Historians throughout the last half decade have debated to what extent did the media play in the Vietnam War. Often referred to as the “living room” war, Vietnam was the first televised conflict. The national broadcast of the war influenced the public in a way that they had never experienced. For the first time the public could sit in their living room and see what the military was experiencing on the battle field. Vietnam was being broadcast every evening on the nightly news with Walter Cronkite. Because of this, the media’s influence on the public during the Vietnam war was based on misleading information, a lack of communication between the military and the media sources, and their persuading narratives being published on the evening
…show more content…
Hammond (2000) makes the argument that “Reporters instinctively supported the war effort during its early stages.” He then goes on to claim that “…print and television turned more critical” throughout the late 60s and 70s. McMahon argues that Hammond’s (1998) main overlying questions states, “What went wrong between the Military and the news media in Vietnam?” Overall, they have a similar point of view. Throughout McMahon’s review he typically agrees with Hammond, but he does point out some week points in his arguments. He claims that Hammond fails to provide broader questions and answering them regarding the media’s involvement. For example, Hammond fails to address what caused the media to start criticizing the government. McMahon (2000) makes the argument that most media outlets and news sources were privately owned by large corporations. He brings the point to life that maybe there was a political struggle between the media, government, and military, that the media ultimately won. In doing so, they influenced the people of the United States with how they perceived what was happening in the war, regardless of if the material being published was …show more content…
The following two book reviews reference one book, but both offer different perspectives on the Tet Offensive. The first reviewer, Wise, reviews Big Story: How the American Press and Television Reported and Interpreted the Crisis of Tet 1968 in Vietnam and Washington by Peter Braestrup. Braestrup (1977) argues that “The Tet Offensive was so misleading that an Allied victory was converted to a defeat.” Wise supports Braestrup’s arguments throughout her review of Big Story. Wise (1979) argues that “the press and TV portrayed what they believed they were seeing was as disaster.” The press felt the Tet Offensive was a disaster because the US military and the ARVN were caught off guard. Up to this point in the war, 1968, many reporters issued their reports in relatively safe locations. Once the Northern Vietnamese troops launched the Tet offensive it put the reporter’s lives in danger. No longer were they safe, which skewed their reports and brought in some bias against the war. The reports they were making made it sound as if the United States had completely been overthrown by the Northern Vietnamese Army. Wise (1979) points out that many of these reporters were sending back misleading information, that was spur of the moment instead of linking it to a more
Hammond (2000) makes the argument that “Reporters instinctively supported the war effort during its early stages.” He then goes on to claim that “…print and television turned more critical” throughout the late 60s and 70s. McMahon argues that Hammond’s (1998) main overlying questions states, “What went wrong between the Military and the news media in Vietnam?” Overall, they have a similar point of view. Throughout McMahon’s review he typically agrees with Hammond, but he does point out some week points in his arguments. He claims that Hammond fails to provide broader questions and answering them regarding the media’s involvement. For example, Hammond fails to address what caused the media to start criticizing the government. McMahon (2000) makes the argument that most media outlets and news sources were privately owned by large corporations. He brings the point to life that maybe there was a political struggle between the media, government, and military, that the media ultimately won. In doing so, they influenced the people of the United States with how they perceived what was happening in the war, regardless of if the material being published was …show more content…
The following two book reviews reference one book, but both offer different perspectives on the Tet Offensive. The first reviewer, Wise, reviews Big Story: How the American Press and Television Reported and Interpreted the Crisis of Tet 1968 in Vietnam and Washington by Peter Braestrup. Braestrup (1977) argues that “The Tet Offensive was so misleading that an Allied victory was converted to a defeat.” Wise supports Braestrup’s arguments throughout her review of Big Story. Wise (1979) argues that “the press and TV portrayed what they believed they were seeing was as disaster.” The press felt the Tet Offensive was a disaster because the US military and the ARVN were caught off guard. Up to this point in the war, 1968, many reporters issued their reports in relatively safe locations. Once the Northern Vietnamese troops launched the Tet offensive it put the reporter’s lives in danger. No longer were they safe, which skewed their reports and brought in some bias against the war. The reports they were making made it sound as if the United States had completely been overthrown by the Northern Vietnamese Army. Wise (1979) points out that many of these reporters were sending back misleading information, that was spur of the moment instead of linking it to a more