Introduction
In the early 1960s, television media has confidently assumed the most important role in informing the general audience about global events. Millions of Americans relied on television for information about the Vietnam War. At that time, television was the main source of news and, consequently, it has the most powerful influence on public opinion. Taking into account that people tend to trust news broadcasting by national television networks, it allowed the interested parties to shape the way in which Americans perceived the war. With the increasing dependence of Americans on television for images of the Vietnam War, the news became more and more biased. Based on the broadcast news, the public formed an opinion about the war. Unfortunately, the coverage of the Vietnam War was not objective. It is important to explore the coverage of the Vietnam War on television because at that time television was highly trusted by the people. Moreover, the television coverage of the Vietnam War reveals the first attempts of interested parties to modify the content of the news in order to shape public opinion and gain the support of Americans.
Taking into account that at the outbreak of the Vietnam War television was a new medium, thousands of Americans relied on broadcasted news as the main source of information about the global events. As the result, the news about the Vietnam War has greatly shaped the opinions of the American nation regarding the pre-war situation (the incentive to start the war), the course of the war (what happened in Vietnam), and after-war (the attitude toward the Vietnam War veterans). A closer look at the Vietnam War coverage by television reveals that the American government abused its power to influence the content of the news delivered to the general audience.
While the aims are not clear and it is not likely that the manipulation with a public opinion will ever be recognized, the presence of influence cannot be denied. Special attention is paid to the complicity of soldiers and the government. The soldiers went to Vietnam with the hope to protect their motherland and bring democracy to Vietnam; however, their expectations were not met as they realized that Vietnam did not represent any threat to the security of the United States. Thus, two narratives of the Vietnam War were created: the one told by the news media under the close monitoring of the American government and the other told by the Vietnam War veterans. At the dawn of television media emergence, the coverage of the Vietnam War was subjective as the opinion of the public was manipulated by the government to get the desired reaction from the Americans to support the war.
Theoretical Background
To assess the impact media has on public opinion, it is vital to look at the theory relevant to the discussion. If to assume that news images of war affect public support, the retrospective studies of the U.S. use of military force (invasions, wars, etc.) should support the casualty intolerance hypothesis (Pfau et al, p. 303). At the same time, the research reveals that it is not a casualty that shapes the public response to the images of war, but rather the marginal casualty or representation of the image in the specific context. Thus, the casualty intolerance hypothesis suggests that in order to shape the public opinion on the specific issue, the news should be presented in a specific context.
The investigation on the impact of network television news reports of combat operations in Iraq on viewers revealed that viewers have a specific emotional response to the images of war, especially footage (Pfau et al, p. 304). Politicians argue that news images of combat may sway public opinion, there is rather scarce evidence to support the assumption regarding the influence of news on the television audience. From one side, television news provide the audience with a sense of presence thus fostering emotional concern. Therefore, television communicates more emotion than other sources of news. On the other side, television news is processed differently than delivered through other sources of information.
In other words, the same content is perceived differently if it is read, seen, or heard. Consequently, the seen and heard news have the most powerful influence because “visual content is processed quickly and heuristically, sometimes bypassing conscious thought” (Pfau et al, p. 305). Television news images evoke a strong emotional reaction in the audience, which shapes the way people respond to the stories and events. Pfau et al (p. 305) suggest that “features of television messages guide our attention to certain parts of the message allowing us to comprehend a complex message without fully processing the myriad of detail contained within it”. Therefore, television news is the most powerful in terms of its influence on the audience. Taking into account that the content is important as well, it creates an opportunity for interested parties to modify the content for their own purposes and aims.
Vietnam War and Media
Hallin suggests that the role of the media in modern American politics goes beyond Vietnam because the war emerged along with other political events throughout the world (p. 4). In particular, media played a central role in the development of the civil rights movements, the coverage of the urban conflicts in the 1960s, the rise of the political movements, and Watergate. All of these events symbolized the political crisis in the United States of America. As the result, public confidence in government declined and there was an urgent need to restore public trust. Media in general and television, in particular, provided the unique and yet effective avenue for gaining the attention and trust of the American nation.
The Vietnam War was the first international conflict to be reported on television. Taking into account that television was a new medium and has not been tested yet, it created both threats and opportunities for the American newsmakers, politicians as well as audiences. However, journalists reject the idea that media shaped the opinion of the public opinion: “What television did in the sixties… was to show the American people to the American people…. It did show the people places and things they had not seen before” (p. 5). While today journalism is a more or less politically independent domain, forty years ago it was not such. Even though journalists want to see themselves as neural professionals standing above politics, they are not able to escape the pressure of high-standing politicians.
Ron Steinman, the author of the book Television’s First War: A Saigon Journal, argues that news from Vietnam was objective. Steinman, the Vietnam War broadcast journalist, suggests that the news he prepared for the American audience was objective, reliable, and covered only real events without any modifications or restrictions imposed. At the same time, Steinman admits that war journalists were not aware of the impact of their reports on the audience. Such a statement reveals a poor understanding of the media’s role in the social and political life of the country. If war journalists did not understand (or preferred not to understand) the power of the news, who did?
Apparently, Steinman tried to elevate the professionalism of the war journalists. In such a case, the reasons why the television coverage of the Vietnam War resulted in such a debate are not clear. While protecting the objectivity of news, Steinman commented that journalists have never believed the government. Therefore, the audience should not trust the government itself as there should have been specific reasons why war journalists admitted their lack of trust in the American government. At the same time, Steinman defends the American government trying to show that journalists are not responsible for the bias in television coverage because they have done their job properly and it was not easy. Thus, there is an evident contradiction: from one side, the war journalist argues that news covering the Vietnam War was objective and the government did not control the content; from the other side, Steinman admits that bias was present in news and shares his distrust to the American government.
Similar comments were made by Morley Safer (the journalist), David Greenway (Times foreign correspondent), Christiane Amanpour (reporter from war zones, CNN), and Kenneth Bacon (Wall Street Journal editor).
Terence Smith conducted an interview with these four media representatives with the hope to get their opinion on the issue of television’s impact on the audiences. The interview was focused on the influence journalists have on Americans. Safer, for example, notes that he did not realize the impact his reports could have on the Americans because journalists created their films in the field and did not have an opportunity to review the shot episodes. Amanpour made an interesting point stating that all reports (print and video) were sent to the United States unmodified. In other words, the final product was furnished by the American agencies. Therefore, the bias in news is somehow related to the agencies responsible for the final version of the news.
What are these agencies? Are they governmental? What is their role in shaping public opinion?
Norman Solomon, the author of the book War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death, states that American people “keep getting scammed by one president after another” (Zupp). This rather negative comment revealed that journalists know about government and its role in journalism more than the general public. Norman argues that the Vietnam War just like any other war led by the United States was the result of manipulation and propaganda. Norman highlights that the Americans were opposed to the war but the government created an idea of the “war on terror” forcing the nation to accept the idea that Vietnam presented the threat. Norman argues that the pre-war, war and post-war media was biased and the opinion of society was manipulated.
The government needed to justify its invasion in Vietnam with the honorable mission (to end terrorism, to establish democracy, etc.) while in fact the true intentions have never been expressed to the nation. Media was used as a tool to create the desired reaction and support to the war. The next section of this paper is focused on the opinion of politicians on media and the Vietnam War.
References
Solomon, N. (2005). undefined. John Wiley & Sons.