Media vs. Military: The Effects of the Embed Program on Public Interests

This essay will discuss to what degree the media can be blamed for the United States’ loss in the Vietnam conflict ending 1975. It will be based predominantly on key written resources on the subject, but it will also contain - by means of an interview - certain first-hand observations from a Vietnam War veteran.

During the Vietnam War, Americans were greatly influenced by the extensive media coverage of the war. Before the 1960’s and the intensification of the war, public news coverage of military action was constrained heavily by the government and was directed by Government policy. The Vietnam War uniquely altered the perception of war in the eyes of American citizens by bringing the war into their homes. The Vietnam War was the first U.S uncensored war resulting in the release of graphic images and unaltered accounts of horrific events that helped to change public opinion of the war like nothing it had ever been. This depiction by the media led to a separation between the United States government and the press; much of what was reported flouted

This underscores why politicians have long perceived mass media as a veritable channel of disseminating an ideology so that the society can mirror itself against what the media feeds it and thus be manipulated. This further begs the question of whether the media is a contributor or otherwise to societal problems in the face of political ideological dissemination.

The Vietnam War had no restrictions on what the media could and couldn’t cover, making a very public war. Journalists from big companies and small towns went to Vietnam to cover what was happening. Some went for the excitement and adventure. Others wanted to be on page one and be part of the exclusive combat correspondent club. These journalists were taking any information they could get and were sending it back to for American people to view. These journalists could even go into North Vietnam, if they had the courage too. Some journalists, based of what they saw, believed that the war was unwinnable. The military ended up blaming the media for the loss because the turned the American people against the troops in Vietnam through the information

During this time period, the use of television boomed, and for the first time was depended on and trusted significantly more than newspapers. “[Even though] the coverage of the war was significant, a relatively small portion of the coverage was actually combat footage (Anderson). Although producers captured thousands of hours worth of combat footage, they could not push out all of the coverage they captured, “The purpose being not to avoid showing the ugly side of war, but rather to avoid offending families of war victims" (Hallin). The media did not intentionally try to turn america against the war, to the contrary the media saw the war necessary to national security. However, as the war continued on in vietnam and watched daily in living rooms across the country, both the american soldiers and the public became disillusioned as they did not see an end to the war

Robert Elegant’s quote explains the significant role the media played in the Vietnam War. This essay will argue that the media’s effect was one dominant aspect of why the United States lost the war in Vietnam. Looking in detail at the heavily televised ‘Tet Offensive’, this essay will suggest that this series of battles was the beginning of the decisive part the media played in influencing public opinion. It is worth nothing that there are several factors involved in why the United States lost the Vietnam War, but this essay will focus on just one. Overall, it

In conclusion, the media drastically influenced American’s view of the war. Many of them only saw the brutal and awful actions of the American soldiers and North Vietnamese troops without knowing what they were truly going through. The Vietnamese were able to use the American press to their advantage to overthrow Diem by staging marches and other events while making sure the media was present. The amount of volunteers was limited due to the drastic images of the battles and conditions in Vietnam that were being witnessed by the entire American populace. The Vietnam War was truly the first televised

These are discreet conferences between a tiny group of journalists and military officials (Toblin). These military officials have been documented using intimidation tactics and intensive “security-review” procedures to maintain uniformity and submission amongst the journalists (Toblin). In addition to pool sessions, the journalists who traveled abroad to film the war were also subject to harsh treatment (How PR). The Deputy Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, Pete Williams, often spoke of the alleged importance of the “good cop/bad cop” strategy with the United States and Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War (How PR). Saudi Arabia, despite working with the United States during the Gulf War, frequently denied visas to the United States press and detained them (How PR). This strategy helped keep journalists complacent and grateful to Williams and the United States government for helping them in tough situations abroad. By securing the complacency of journalists as individuals, this obviously had a lasting impact on the mainstream media as an institution. The "cascading activation" theory of media has been used by several experts to show how issues are passed down from the White House to elites, news organizations, and the public (Entman). This cascading activation characterizes the media coverage of the Gulf War (Entman). This dangerous pattern often excludes important

The coincidence of the growth of television with the first military defeat for America was used by the government to explain why the war was lost: it wasn’t because of government policy or by underestimating the enemy but because television journalism and lack of censorship that undermined the whole operation “by ‘graphic and unremitting distortion’ of the facts, pessimism, and unvarnished depiction of both Americas youthful casualties and American ‘atrocities’ inflicted on the Vietnamese.” The amount of televisions in America was on the increase; ‘In 1950, only 9 percent of homes owned a television. By 1966, this figure rose to 93 percent.’ This alone shows the sheer coverage that the news had and the potential influence that it could impose upon the minds of the people. Not only did more people have television sets in their homes but more and more people were relying on television over any other medium to obtain their news. The survey conducted by the Roper organisation for the Television Information Office in 1972 shows us that 64% of people got most of their news from television, an 8% increase from the survey conducted in 1964. Another factor in the power of television was not just the fact that it reached a wide audience, it was also the fact that people were more likely to believe what the television news said over reports in the newspaper or radio, especially if the reports were conflicting in nature. This was due to two factors; the personality who

The media influences how people experience social life. Media such as newspaper, television and film, are important sources of information, education and entertainment. It can be used to learn more about the world and the people in it. In this regard it can be said that the media represent, interpret and endorse aspects of social experience (O’Shaughnessy and Stadler, 2005). The media are also implicated in social regulation, or in other terms, the government of society. The media are implicated in government and politics in an obvious way because modern systems of democracy are conducted through the media. But the media have a bigger role to play in government by structuring how society is controlled and maintained.

Until the 1980s, the control of the media was in the hands of the national government. From then, the control shifted to private outlets and by the 1990’s, there were more than fifty multinational companies who controlled it (“Mass Media”). Today, only about six major companies control the larger fraction of media in America (Williams, Par. 1). Norman Solomon wrote in the New Political Science Journal that most reporters and editors work for just a few huge companies. These journalists and editors are on the payroll for “mega-media institutions”, of which, only about six exist (Solomon 297). How much will the public learn if these companies generally control the output of information?

In times of War, the media plays a crucial role both in reporting, monitoring and giving updates. During the Vietnam War of 1955-1975, the American press played crucial roles of reporting until it ended up shifting its tone under the influence of occurrence of some events like the Tet Offensive, the My Lai Massacre, the bombing of Cambodia and leaking of Pentagon papers resulting into lack of trust in the press (Knightly 1975). From the beginning of the war up to present times there have been undying debates over the role of media in the war. The have been various criticisms over the American News Media’s actions and influences on the outcome of the war. The debate is embedded on the particular political assumptions perceived across the

“The media are a primary source of those pictures in our heads about the larger world of public affairs, a world that for most citizens is ‘out of reach, out sight, out of mind’ and what we know about the world is largely based on what the media decide to tell us” (McCombs).

Over the past century or two it has become quite evident that elite certainly hold all the cards when it comes to what the public should know through the media which initially was supposed to be autonomous of the government and the socially elite. This essay will mainly focus on the findings of Noam Chomsky and his postulations, the works of Harold Innis and his influence on the first application of the political economy approach within the media. And I will touch base on theories by Boyd Barrett then neatly wrap it up with a bow of how influence impacts public opinion in general.

Noam Chomsky (1997) begins his critique of the role of media in politics with presenting his readers with the question: “What kind of society do we want to live in, and in particular in what sense of democracy do we want this to be a democratic society?” (9) He then poses two conceptions of democracy: one where the public has the means to participate in the management of their own affairs and the means of information are open and free; or the second conception where the public must be barred from managing their affairs and the means of information is kept narrow and controlled (Chomsky, 1997, 9). Admittedly, this is a strange way to define democracy; however, Chomsky (1997) urges us to understand that the latter is the prevailing conception that his been in that way in theory for a long while (10). Throughout the rest of Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda Chomsky examines American propaganda efforts and discusses how both major political parties use the falsification of history, suppression of information, and promotion of meaningless discourse to stifle questions about U.S. policy.