The US Lost the Vietnam War due to a Lack of Media Support - Coursework Example

Does the evidence support the claim that the media 'lost' the Vietnam War for America? How has this belief affected way that the military and the media interacted in subsequent conflicts? Introduction Military adventures of a force can be changed into success provided media understands the role, it has to play. Media-military relations have always been lacking until 2nd world war, which made the countries of the world to realize the importance of media in handling the military campaigns. Affective media can simultaneously boost the morale of nation as well as of the armed forces during a war and after the war also. Media should display patriotic spirit to project the image of its own country, as it is really essential for overall representation of the state. Vietnam War is also an example from history where American media could not handle the war to project the gains of the forces. One that media did not print the US military effort and sacrifices of the army and on other end, post-war scenario was full of critic, which had very demoralizing affects on troops and also on nation as a whole. Therefore, after passing about 35 years, still there is an ongoing debate on the role of American news media on the outcome of the conflict. Severe objection of the media on the issue of policy failure in war also compelled the decision makers to alter the course of action, ultimately led to confusion and chaos. Media lost the war for America because it was media, which projected the war in a negative sense. The government was unable to control the media and the media especially the television highlighted such images of American government that deteriorated the image of American army among the masses and the world as a whole. That showed that censorship policies for media should be there in order to safeguard the reputation of a country. Media’s role in Vietnam War was quite predictable as it is said that media’s engagement in disabling America to win the war is prominent. Action of media and certain causes of failure in campaign in the subsequent conflicts shall be elaborated here. This paper analyzes the issue of media involvement in the Vietnam War along with its affects on military efforts in Vietnam. This paper also draws attention to the fact that American media lost the Vietnam War for America. Media and Preliminary Phase of the Conflict It was obvious from the outset that US was assisting Vietnam people in fighting against the communist aggression. Saigon government was in power to take care of American interests. Besides continuous information provided by US officials on activities of the forces in Vietnam, American diplomats wanted Vietnamese press guidance in all matters (Landers 2004). On the outset of hostilities, lack of harmony was found in American media and government. American public and congress were a bit hesitant to raise voice in support of the war waged by US. This also posed a problem in releasing funds for the campaign. Until 1962, lack of interest observed was in the role of media to support war. Non-availability of independent information gathering system and absence of means for real time battlefield picture led to mismanagement. Editorializing for moulding public opinion was almost absent in newspapers. Policies of Kennedy could not seek success due to objective journalism of American media. According to Wyatt (1993), “The Kennedy administration also took steps of its own to shut the press away from this story” (91). However, he was not successful in his efforts because of uncontrollable media and lacking governmental policies. At the same time, American media started portraying two different pictures of Vietnam War. One, way of conduct of war by south Vietnamese was highly being criticized. Other was the optimistic approach of American advisers towards the war (Landers 2004). Saigon government blamed reporters for not putting in efforts to get President Diem’s sympathies. Reporters, in response alleged military advisors and diplomats for keeping them oblivious of the facts (Mueller 1973). Military advisors were also accused of protecting President Diem. Therefore, the rising tension between President Diem’s government and foreign press resulted in decreased confidence between reporters and US officials. Daniel Hallin (1986) writes in “The Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam” “The media had extraordinary freedom to report the war in Vietnam without direct governmental control: it was the first war in which reporters were routinely accredited to accompany military forces yet not subject to censorship, and it was a war in which the journalists clearly did not think of themselves simply as “the soldiers of the typewriter” whose mission was to serve the war effort.” (Hallin 1986, 6) Media started to highlight all the issues consulting Vietnam War with full freedom and government took little notice of the reporting. Media reported everything that was done during the time without any governmental control. The journalists did not work for the government but for what was factual. However, with the passage of time, the government showed interest in media reporting and also gave consideration towards censorship. The extraordinary freedom that American media exercised during the war and its reportage, led America to lose the war along with its image. Media and the Battle of Ap Bac The battle Ap bac started between South Vietnamese and communists in 1963. Western media condemned reporting on war by South Vietnamese (Wyatt 1993). President Kennedy adopted the offensive posture by savage criticism on the accuracy of news printed by Saigon press corps (Landers 2004). This tendency of challenging the accuracy of news ultimately led Americans to doubting the accuracy of their own reporters. This further deteriorated the situation for Americans and winning of war for American was getting out of reach. US was left with only two solutions. One was to get rid of Diem and other was to take control of the battle in his own hands.US mission was very angry about reporting of the battle situation (Herman and Chomsky 1988). This fact was also accepted by the US public information office in Saigon. The office also accepted that only the “two third” reporting was accurate and rest was doubtful (Landers 2004). Hence, the battle created a vacuum in relations between US officials and news media at Vietnam. Media and the Buddhist Predicament The situation further worsened during the Buddhist crisis of 1963. Diem’s government was reluctant to inform real information to foreign press, specially the picture of conflict on Diem’s side remained hidden (Mueller 1973).US officials remained quiet for a long time, as the situation was unpredictable about the support of media. Voice was raised in print media against the Diem government (Herman and Chomsky 1988). All those negated the policy of supporting Diem, were suppressing Diem through media. Diem was faced with the dangerous threats to efforts for winning an end to anti Buddhist domination. Although there was huge differences between the press and embassy but yet news were reliable to some extent (Hallin 1986). Great increase in number of reporters was also seen rising from 10 to almost 60. Then there was a lot of change seen on the political front. Death of Diem and assassination of President Kennedy led to empowering many governments for a short duration (Mueller 1973). Communists started making progress to get results from the war. Keeping in view the work of correspondents, the Military assistant command decided to give latest information to reporters through its joint public relations office. With this decision, it was thought that some censored information could be provided to the media in order to keep a check on its uncontrolled reportage. To hide real information was not a successful effort and this strategy was left by the government. The increase of reporters and press related people gave a threat to the government and it was thought that some censored information should be given to media. Intensification of American Involvement and Censorship Policy In the middle sixties, with the arrival of President Lyndon B. Johnson, it was thought that Americans should be more engaged in the Vietnam War (Herman and Chomsky 1988). With increased steps taken towards the growth of American interference, it was seen that media did not support American effort towards its enhanced engagement in Vietnamese land. Seeing the rapid turns in the situation on the war front, President Johnson took remedial measures to escalate American involvement in terms of media and troops (Landers 2004). Decision taken was that objective journalists would not print any criticism on the government policies. President Johnson was in position to exercise great control over the political situation in the country. He endeavoured to avoid controversies on the issue of war in the government. Operation rolling thunder and operation barrel roll demanded high censorship for operational as well as tactical security (Mueller 1973). South Vietnam being the independent state exercised no control over the censorship of operations. Saigon government was convinced to follow censorship policy. However, Saigon government also did not follow the instructions of US. Other reasons were that censorship could hinder in civil military relations than solving the issues (Wyatt 1993). The commander of American forces in Vietnam, General William also favoured censorship but could not impose due to practical reasons (Hallin 1986). Availability of trained censorship staff was not available to follow all the mail going from the Vietnam to rest of the world. A system of cooperation between the media and military was need of hour. Therefore, certain rules were designed by MACV to protect the value of military information. Mutual understanding developed between MACV and government to give nearly accurate picture of the war to the American nation and at the same time hiding the data from the enemy (Landers 2004). The new agreement included maintaining secrecy of plans and air strikes and designing tactics for highlighting the shortcomings present in the enemy side. Mode of administration and logistics support to operation was kept secret. People knew only essential information having no impact on the future of battle. Press was motivated to avoid disclosure of casualties of men and material including damage of aircrafts (Mueller 1973). Enemy information on types and numbers of weapons used against American forces. Tactics of enemy forces including shortcomings of forces were included. Therefore, media was identified as the source, which can damage the effect of military information and operations for the first time. There were only miner complaints left on the role of media in the masses. Operation menu is a classical example of controlled media. Operation was secret bombing campaign in Cambodia in 1969. There was complete harmony on the outcome of operation on diplomatic and military front (Mueller 1973). Pictures of wounded and dead soldiers were prohibited to publish without prior approval of the individual and concerned next of kin. Press Dealing Press saw more growth and involvement in the operation during 1964 to 1966 (Wyatt 1993). Various means were devised to know the loyalty of press reporters. System of identity cards and authority letter was followed to avoid falling of information in wrong hands (Landers 2004). Berry Zorthian was appointed as minister of civil affairs. His job was to inform force commander of US forces on all civil affairs and formulation of civil affair policy. Berry was appointed on the grounds of his intelligence and ability to handle media with great patience and confidence. He very effectively portrayed the picture of war, which American people and government wanted. A conference named “five o’clock follies” used to hold at MACV by Berry (Mueller 1973). This conference started giving day-to-day situation on the war front. CIA agents to give clear picture of own and enemy intentions also rendered help during the conference. Media and Tet Offensive Tet offensive was the turning point in media coverage of the war. American forces saw victory in Tet offensive despite sweeping of more than hundred South Vietnamese cities by the North Vietnamese (Schmitz 2005). North Vietnamese suffered more causalities in Tet offensive as compared to South Vietnamese. Television and print media declared the Tet offensive as the greatest US military defeat in Vietnam (Braestrup 1977). Media also appraised masses about complete defeat of US forces in coming days. Media was again criticized for feeding negative information on progress of the war. Increased media involvement had greatly demoralized the American nation and forces at the same time (Schmitz 2005). Media was blamed for turning Great War victory of allied forces into defeat at political front. President joint Chief of staff G Wheeler complained the negative role of media in American press. Peter Braestrup in “Big Story: How the American Press and Television Reported and Interpreted the Crisis of Tet 1968 in Vietnam and Washington” writes that a clear victory of American forces in offensive had been projected as defeat by television (1977). Braestrup (1977) also concluded by saying that lack of harmony in electronic and print media and lack of will of government and people of America to continue war resulted in defeat. Ma Lai massacre was the leading event, which really let down American soldiers’ image amongst the nation. The electronic media telecasted complete television coverage of the incident (Herman and Chomsky 1988). Initial report on the incident stated killing of 100 enemy soldiers in March 1968. Later it was proved through different sources that Lt William and his taskforce killed about 350 South Vietnamese without any justification (Schmitz 2005). US military officials had no answer to this massive and unjustified civil killing. Thereafter, Lt William was trailed for indiscriminate killing of unarmed civilians. Later on trail of William became the one the war’s leading stories. Television also started covering different immoral acts and violence of US forces operating in Vietnam (Schmitz 2005). Uncontrolled television coverage earned disrespect for US forces in nation as well as in rest of the world. Changing Living Rooms Print and electronic media were responsible of changing living rooms of American citizens into horror places (Hallin 2006). Use of different graphics and war pictures by media had further worsened the situation. People of America showed unwillingness towards military effort of US forces. Television started showing images of sufferings and effects on different weapon systems on human body (Hallin 2006). By 1972, television started leading all the sources of information. Sixty-four percent of American population had access to television by 1972. An uncensored war in Vietnam showed devastation of infrastructure and bloody fighting between the armies (Hallin 1986). In real, it was more the public and veterans of Vietnam War who turned themselves against the war. It was almost impossible for western correspondents to admit to north. Salisbury of New York times submitted a report on the bombing incident of December 1966. He exposed certain realities in his report about damages (Herman and Chomsky 1988). The bombing had caused severe collateral damage. Finally, Pentagon had to accept the collateral damage occurred during the bombing campaign. After 1967, news correspondents of Canada, India and France also started war coverage in order to telecast the war situation to rest of the world (Hallin 2006). Media and US Extraction from Vietnam Negative coverage of all stages of the battle led to depression in public and government. Politicians’ military officials also faced the blame for not handling the media in the befitting manner (Landers 2004). American people used television as the main source of information about the military campaign in Vietnam. Media campaign proved destruction and killing illegal and irrational through reasons and logics. Therefore, the prospect of war and impact on public was highly negative. After the Tet offensive of 1968, major shift in the public opinion was observed. Majority had withdrawn support for war after the Tet offensive. Richard Nixon was elected as the President of US in February 1969. Media was trying to support anti war movement before 1968, but war had lost its place in the public by that times (Schmitz 2005). American nation and media had already withdrawn their support to war after the Tet offensive. Now, demonstration and different street campaigns provided media with a fresh conflict. Keeping in view the lack of support by public and by media, government decided to announce withdrawal policy (Mueller 1973). Media changed its focus from war front to political activities for withdrawal of forces from Vietnam. Gradual decline was observed in media on projecting war stories. Finally, on 3 November 1969 the newly elected president of America announced government’s policy about Vietnam. He also announced the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam. He also stated to support Vietnamese in fighting the post war issues. President Nixon wanted an early withdrawal of forces from Vietnam (Landers 2004). He also laid down policy for media handling. He himself took measures to slowly reduce the media interference of his country in the Vietnam War. Peace talks were held during this period to facilitate American withdrawal from Vietnam. Thinning out of American forces had already started until only few advisors had left to monitor the situation (Mueller 1973). Communism was once again on the rise by spreading their influence from city to city. South Vietnamese military was again ready with its defensive strategy against any aggression. Nixon also tried to follow the footsteps by following Kennedy that media should not report the fragile issues to the nation (Wyatt 1993). Conclusion Media plays a greater part in running a campaign. Vietnam War, in which, American army was engaged fully was not supported by the media. There were a lot many wanting areas in terms of media handling which had not been taken care of during the course of Vietnam War. Absence of media policy and paucity of trained journalists further worsened the situation. Censorship duties, lacking knowledge of terrain, culture, social values and life style of the people of Vietnam by the media persons led to failure. Poor handling of Tet offensive and La mai incident adversely affected the image of American army in Vietnam. Pure victory of Tet offensive was changed into defeat by negative media campaign by US television channels. Therefore, it is imperative for government to exercise limited control over the media in order to use this important instrument in moulding the national/international opinion in one’s own favour. It is quite clear that the America media lost the Vietnam War for America because of its negative reporting and uncontrollable representation of American efforts in Vietnam during the war. There was no strict censorship policy that could restrict the media to deliver information in a constrained manner. References Braestrup, Peter 1977, Big Story: How the American Press and Television Reported and Interpreted the Crisis of Tet 1968 in Vietnam and Washington, Westview Press, Boulder CO. Hallin, Daniel C 1986, The Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam, Oxford University press, New York. Hallin, Daniel C 2006, The "Living-Room War": Media and Public Opinion in A Limited War, in Andrew Weist, ed., Rolling Thunder in A Gentle Land: The Vietnam War Revisited, Osprey Press, London. Herman, Edward and Chomsky, Noam 1988, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, Pantheon Books, New York. Landers, James 2004, The Weekly War: Newsmagazines and Vietnam, University of Missouri Press, Columbia MO. Mueller, John E 1973, War, Presidents, and Public Opinion, John Wiley & Sons, New York. Schmitz, David F 2005, The Tet Offensive: Politics, War, and Public Opinion, Rowman & Littlefield, New York. Wyatt, Clarence 1993, Paper Soldiers: The American Press and the Vietnam War, Norton, New York. Read More