Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The role of the media in war
The role of the media in war
What was the effect of the Vietnam war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Media Effects of the Vietnam War
War is truly a horrific event that unfortunately occurs in our world frequently. There are a variety of ethical questions surrounding war, such as how much should citizens know about the fighting? When it comes to reporting the news, it is the goal of the network to report the news first. The benefit to this is people will turn to them first when it comes to breaking stories. However if the news is delivered based on speed and not accuracy this can be harmful to society. War is a very serious event and should not be taken lightly. Therefore, reporters must make sure facts are correct and unbiased. In both the Vietnam War and our current war we see reporters going to extreme measures to be the first to report information that may have been inaccurate.
There was certainly not a lack of information to report when it came to the Vietnam War. Unfortunately some of this information was highly inaccurate. Such as the event that started the war. The battle of Tonkin was proved to have been false as reported by a Japanese Newswire in July 1984. In the bay it was reported outside Vietnam that the North Vietnamese had sunk a US ship killing just two soldiers. The American people heard this and became outraged, and the congress gave President Lyndon B. Johnson a blank check to run the war. It was later discovered the tragedy never even occurred. The news networks reported this event and the American Government confirmed the false event and the war began, as the newswire reports. If this lie was never reported chances are the war would have never started. An Asian news source reported the Gulf of Tonkin as an illusion from the start (Japanese Newswire, Lexis Nexis), this proved to be true but what Americans at the time period would believe the Asian News Networks. This can easily be related to the current war in Iraq. In order to get the war underway the administration made claims of weapons of mass destruction that could potentially harm us. If American media was not allowed into these war situations the government could simply make up another lie and point out old weapons found in Iraq and there would be no proof of proving these weapons old.
The media in 1964 helped fuel the lies by publishing headlines such as " American Planes Hit North Vietnam after 2nd attack on our Destroyers", "Move taken to Halt New Aggression". The Los Angeles Times even reported that the Vietnamese "themselves escalated the hostilities". The incorrect news reports were reported to have all come from "almost exclusive reliance on government officials as sources of information.
The Effect of Mass Media on Americans during the Vietnam War When the war initially began, Dean Rusk, US Secretary of State, pointed out that: "This was the first struggle fought on television in everybody's living room every day... whether ordinary people can sustain a war effort under that kind of daily hammering is a very large question. " The us administration, unlike most governments at war, made no official attempt to censure the reporting in the Vietnam war. Every night on the colour television people not only in America but across the planet saw pictures of dead and wounded marines. Television brought the brutality of war into the comfort of the living room. Vietnam was lost in the living rooms of America--not on the battlefields of Vietnam."
Government had a hard time keeping up with censoring what any American could potentially see when they tuned into the evening news. With the fast-paced increase in television sets in American homes, came a lack of adequate government control. The multitude of graphic images and videos from Vietnam that were being broadcasted in the living rooms of so many families is what made the Vietnam war the “Living-Room War.” Hundreds of thousands of NBC viewers watched Col. Nguyen Ngoc Loan shoot his captive in a Saigon street. It was violence like this that heavily impacted America’s feelings toward the war. “Vietnam was a journalistic milestone: according to Daniel C. Hallin … it was the first war in which reporters were routinely accredited to accompany military forces, yet not subject to censorship”(Blumenthal Web). This lack of censorship is what caused America to see the truth of the vietnam
Vietnam war has been one of the most deadliest and expensive wars to date. Not only it resulted in massive casualties and financial losses, it also made a long lasting effect on American psyche. Following the withdrawal of US combat forces in 1973, majority of Americans tried to overlook what had transpired for the past decade. It served as a devastating blow to American image both domestically and abroad. Vietnam war was heavily protested, misunderstood and highly controversial, and although many question the necessity of the invasion, yet it has continued to shape the way American foreign policies and military have evolved over the years. While Vietnam was the first war to be comprehensively televised still it had a negative stigma to it that was exploited by the media and Hollywood. Soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice, willingly or unwillingly were neglected and scorned.
Vietnam’s involvement in the Vietnam War impacted Vietnam in various significant ways. The Vietnam War was a very crucial war in Vietnamese history and changed Vietnamese society. The war was enduring and lasted for twenty-one years. It began in 1954 and ended in 1975. The war commenced due to disagreement of communism in Vietnam. The war was between North Vietnam, South Vietnam, and The United States. North Vietnam supported and encouraged communism in Vietnam. On the other hand, South Vietnam and The Untied States opposed communism and tried to prevent communism from spreading throughout the country. This eventually led to the chaotic Vietnam War. The war gained national attention and created pandemonium worldwide. The war impacted Vietnam in major ways and also impacted vital factors such as health, life in Vietnam, and economy. The leaders of North and South Vietnam also impacted all the involvement that took place in the war. The Vietnam War changed Vietnam greatly. The war left Vietnam in shambles and the war was also a calamity.
Soon after the Tet Offensive, citizens of the United States began having second opinions about concentrating our troops in Vietnam: “Within weeks [of the Tet attacks], many average Americans who previously were supporters had turned against the war” (Omicinski 2). A small cluster of Vietcong forces made their way into the compound of the United States embassy located in Saigon, proving to Americans that even though there were hundreds of thousands of soldiers fighting in Vietnam, the U.S. had progressed only slightly (Dudley 131). The people were constantly being told that the conflict would soon end, however, increased need of military assistance had U.S. citizens questioning the veracity of our government. The phrase "credibility gap" surfaced to describe the growing public scepticism (Gerdes 14). This factor led to the government’s loss of support from most of the population. Ano...
The war effort in Vietnam was quite possibly one of the most controversial the United States has ever been involved in. Almost the entire country was divided over their thoughts, with the majority being against this war. The people of the United States weren’t always opposed to involvement in Vietnam, that is until the truth started leaking to the public. Over the course of roughly twenty years somewhere between one and two million Vietnamese lives alone were lost (Overview of the Vietnam War). The Vietnam war has become widely known as an American mistake.
The Vietnam War is one of the most controversial subjects in American politics. The US went to the war under the guise of the domino effect, as they believed that if Vietnam fell, the surrounding countries would fall as well. President Johnson said “If you let a bully come into your garden, the next day he’ll be on your porch, and the day after that he’ll rape your wife” One thing that is not controversial is that we lost the war. Lots of different factors contributed to the United States unsuccessful trip to Vietnam. Among many reasons, one of the two biggest factors in the lose of the war was America’s foreign policy how and how bad the US underestimated how important freedom and independence was to the people of Vietnam. On top of that the US used the wrong military strategy, instead of focusing on limiting collateral damage the US used heavy artillery that killed citizens and alienated would be supporters. There was political corruptness in South Vietnam governments, which meant that they could not build an alternative to the NLF. At home, the public opinion of the war was decreasing at a constant rate and demonstrations were at an all time high. Everything that could go wrong did go wrong, and these problems all contributed to a Vietnam tour that went horribly wrong and an attitude among the American people that was growing ever doubt full of their government.
The media played such an important role in the war. If it wasn't for the media, public opinion would not have changed and Riots and demonstrations would not have taken place. The media also helped pressurize President Johnson into not standing for re-elections. Which meant Nixon became the new president, who then removed all troops from Vietnam. So therefore I believe that the Media and the Tet offensive were two big factors which had a huge impact on the war.
During his first stay in Vietnam, Vann came to the conclusion that the U.S. could not win the war the way it was being fought. He decided to try and change the way things were. He gathered data and submitted detailed reports to those in charge of the actual conditions and state of the war. However, those above him either ignored the reports or destroyed them, because they could not believe that anyone could stand up to the might of the U.S. Reports that were sent to Washington were often dressed up to make things appear better than they were. No deliberated plan to misinform the government was ever uncovered, the generals simply believed that eventually things would go their way and they didn't want to alarm anyone. Vann learned of this practice and decided to start using the press to get his ideas out, in hopes that someone would listen and fix the problems. People listened, but high-ranking officials repeated denied his claims and informed the President that he had nothing to worry about everything was going fine.
The introduction of the internet to modern society has brought about a new age of information relation. Since there is no longer a need to wait until the next print day, news from all over the world is available at a person’s fingertips within hours or even minutes of the event. With this advent of such easily accessible information, new problems for the news media have also arisen. Aside from potentially losing good economic standing because newspapers are no longer being purchased in the quantities they used to be, the credibility of the information itself is also put into question. No one would argue that credibility of news sources is unimportant, but there is a discrepancy in what takes precedence; economy and speed or getting the information out correctly at the first publishing by taking the time to make sure all facts are checked. The importance of having a system of checks on all information submitted is paramount. People trust what they read and believe it to be so without always questioning. If all information were to not be checked thoroughly, there would be instances where people read an article only for information included to be wrong and they go on believing such information. This can be very dangerous as misinformed people make misinformed decisions. With an increase in errors being made by citizen bloggers and even major publications, many are worried that journalistic ethics and credibility in the news media are being sacrificed in order to maintain swiftness in the news circuit and to retain personal profits. Though getting information to the masses quickly is a major part of the media’s importance, this should not mean that the credibility of that information being presented should be sacrificed for it...
In Vietnam, friendly fire was common. The United States soldiers often shot innocent civilians. When the U.S viewed the brutality of the war and the torture of countless Vietnamese citizens through journalism, the President knew the public’s reaction was to such a point that he would never get re-elected, therefore he didn’t run, and his party lost the election.
The year is 2006,watching TV, you flip through the various news stations to learn about the recent news in Iraq, the majority of the news simply says that ‘x’ amount of soldiers or marines were killed in such and such attack. You don’t like what you are hearing so you go online to read an independent embedded (embedded refers to news reporters who are attached to military units) reporters story. Online you read that two new schools were built, and the Iraqis, supported by US forces, led an attack to capture an insurgent leader. The big media corporations such as FOX, NBC, CNN, and many others distort the facts that are on the ground. Small, mostly independent, reporters generally try to get a first-hand account of the situation on the ground.
Minimizing harm done by journalism in times of war is a difficult task. Naturally, there are bits of information that the government needs to keep secret for one reason or another. There is also the danger of victims' stories being exploited and sensationalized. The SPJ's Code of Ethics recommends that journalists should "treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings worthy of respect" (Society). During the extreme...
In this era of globalization, news reporting is no longer just a means of communications, but it has also developed into a tool for change. Prominent journalists like Julian Assange, Nick Davies, Sir Charles Wheeler and many more has changed the landscape and outcomes of information, war and news reporting itself. But Martin Bell has challenged the fundamentals of journalism that is to be balanced and impartial with what he calls ‘Journalism of Attachment’. He even coined the phrase, ‘bystanders’ journalism’ for continuing the tradition of being distant and detached (Bell 1997), which he criticizes “for focusing with the circumstances of violence, such as military formations, weapons, strategies, maneuvers and tactics” (Gilboa 2009, p. 99). Therefore it is the aim of this essay to explain whether it is ethical for reporters to practice what Martin Bell calls the Journalism of Attachment by evaluating its major points and its counterarguments, and assessing other notions of journalism such as peace journalism.