Essay: Vietnam War media portrait

Media has always been a fluid thing with a mix of true and false facts. When concerning the Vietnam War this is no different. The accuracy of information being relayed to the public by the media shifted from the beginning of the war to the end. This was often due to the fact that government reports at the time were often scud and inaccurate. Media played a huge role in creating or destroying public support for war time efforts. This leaves the question of how accurate was the media’s portrait of the Vietnam War and did public support play a part in the failed attempt by America to stop the spread of communism?
In order to truly understand the Vietnam War one must understand the timeline and  purpose for America’s involvement in the country. After coming out of World War II victories and as a world power the American government began to portray itself as a vehicle for morality. The most dangerous threat to the United States was communism at home and abroad. After just emerging from the Cold War and the Red Scare American leaders feared the dictatorial communist ways of Russia would spread to other areas of the continent and the world. With the wake of World War II still looming over the nation they felt appeasement of dictatorial leaders was no longer an option. Any Communist aggression would need to be handled as quickly as possible in the most affective way. This is how American became involved with the communist spread in Asia.
The War in Vietnam began with French aid in Indochina. From there it quickly spread to defending Asia against communist aggression. With China lost and Korea at a standstill Vietnam stood as the last place for freedom to prevail. However, the war was a costly intervention for America. With the total price of the war coming to 140 billion America had invested a tremendous amount on combating communism. This was not the only price the country payed. Over fifty-eight thousand Americans lost their lives to the war time efforts. With all of these cost it is not surprising that support for the war varied throughout its span.
Depending on what stance one supports the role of the media during this time can change. To some the media was a critic of official political reports, often spotting inaccuracies within the reports and calling attention to them. Many people agree that the media played the confrontational roll well. Anti-war advocates see the press as being a lead cause in the eventual departure of the United States military from the area. This view gives the media much more credibility in its roll. Pro-war advocates see the situation very differently. They often blame the press for ultimately causing the first wartime failure in United States history.
These effects, while varying, were felt across the nation. This war was the first “television war”. Effects of the war were wide spread and strong. Graphic images could be found on every news station. War was once and unimaginable thing, something that was far and for the most part ambivalent to the general public. However, this war was different. Family’s would turn on the news at night to see first hand images of suffering. The lives of soldiers and Vietnam citizens were no longer just stories. They were live tangible events taken place within the common home. This made the war real in the eyes of citizens who has once attempted to push such events out of their mind.
During the initial start of the war the United States media didn’t have much interest in the happening of Vietnam, or Asia for that matter. Their interest was placed in Europe as the Cold War was winding down at this time. A few reporters did enter the country during these first few months including Robert Shapley and Harold Isaacs, reporters from Newsweek. These reporters followed the changing situation of South Vietnam. While in the country they noted signs of a rising communist insurgency within the nation. Many of these original reporters were only present for short amounts of time making it challenging to gain an ongoing narrative on the ever changing situation the country was facing. At this time censorship was not well informed within the area. The French attempted to control what was being said, but news reporters simply had to go to a neighboring country to release the story’s they wanted to precent. During the early days of American press involvement story’s reflected the country’s distaste for communism and  paranoia from the Cold War.
The first report released by the New York Times showcased the new president of freshly independent country, Ngo Dinh Diem, in 1955. The article warned its readers of possible communist aggression that was threatening Vietnam. It pained Ngo Dinh Diem as a valiant leader who was fighting communist aggression while ignoring his despotic tendencies. Around the year 1960 American interest peaked with the tragic death of four hundred civilians during an attempted coup. With this event many reporters took up long term residency within the country to cover American involvement. The government would release reports on United States activity’s and movements within the country. The reporters would then send this information back to their homes to explain Americas role.
This was a good system for the country to follow in the early days of the war. John F. Kennedy, the president at the time, was not attempting to get overly involved in the situation in Vietnam. His plan was to have the American military present to offer support and advise when needed. America as a nation was still dealing with its own problems in Europe and didn’t need to shoulder the responsibility of another nation. Due to the nature of the military’s involvement, the United States would follow the governing regimes guidance concerning most matters.
Up until the point the press and the government had a simple relationship in Vietnam involving little to no animosity. This all change when military tactics began to not happen in favor of Diem’s regime. When the United States press got wind of a failed military operation they attempted to get the reports of the event from a United States spokesmen. However, there was nothing for him to report. Diem had insisted that the failure be covered up. When the press further pushed for answers they were met with little to no information. United States officials reported that the Vietnamese government had ordered them to not discuss the subject. This lead to the release of articles claiming that the American military was being controlled by the Vietnamese government.
Following this issue the American Government took a stance in which they would withhold information in order to try to keep the media under control. Those in charge were under the assumption that negative press would cause American citizens to loose faith in the war on communism. The overall population was only loosely committed to the cause when American first became involved. Military officials saw the negative media was a risk fearing that popular opinion for the war would change. Due to this fear they believe that the less information released on negative outcomes the better off the country would stand.
In February of 1962 a directive was passed in order to limit this negative press. The directive gave guidelines to how the American press would operate within Vietnam. They were to focus on the cations of the American military and not of those involving the South Vietnamese government. It was also explained that it would not be to American advantage to have story’s released showing that Americans were leading combat missions within the country. It was believe that unfavorable criticism of Diems regime made it difficult to work cooperatively with him. Lastly, reporters were to avoid stories that involved military operations with negative outcomes. Officials feared that if any of a number of things were leaked that the communist government would use it for propaganda.
This restrictions did not stop the American media from reporting. In July 1962 one of the harshest criticism yet was published in the New York Times. The article accused the government of fluffing their statistics in order to make battle outcomes seem more favorable. The reporter went on to calm that while American assistance had helped strengthen the South Vietnamese forces the Viet Cong had learned to combat the new strategies. Similar reports followed from those who had once been impressed with the progress made by the South Vietnamese. Another New York Times reporter went on to state that the war was being fought by an uncommitted country in which the presently was unsupportive of war time efforts.
The United States was unable to put down reports such as these. The information and statistics they were receiving came straight from the South Vietnamese who new the United States government wanted high body counts and a large, supportive, Vietnamese general population. High ranking officials within the Vietnamese government continued to assure the United States government that they were making progress. However, lower ranking officials disagreed. They saw the situation in Vietnam deteriorating and were requesting meetings with their superiors. As they continued to be ignored these individuals turned to the media to share their views. This lead to confusion and mistrust in the editorial systems of reporting. The government was releasing completely different information than that being received from first hand reporters. This lead to a since of mistrust amongst editors, who were more inclined to have faith in government reports, and their staff. However, some reports still managed to make it to print.
Diem, the president of South Vietnam, was extremely displeased with the United States lack on control over their press.  Ultimately he decided to take the problem into his own hands by ordering the deportation of two American reporters. These two reporters were long time critics of Diem and his government. The United States Government attempted to reason with Diem by informing him that the two men worked for papers that could be extremely valuable for spreading positive press.  After some consideration the president agreed to relent and allow the men to stay. However, he did cut off access to Sully a freelance reporter. He would no longer be allowed one on one interview with officials. Bigart was the other reporter under threat. He was a skilled, experienced field reporter who wrote for Newsweek.
Bigart had been a long time critic of the Vietnamese Government. He often blamed Diem’s unorganized leadership and lack of public support for the failure of his war time campaign. In July Bigart was about to finish his tour of duty. He drafted one last article before he was meant to depart. He argued that if Diem didn’t find a way to win over the loyalty of his people that the United States would have to replace him in order to make any kind of positive progress in the country.
Shortly after his article was released Sully followed suite with a separate article. He attacked the president claiming that American troops could indeed do all the flighting for the Vietnamese military but they could never teach them a since of loyalty and pride of country. After the release of the article Sully was put under surveillance by the South Vietnamese Government. Soon after he was once again required to be departed, and this time he would actually leave the country. Many other reporter began to worry that the same thing could happen to them. A few signed petitions to the president protesting the removal of American reporters. Others turned on Sully accusing him of being a communist or French spy. Diem took one final attempt at censoring the American press by attempting to ban the Newsweek. This ultimately fail though because it made the country appear to weak to handle criticism. American officials believe that if Diem was to remove all Newsweek reports that the American people would become suspicious of their own government and would be more likely to question the failures of the South Vietnamese military.