Vietnam War Collection: books plus

[Shek]

I think therein lies something like the truth about the effect that the media had upon the political conduct of the Vietnam War. The political leadership is, needless to say, somewhat isolated from the views of most ordinary people; and into this gap steps the media. The media are able to create perceptions, perhaps not entirely accurate ones, of how things are in reality, and these perceptions have their effects upon the thinking of political leaders and their active supporters. The potential for the media to manipulate the communication divide between ordinary people and their political leaders afforded by said divide, in turn allows the media to exert an undue influence upon political leaders and decision-makers, somewhat isolated as they are from "reality".

Norfolk,

Hammond's piece is up on JSTOR if you have access to it. In his piece, he specifically refers to this re:Vietnam, and cites Daniel Hallin's The Uncensored War, which states that post-Tet, coverage between for and against the war nearly balanced, with for the war maintaining a slim lead (prior to Tet, pro coverage dominated over coverage against the war 6:1). Of the coverage against the war, half of it came from government officials, while only 16% came from reporters or commentators themselves. Between this and some other evidence that he explores, his conclusion was not that the press was leading, but that it was following.

[Norfolk]

Thanks Shek!

[Norfolk]

Norfolk,

Hammond's piece is up on JSTOR if you have access to it. In his piece, he specifically refers to this re:Vietnam, and cites Daniel Hallin's The Uncensored War, which states that post-Tet, coverage between for and against the war nearly balanced, with for the war maintaining a slim lead (prior to Tet, pro coverage dominated over coverage against the war 6:1). Of the coverage against the war, half of it came from government officials, while only 16% came from reporters or commentators themselves. Between this and some other evidence that he explores, his conclusion was not that the press was leading, but that it was following.

Shek,

I've just finished reading the Hammond piece from JSTOR, and I must say that I am rather surprised, but convincingly so, by what he had to report. I must admit quite a measure of ignorance on my part hitherto, but Hammond stripped away many layers of prejudice and obfuscation to lay bare how things really worked. Most interesting (and only now do I even clue into it) was that the shift in how the media reported upon the war resulted more from the changing views of the government officials that served as the media's sources than from any other factor. When the government officials began to have doubts or to change their mind about policy or strategy, that not surprisingly affected the reporters they were talking to. Well, talk about finally seeing something that's been staring you straight in the face. Superb piece.

[Ken White]

(and wasn't) nearly as important as they think they are -- though they do influence political junkies and politicians to a slight extent.

It also illustrates that the faint of heart or the opposed in an Administration can have a moderately significant adverse impact...

Also note that the articles confirm my contention that the American public is not overly concerned with casualties; they (and apparently the Brits) want success, dilly dallying is rejected ...