Journalism and Public Opinion: A Historical Connection - Research Paper

Introduction

Journalism and public opinion have, for years, been undeniably linked. Way journalists largely shape the opinion of the public in any matter, and mass media depicts it. In the US, the correlations between Journalism and public opinion dates back to the publication of Publick Occurrences, Both Foreign and Domestick (Fishman & Marvin, 2003). This publication aimed at soliciting the public against the British colonialist in the hope of fighting for independence. Whether journalism was used as common and effective propaganda or truthful, informative tool, the use of mass media to inform the public about the state of war is well documented in the history of warfare (Achenbach, 2018). The same case applies to the United States, a country that has historically proven its military power, and imperialist practice, have experienced enough share of wars and the associated warfare journalism. Warfare journalism plays a critical role in the American public because it informs them about various aspects of war, thus shaping their general opinion on warfare (Achenbach, 2018). The Vietnam War is an excellent example of how mass media can influence the audience's attitude and opinion towards war.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The American war in Vietnam between 1955 and 1975, early and suddenly pushed the role of journalism in warfare to its primes, are reporters from American media stations rushed to the front line and published contradictory stories from those released by the government. As a result, the American public found itself in the dichotomy that later resulted in the severe public opinion never seen in American history against the war (Fine, 2018). The large-scale anti-war movement in American was primarily fueled by the role that journalism played in reporting how the government had poorly handled the war (Fishman & Marvin, 2003). The psychological scar ingrained in America's collective memory because of the Vietnam War is primarily attributed to news and stories presented by the mass media, reporting from within the country and directly from the war front line (Fishman & Marvin, 2003). After the Vietnam War, journalists, war veterans, and the general American public collectively agree that the government had poorly handled the situations in Vietnam during the war, and have jointly disclaimed the necessity of this particular war. Interestingly, this attitude towards the war arose from public opinion after knowing the truth from the stories presented by the mass media.

Media and Vietnam Before 1968

At the start of Vietnam War, particularly before 1968, there was little media coverage of the actual events that happened on the battlefield. The Buddhist crises of 1963 were the only event that had received extensive media coverage. Before the Buddhist crises, news networks did not have full-time film crews and reporters in Vietnam. Only the New York Times was having one full-time correspondent stationed in Saigon when J.F. Kennedy was still the president of the U.S (Fine, 2018). The events of 1963 set the stage for future coverage of the war (Fishman & Marvin, 2003).

In the 1950s and early 1960s, it was a taboo to debate the events and wisdom of the Cold War (Fishman & Marvin, 2003). For the general public, including the journalists, this submission to government activities on matters related to the Cold War was less because they feared retaliation than because they were deeply immersed in the ideological consensus to the extent that they did not question it (Katz, 2017). Besides, during the Eisenhower and Truman administration, a bipartisan consensus on matters of national security removed the decision of foreign policies from the public agenda (Fine, 2018). As a result, the method or the fact of the U.S participation in the Vietnam War was not newsworthy to the public.

Events in Vietnam War occasionally made the news but were heavily characterized by cold war consensus and the media dependence of the government for stories that were supportive of the U.S Vietnam War policies. For example, in 1961, the New York Times wrote that Taylor, an American General, chaired a group of twelve people in assessing how the U.S can effectively stop the advance of the Red (Ballard-Reisch, 2000). In 1963, the same media wrote that Communist guerillas were attempting to subvert the United States, admitted that they had underestimated the depth of the intentions of the country (Fishman & Marvin, 2003). Before in 1964, such ideological content was not deemed to be violating the objective reporting because it fell under the consensus of the cold war (Bastiansen, 2020). In fact, the degree at the media focused on war in that period was largely to report the position of the government on the matter.

A typical example of the government managed news occurred in late 1961 (Ballard-Reisch, 2000). General Taylor, who was the military advisor to the president, without the help of other advisors permitted by the Geneva agreement, concluded that South Vietnam was not in a position to resist and survive the insurgency from the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong. President Kennedy, reluctantly accepted recommendation but avoiding to drag public attention into the escalation (Ballard-Reisch, 2000). As a result, the White House leaked contrasting information as a way of drawing the public attention away from the matter by suggesting that the president and General Taylor opposed sending U.S troops to Vietnam (Fishman & Marvin, 2003). The New York Times reported that President Kennedy's administration, based on reliable information, was convinced that the South Vietnamese government was capable of resisting threats from the communists (Bastiansen, 2020). The story was on the front page for one day.

From the General Taylor recommendation, U.S troops began fighting in Vietnam while the press reported otherwise. In December 1961, when the president authorized the U.S military to offer direct military support to the South Vietnamese, the story was published on the 21st page of the New York Times newspaper (Fine, 2018). In January 1962, President Kennedy was asked on a televised press conference if the U.S troops were in combat in Vietnam (Fishman & Marvin, 2003). The president denied by simply saying no, before moving to the next question. Nobody challenged him, despite the death of the first American soldier in direct combat occurring three weeks earlier (Bastiansen, 2020). Despite the media heavily covering the cold war between 1961 and 1964, the reporters were not interested in raising questions on America's policies on the Vietnam War (Fishman & Marvin, 2003). However, as the number of American soldiers continued to increase from one to 787 between 1961 and 1963, it was difficult for the media to ignore the story (Ballard-Reisch, 2000). Besides, the disparity between reality and official reports from the government continued to increase, forcing the media to question the honest government. For example, in December 1961, the official government reports stated that Americans on combat zones were 685 advisors, yet there were over 2000 active U.S troops on combat zones (Bastiansen, 2020).

Despite the new interest by the media to present the truth, the press coverage on the Vietnam War was not entirely negative. Instead, it gave mixed public signals. For example, a New York Times editorial in late 1961 stated that new information was emerging from the reticent government sources on the expansion of the American participation in the anti-communist struggle in South Vietnam (Zunes & Laird, 2010). The statement is an indication of the complicated relationship between the government and the press that existed in beginning of the war. It showed that the media was suspicious about the extent of government involvement in the anti-communist struggle in Vietnam, and the media were annoyed by the unwillingness by the government to provide sufficient information about the war (Bastiansen, 2020). The media, in the early stages of Vietnam almost dependent totally on the government for information, and whether frustrated on not, the press could only report forthcoming formation from the reticent officials from the government (Fine, 2018). The shifting relationship between the media and the government about America's involvement in the Vietnam War would not occur until 1968 during the Tet Offensive

Media and Vietnam After the Tet Offensive

The Tet Offensive marked the change of the way journalist reported the Vietnam War. After the war, the U.S television personalities and newspaper editors began questioning the validity and the role of their country in Vietnam War. The new approach by the media changed the public's perspective about the war. In 1968, during the ceasefire meant to celebrate the Lunar New Year, the Viet Cong were busy organizing and executing large scale concurrent attacks on various provincial capitals and cities in Vietnam (Ballard-Reisch, 2000). Consequently, the war was brought out of the jungle into the towns; 34 out of 45 provincial capitals, five out of six largest cities, 242 district towns, the Siagon American embassy, Saigon's Chinese section, Cholon, and Hue were engulfed in a deadly battle (DiCicco & Fordham, 2018). The offensive showed the Americans, both at home and those at the battlefield, that the Viet Cong was well coordinated, large, and determined to continue the war with them at all cost.

Through the offensive, the battle was abnormally intense. The battel of Saigon that lasted for three weeks, only one thousand communist-backed National Liberation Front (NFL) fought a combined force of 11,000 ARVN and American troops to a stalemate (Fine, 2018). It led to the death and injury of 17,300 civilians, while over 200,000 others were displaced after the destruction of 19,000 homes (Fine, 2018). In covering the war, Robert Shaplen, a New York Times journalist and a Korean War veteran, negatively described the battle at Hue. He wrote that the war in Vietnam was terrible and cannot be compared to that in Korea. In the article, he explained that out of 17,134 houses in Hue, the battle led to the destruction of 9,776 homes in the city and its environment, leading to the death of between 2,800 and 5,700 civilians (DiCicco & Fordham, 2018).

On the contrary, the government released an official statement showing they had won. Although the American media believed the official announcement, saying that Tet Offensive was a loss to the NFL, as promoted by Washington, the public did not accept it (Bastiansen, 2020). Hammond (2009) argued that by accepting the government's statement about the Tet Offensive, they had seemed to have interpreted the event without carefully differentiating what was said from what happened as a proof, irrespective of who lost or won and that the war was out of control.

The significant development that led to the people's change of view regarding the Vietnam War occurred when Walter Cronkite, a journalist, delivered an anti-war opinion on February 27, 1968, on his CBS broadcast (Achenbach, 2018). In his statement, Walter said that he did know who won the Tet Offensive despite having returned from Vietnam. According to him, however, it was clear that the war will end in stalemate. As a result, there was no need to pursue warpath but instead to opt for negotiation as an alternative-additionally, the way television covered the war begun to change after the Tet Offensive (Bastiansen, 2020). Before, the Tet offensive, the American troops were depicted on television programs as infallible, and "macho." However, after the horrors of offensive, the American soldiers were viewed differently: as weaker and i...