By – Shivali Yadav

Abstract

The Vietnam War symbolises a critical point in press history, where boots on the ground with a camera crew at their backs exposed the reality of what was happening in the war. Dubbed ‘the first television war’, the evolution of how the coverage shifted from relying on official sources to undermining them reminds us of the importance of the fourth pillar of democracy during conflicts. The positive and negative aspects of such extensive press coverage is analysed to understand their implications.

Introduction

The Vietnam War, which lasted from 1955-75, embodies a significant turning point in history: not just for the indelible mark it has left on American foreign policy, but also for the way it reimagined the nexus between media and war. Being the first war that was directly screened across millions of living rooms, it has often been dubbed the ‘first television war.’ The press has been simultaneously lauded and criticised for its role in shaping public opinion and influencing policy decisions. The evolution of the press coverage in Vietnam, along with an analysis of the reasons for such divided opinion provides greater insight into how press coverage has positive contributions while also highlighting its shortcomings. 

Evolution of Press Coverage 

During World War II, press and camera crews were confined to non-combat areas from where they could display the ‘happier’ side of the conflict. Essentially, bad news took a backseat, and it was delivered in a way that boosted the morale of the citizens. Moreover, government censorship ensured that if the press wanted to access any information, they would need military clearance – this allowed them to control what information got out. 

The initial stages of the Vietnam War reflected this legacy. In the early 1960s, American reporting was characterized by compliance with official sources. Even as late as 1964, there were fewer than two dozen correspondents on the ground, and so most of the coverage relied on briefings from the US Military Assistance Command, Vietnam. The problem lay in the fact that most of their updates, nicknamed ‘five o’clock follies’, were sanitised and censored accounts of the operations. Another feature that continued from the WW2 era was the importance of continuing a narrative, so for a period, news agencies portrayed the conflict as a ‘contained police action.’

However, as the number of troops in Vietnam surged, reaching well over 125,000 by 1965, so too did the number of journalists. By 1968, almost 600 journalists were present in Vietnam, but the vast majority of them were centred in the capital city of Saigon rather than in conflict zones. Advances in portable video equipment as well as film development allowed film to be flown from Vietnam to Tokyo and then transmitted by satellite to US screens. These stories were rarely filmed from the midst of the conflict, though. This is primarily because a crew consisted of a reporter, a cameraman and a soundman, and the gear they carried was difficult to operate from prone positions. Hence, the action was shown either from afar or its aftermath. 

It was the Tet Offensive of 1968 that caused a tumultuous wave of change in press coverage. The public saw the attack as a defeat for America, and news reports turned largely unfavourable towards the war. Journalists were delivering day-to-day reports which allowed Americans a realistic glimpse into the window of war: the situation as they saw it was bleak. This shift in reporting is exemplified by Walter Cronkite’s change in heart, the CBS news anchor who was dubbed ‘the most trusted man in America.’ Initially, he broadcasted his support for the war on the ground that communism’s advance must be stopped. However, when he personally went to Vietnam after the Tet Offensive, the support dissolved into scepticism and disillusionment that was reflected in his coverage. Famously, he ended his newscast by stating that “To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory conclusion.” This statement propelled the anti-war movement further and led to President Lyndon commenting that if he had lost Cronkite, he had lost Middle America. Few statements better illustrate the prominent role of the press in forming public opinion. 

Prior to Tet, supporters of war outnumbered critics by a ratio of 26.3% to 4.5%; post-Tet, the coverage was almost equal between both groups. Adverse change in public opinion was clearly highlighted, and critics overtook the positive commentary on the war. 

Journalism as Democratic Accountability 

The bravery of willing journalists like Peter Arnett, David Halberstam and Morley Safer brought to light horrifying incidents like the Cam Ne village burning in 1965. American soldiers were captured on camera setting fire to Vietnamese huts using lighters, and it was only with the media’s efforts that the truth of this situation was uncovered, challenging contradictory ‘official’ accounts. It led the Pentagon to rethink its policies on the ground. 

Moreover, the press truly upheld its title as the fourth pillar of democracy by ensuring that the independence of its correspondents served as a check on executive authority. The relative integrity of the press was appreciated by critics of the war, and it was noted that a significant segment refused to cover up for official policy blunders. Moreover, the emphasis on visual storytelling allowed the conflict and its cost to be humanised in the minds of Americans, giving them a visceral sense of what was unfolding halfway across the world. This greatly promoted the anti-war movement.

Critiques of the Press

Journalists have been accused of allowing their ‘moralistic attitudes and political prejudices’ to skew the narratives that their broadcasts displayed during the Vietnam War. The implication of this statement is that they deliberately distorted stories to favour the enemies by prioritising dramatic imagery over comprehensive analysis which unintentionally reduced complex military and political developments to emotional soundbites. 

Moreover, early public understanding was heavily influenced by the press’ regurgitation of government releases without independent verification. This undercut objective journalism and hindered critical scrutiny. Graphic content was often self-censored by television networks to retain viewers, which seemed to minimise the war’s brutality. 

Finally, unsurprisingly, there were journalists who breached the ethical code of conduct. A particularly severe moral lapse was when a cameraman instructed a soldier to cut off a deceased Vietnamese’s ear, which was aired without any verification. These instances undermined journalistic credibility. 

Conclusion

The evolution of the press during the Vietnam War transformed war reporting from government-controlled messaging to an independent force to be reckoned with. On the one hand, it is undeniable that journalists fulfilled their mandate by revealing truths that might have otherwise been swept under the carpet and forcing a reappraisal of government strategy. It showed how democratic societies require a free press to protect public interest.

Conversely, the thirst for dramatic footage led to over-sensationalisation and coverage that sacrificed depth for immediacy. Ethical breaches eroded trust not just in journalists situated in Vietnam, but the profession itself. It would be a reach to say that negative reporting led to the ‘loss’ of the war – geopolitical priorities and casualty lists played a significant role in that regard – but it surely sustained media scrutiny that limited further escalation. 

The Vietnam War serves as a powerful testimony to the role of media in wars, and this is a lesson that echoes in conflicts even today. From acting as spokespersons of official government narratives to peeling back the veil on distorted facts, journalists have a complex yet essential legacy they must continue to uphold.

About the Author

Shivali Yadav is a second-year BBA LLB (Hons.) student at Jindal Global Law School. Her areas of interest revolve around international relations, geopolitics, and the intersection of various fields with gender and media.

Image Source – https://www.pexels.com/photo/paper-on-a-vintage-typewriter-12220441/