Vietnam War Collection: books plus

[Shek]

Cannoneer,

I recommend that you find William Hammond's "The Press in Vietnam as Agent of Defeat: A Critical Examination." It provides a look at the argument that the media was responsible for a major portion of our defeat in Vietnam and decouples causation.

A more recent look at war and the media can be found in a not too old article in Parameters, http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/P...mer/darley.pdf. I've excerpted a portion of the article that addresses a small portion of Hammond's argument.

William Hammond, regarded by many as the premier authority on military and media relations during the VietnamWar, also concluded that there was little evidence to support a causal relationship between the tone of editorial reporting and the general public opinion. However, he does suggest that there was evidence to support a causal relationship between the factual content of information communicated through the media and shifts in public opinion, often in ways critics of the media might not expect. For example, he notes the following with regard to public opinion polls taken during and immediately following the Tet Offensive in January 1968, widely and wrongly asserted by many to have been a decisive turning point marking the final irrevocable downturn in public support for continuation of the war:

Whatever the pessimism of the press, however, the majority of Americans went their own way. Queried by the Gallup Poll on whether they considered the war a mistake, 45 percent responded “yes,” the same percentage as in December 1965; 43 percent said “no,” a drop of 3 points; and 12 percent had no opinion. Even more telling, the number of those who considered themselves “hawks” on the war rose 4 percentage points between December and February, while those who saw themselves as “doves” fell by the same percentage. The number of those expressing confidence in the government’s military policies in South Vietnam rose from 61 to 74 percent. Queried by Louis Harris on whether a bombing halt would hasten the chances for peace, 71 percent of respondents favored continuing the bombing, a rise of 8 points over the previous October, while the number of those favoring a halt fell from 26 to 18 percent.3

Thus, if Hammond’s interpretation of polling is a correct analysis of US domestic public opinion through the first part of 1968, the factual content
of media reports, in most cases accompanied by editorial content opposing
the war, evoked in a significant segment of the US public a desire for
more—not less—aggressive and decisive action to finish the war on terms favorable to the United States. Hammond goes on to note the following:

If Americans were unwilling to repudiate the war, they nonetheless appearedincreasingly dissatisfied with their President. Willing to back any decision he made, they saw little forward motion on his part. . . . The air of indecision that hung about his policies as a result took a toll on his standing in the polls, where disapproval of his handling of the war rose from 47 to 63 percent by the end of February. . . . If the gloomy reporting of the press had little effect on American public opinion, it nonetheless reinforced doubts already circulating within the Johnson Administration.

[Norfolk]

Hammond: If Americans were unwilling to repudiate the war, they nonetheless appearedincreasingly dissatisfied with their President. Willing to back any decision he made, they saw little forward motion on his part. . . . The air of indecision that hung about his policies as a result took a toll on his standing in the polls, where disapproval of his handling of the war rose from 47 to 63 percent by the end of February. . . . If the gloomy reporting of the press had little effect on American public opinion, it nonetheless reinforced doubts already circulating within the Johnson Administration.

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".

[Ken White]

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".

however, I think the great unwashed turned around on Viet Nam due to perceived lack of progress -- that and Nixon's campaign promise to get out.

The bad thing is that the media myth (and IMO, it is a myth) led them to believe they have far more influence than they really do. They honestly think the sway the public when all they actually do is sway the more gullible politicians and those political junkies among the public that believe the same things the media does.

That is highly likely to have little or no connection with reality.

[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 ...

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Cannoneer,
A more recent look at war and the media can be found in a not too old article in Parameters, http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/P...mer/darley.pdf. I've excerpted a portion of the article that addresses a small portion of Hammond's argument.

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.

[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.

[Gian P Gentile]

[INDENT][I]....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.

Agree with the responses to your post that Shek, Norfolk, Ken White, et al have made about the myth of the media loosing the Vietnam War. I think the Parmaters article already mentioned provides a pretty compelling case by a professional and relatively unbiased historian that the Media was not to blame.

Moreover with regards to your point about today and the influence the media has on establishing the narrative i think you are correct in this statement. The media, especially print media when it comes to the later writing of history, are one of the first ones to "document" events which become the stuff of history and help build an early narrative of an issue.

However, in the case of Iraq today, and this goes contrary to what the legions of neo-cons write, I think the print media has done a pretty good job at reporting the war in Iraq. Especially over the past few months major papers like the NY Times, WaPost, and others have really tried not to overly report the violence in place of good things happening there.

What has been most interesting to me about reporting on the Iraq War is how pundits--like those happy travelers from AEI--have become almost like actual newspaper reporters. Other pundits like Trudy Rubin from the Philly Enquirer have also had their opeds started to be treated like traditional newspaper reporting. And in this regard the cumulative effect of traditional and pundit reporting has been a largely positive reporting of the war. In fact one can make the argument that the media has been glossing over some important factors that tend to look less positively on the lowered violence in Iraq and what brought it about.

So if you are trying to build an early case for a blame-the-media argument for Iraq I do not think that you have history or contemporary reporting by the media on your side.

gian