Journalism does not have a lack of news during war times. The Vietnam war was not any different. The war attracted major American media attention only in 1965, when impressive amount of U.S. combat troops had been committed to the war. There were more than 600 journalists in Vietnam, who were reporting for the U.S main media channels such as radio, television, newspapers and magazines. On the other hand, there was a decent amount of journalists within the United States, who stayed to cover the beginning of anti-Vietnam protests.
Ever since the end of the Vietnam war, media’s coverage of the war is a subject of big controversy. Many people believe that due to the failure of reporting, which had tendency toward the negativity, U.S. soldiers did not had enough spirit to continue the war. The huge part of this criticism plays the coverage of anti-Vietnam protests among college students.
First anti-war marches began among peace activists and college students and then gained support around big masses in 1965. The first notable protest happened on May 2, 1964. More than 1,000 students were protesting against government’s Vietnam policy from Time Square to the United Nations building. At that time, no one took the first protests seriously. However, they were gaining power until protests reached their peak in 1970. After May 4, 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard opened fire, killing four and wounded nine unarmed students during mass student process against the bombing of Cambodia at Kent State University in Ohio. Kent State massacre got a significant national response: 4 million students started protests and demonstrations against the Vietnam war. Hundreds of high schools, colleges, and universities were closed.
On April 25, 1970, the song of the anti-Vietnam protests were was sung by 100 protesters, mainly students, who blockaded the Selective Services office in Cambridge City Hall. They sat peacefully in the hall and sang: “We will stop the government and the government won’t stop the war.” Later that day, two students from the Boston University were arrested, as Boston Globe reported. Meanwhile, more than 100 students in The University of Massachusetts Amherst were continuing its blockade of ROTC office. On May 7, 1970, The Boston Globe reported on the most severe anti-war marches in Massachusetts due to the Kent State massacre: “The hastily organized National Strike Center at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., reported strikes were under way at 252 colleges and universities. Half of the affected schools are in New England and New York State.”
The different opinion had soldiers, who were serving in Vietnam at that time. Pic Roger April, a paratrooper from Detroit, said to The Boston Globe reporter: “I think it’s just a simple case of uniformed or misinformed kids. Let them come over here we’ll set them straight. Also, I think a lot of the, just screwballs looking for attention.”
One of the most important reason why the protests happened was the truth that was hidden by the U.S. government. Since the most important decision of the war was made behind the closed doors, the non-complete information was released to the media. The reaction of the public became severe when the truth about the involvement of the U.S. was first released by The Washington Post and The New York Times in 1971. In The Post, historical political film that depicts the true story of attempts by journalists at The Washington Post to tell public about the hidden side of the war, the character of Daniel Ellsberg, former United States military analyst, says: “It's all in there. Ike, Kennedy, Johnson… they violated the Geneva Convention. They lied to Congress and they lied to the public. They knew we couldn't win and still sent boys to die.” After releasing Pentagon papers by media, protests continued with the bigger power, people felt angry and betrayed. That was the time for the media to decide which side to support.
After 1971, the most of the demonstrations were peaceful, however, some of them led to arrests. The Boston Globe reported that in 1972 more than 500 students at Boston University voted and adopted “hit and run” tactics in retaliation for the arrests of 60 students who occupied a dean’s office Friday night.
On November 17, 1984, Marc McCain, The Boston Globe reporter, quoted General William C. Westmoreland who said: “Sure, we were sensitive to press reaction. American soldiers were getting a fair shake from the media. The American civilian and military leaders in Saigon were all sensitive to the way the war was being reported. This was the first war covered by television.”
According to analysis of Oscar Patterson III, a Ph.D. professor at The University of Tennessee, which was conducted in 1982, the main attention of per-item basis on television received anti-war news reports. In average, nine percent of television coverage was devoted to the Vietnam-related anti-war protests and demonstrations. News magazines and newspapers spent 18.5 percent of their coverage to the same topic. The Vietnam topic was the dominant one around the U.S. public and news about the protests could not make a single American indifferent about the war. During 1968-1973, the media was accused, mainly by soldiers and government officials, of being objective, rather than subjective, which led to the failure in verifying facts and reports from the field. Herb Mock (1981) and David Halberstam (1982), Vietnam veterans, recalled several incidents when field reporters took incorrect information as a foundation of their reports to the newspapers. In their interviews, they suggested that reporters lost a battle between their duty and popular public opinion in the U.S. In their opinion, journalist tended not to go against the main anti-war opinion and own beliefs. Mock and Halberstam believed that was the main reason why media failed Vietnam. And many soldiers who served in Vietnam shared their opinion.
Despite army’s and government’s opinion, the general public had a very high perception of dramatic and terrifying events which were happening not only in Vietnam but also within their own country. Kent University massacre, riots and protests among college students, countless demonstrations led to the projection of those events as of media coverage of the Vietnam war, as of one of the greatest failures in American journalism, which to a far greater extent than was actually true.
Many years passed since the Vietnam war but the war between media and the U.S. army has not stopped since the end of the war. On August 31, 1989, the Boston Globe was able to get a quote from William M. Hammond, the Army historian who wrote the 413-page book: "So many of the young officers really are opposed to spending much time studying the Vietnam War because they think the press lost it, the Army didn't lose it. That's not good."
The Vietnam war because first war in American history which was heavily covered by media, especially television agencies and photojournalists. It brought images of the war into home of almost every U.S. citizen. Media did not fail Vietnam. American soldiers did not fail Vietnam. Students were protesting against government, against its decision which did not include public opinion. They were protesting because no one explained why this war was necessary for the country and what U.S. troops were doing on the other side of the world. Whom did they defend?
Opposition which government met in a face of media was the major proof of Popular dissatisfaction with the course of the war.
Thus,
Media did not fail Vietnam.