronkite, I've lost the war".  This was the beginning of the end for America's involvement in Vietnam.
     It wasn't long before other media sources joined in. In 1971 the New York Times and the Washington Post began producing secret documents showing America's interest in Vietnam wasn't in the name of democracy or humanity, but rather political gain. Anti-war demostrators were increasing, voices were getting louder, and soon the U.S. had no choice but to pull out of the war. It wasn't long after Cronkite's piece that President Johnson announced the reduction of U.S. troops, and his decision not to run for reelection. It is yet another moment in our storied history where journalism played a big role in shaping our country.
    

[Videos] Vientam News Coverage

Walter Cronkite on his Tet Offensive Editorial

According to the source, this is an interview from 1996:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDNJL0mTHWI

Source: http://www.youtube.com/user/Newseum

News coverage on the war

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oPMnVef1t4

Source: http://www.youtube.com/user/RealAgentOfSHIELD

[Photos] Images From The Vietnam War

                    Wounded GI's in battle
Source: http://www.esuhistoryprof.com/vietnam_online.htm

South Vietnamese general assassinating Viet Cong officer
Source: http://pulitzerprize.org/photography/vietnam/

Journalism and The Vietnam War

Up until this point, I've been showing journalism in one medium only. Newspapers and magazines. In the historical examples we've looked at thus far, newspapers and magazines were enough to bury opposition. Articles exposing injustices and corruption, cartoon images, all printed on black and white paper were enough to do serious damage at this point. However, what happens when technology advances, and the culture changes. When people are getting more news from their televisions than they are from newspapers. You bring the movement to their living room. The Vietnam War was the first and last war shown to Americans without censorship. Brutal, vivid, extremely violent images were shown to American families all around the country and positively or negatively, impacted America's involvement in the war. We'll be looking at how journalism, for better or worse [we'll get to opinions later] changed the war on a massive scale.

Muckraking Summary

     The Gilded Age of American history saw a huge increase in industrialization and the economy was booming. Corporations were creating factories and new jobs at an alarming rate and the country was flexing it's dominance as a world power.
     New inventions were being made, advances in technology and medicine were on the rise, and big businesses were at the top of the food chain. Unfortunately, with money and power comes abuse of such power, in the hopes of obtaining even more money.
     Corruption was running rampant, and not just corruption, but unsafe practices within factories and unsafe, untested medicines were being given to the public without them knowing the harmful effects they may cause. The American people were obviously unaware of what was happening around them, and who could blame them? They had no way of knowing. Fortunately for the country, big business wasn't the only thing booming; journalism was too. Thanks to the muckrakers of the early 1900s, this country went under serious reform.
     In 1902, a man by the name of Lincoln Steffens, who would go on to be credited as the first muckraker, got a job with McClure's, a popular journal during that time period. His investigative reporting and stories about municipal corruption alarmed the public and helped bring a wave of political change. The District Attorney of St. Louis at that time, Joseph W. Folk, credited his public support and eventual election into the governor's seat to Steffens and his eye opening journalism. Steffens did not stay in Missouri but rather went from big city to big city, hoping to raise awareness and bring the public together to fight the corporate machine.
McClure's didn't stop at political corruption. You don't get the title of the greatest muckraking magazine by exposing one subject. Ida Tarbell, a daughter and sister to oil refinery workers, shared her experiences with The Standard Oil Company and exposed John D. Rockefeller's quest to be a one man powerhouse. In her series "History of The Standard Oil Company", she explains how Rockefeller pays off railroad companies in exchange for cheaper shipping costs, roughly half the cost his competitors paid, which ultimately means other small, developing businesses never had a chance to grow, or compete with his growing monopoly. Her articles, packed with facts, numbers, and witty language didn't just get people talking; they got people acting. In 1906 Congress passed the Hepburn Act, which penalized railroads caught making preferential deals with select businesses. Then in 1911, after being found guilty of several accounts of fraud charges, and violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, Standard Oil was forced to break up its monopoly into thirty eight different companies.
As noted before, political and corporate corruption weren't the only things on the minds of muckrakers. Public health was also a major concern. More importantly, the safety and quality of the food and drugs Americans were consuming. Upton Sinclair, another muckraker that would be up there with some of the best, was hired by the newspaper Appeal to Reason to do some investigative work. Sinclair exposed the disgusting practices found within meatpacking plants and in his series "The Jungle", he goes into shocking and disgusting detail of what really goes on in these plants. Although it was written as fiction, there was nothing phony about this. He got his information from real sources, questionig real people and investigating real plants.
Another muckraking icon was Ladies Home Journal editor Edward Bok. His attacks were aimed at the drug companies, claiming their products were unsafe and sometimes deadly. Other publications joined in his crusade including McClure's, and Collier's, which printed a cartoon with a skull representing the Patent Medicine Trust, showing once again as Thomas Nast did that imagery is just as effective as words, if not more so. In 1906, Ladies Home Journal published a simulated bill demanding its readers send it into their congressmen and reform the drug companies. They did just that, and President Theodore Roosevelt would go on to advocate a law regulating food and drugs, and congress would pass the Pure Food and Drug Act, which required all food and drugs to be analyzed, inspected, and approved.
     Not everybody appreciated the work of muckrakers. Some politicians opposed them, obviously because they saw the influence and power these journalists had, and knew sooner or later, their day would soon be coming. The muckrakers delivered. David Graham Phillips, writing for Cosmopolitan magazine, aimed his attacks at politicians and accused many of them of corruption and treason. His words were strong enough to bring voters to the polls and one by one, every politician he accused was voted out of office in the elections that followed. Changes were also made within the political arena in 1913 when a constitutional amendment made it so that senators were elected by the people, not state legislatures.