Vietnam War Collection: books plus

[Shek]

This discussion is not intended to ignore or discount the influence of
detractors in the media—especially in the global media age—who willfully
misreport with the intent of undermining war policy and sowing doubt in the
domestic populace. Intuitively one recognizes in such media reports a corrosive
effect on national morale and public support for a war that is difficult to
measure or counter.

Having spent 12 of 14 pages not discussing tthe influence of detractors in the media, Darley finally got to the point I want made.

What hostile media gets out in print hours or days after the event becomes the narrative that stands for decades until disinterested, objective historians analyze declassified information and publish what really happened for the benefit of the small audience who still cares after such a long time.

The problem is that your Vietnam reference is off the mark - research by a "disinterested, objective historian" employed by the Center of Military History has shown that the popular myth that the media was a major cause of our losing Vietnam doesn't hold much weight. Sure, there was negative press out there, but it wasn't leading opinion, just following it.

However, I don't dispute that information has a much greater impact in the current conflicts, but you are drawing from a false reference and seeing only what you want to see. You saw 12 pages as wasted space because it didn't make the point you want made, despite the fact that it provides evidence that your historical reference is questionable and/or invalid.

EDIT: One of the big points that Hammonds makes is that most people in Vietnam weren't influenced by the media anyways - they saw what they wanted to see for the most part. I think the same holds true today for the domestic audience by and large.