Television Coverage of the Vietnam War and the Vietnam Veteran
Erin McLaughlin
December 3, 2001
College of the Holy Cross
Introduction
Growing up as the daughter of a Vietnam veteran, I've always
been proud to say that my father is a war hero. When I was
younger, I enjoyed bragging to classmates and teachers about my
father's honors because I believed that all Americans respect
Vietnam veterans as much as I do. As I grew older, however, I
noticed in movies and on television that the Vietnam veteran is
not portrayed as a brave soldier; rather, he is a violent
psychopath who continuously experiences flashbacks of the war.
What was coverage of the war like, and did it affect the image of
the Vietnam veteran? Many Vietnam veterans feel that uncensored
and overly negative television coverage helped turn the American
public against the war and against the veterans themselves.
The horrors of war entered the living rooms of Americans for the
first time during the Vietnam War. For almost a decade in between
school, work, and dinners, the American public could watch
villages being destroyed, Vietnamese children burning to death,
and American body bags being sent home. Though initial coverage
generally supported U.S involvement in the war, television news
dramatically changed its frame of the war after the Tet
Offensive. Images of the U.S led massacre at My Lai dominated the
television, yet the daily atrocities committed by North Vietnam
and the Viet Cong rarely made the evening news. Moreover, the
anti-war movement at home gained increasing media attention while
the U.S soldier was forgotten in Vietnam. Coverage of the war and
its resulting impact on public opinion has been debated for
decades by many intelligent media scholars and journalists, yet
they are not the most qualified individuals to do so: the
veterans are. Journalists based in Saigon daily reported facts
about battles, casualties, and the morale of the troops, yet only
a soldier could grasp the true reality of war. Veterans
understand what really occurred in the jungles of Vietnam, and
only they can compare the truth to what was portrayed on
television. Furthermore, their homecoming stories most accurately
reveal how the American public has cruelly mistreated the Vietnam
veteran. Therefore, after having researched the power of
television and its coverage of the war, I interviewed four
Vietnam veterans in order to understand how they interpreted the
coverage and how they feel it contributed to the image of the
Vietnam Veteran.
Section 1: Television Power and the Vietnam War
Why Television?
By the mid-1960's, television was considered to be the most
important source of news for the American public, and, possibly,
the most powerful influence on public opinion itself. Throughout
the Korean War, the television audience remained small. In 1950,
only 9 percent of homes owned a television. By 1966, this figure
rose to 93 percent (Bonior, Champlin, Kolly, 1984, p.18). As
televisions became more popular in the home, more Americans began
to get their news from television than from any other source. A
series of surveys conducted by the Roper Organization for the
Television Information Office from 1964 until 1972 demonstrates
the growing power of television. With multiple answers allowed,
respondents were asked from which medium they "got most of their
news". In 1964, 58 percent said television; 56 percent,
newspapers; 26 percent, radio; and 8 percent, magazines. By 1972,
64 percent said television while the number of respondents
who primarily relied on newspapers dropped to 50 percent (Hallin,
1986, p.106). Thus, as the Vietnam War dragged on, more and more
Americans turned to television as their primary source for news.
While a large audience is crucial in influencing public opinion,
credibility is a much more significant factor. The Roper surveys
mentioned above also asked respondents which medium they would
trust if the media gave conflicting accounts of a story. In 1972,
48 percent said television while only 21 percent said newspapers
(Hallin, 1986, p.106). Television is "consistently evaluated as
more attention-grabbing, interesting, personally relevant,
emotionally involving, and surprising"(Neuman, Just, Crigler,
1992, p.56) because of two elements: visuals and personality. The
visual element of television allows viewers to feel as if they
are part of the action. When news programs aired images of
battles and death, Americans at home felt as if they too were in
the jungles of Vietnam. Additionally, intense visuals helped
explain the complex nature of war to Americans who could not
understand the military's technical language. Anchors and
reporters quickly became trusted, household names because the
public turned to them every night for the day's information;
Walter Cronkite was even referred to as the "most trusted man in
America" throughout the war (Hallin, 1986, p.106). This trust
allowed the opinions and biases of television news personalities
to have some influence on the way in which many Americans viewed
the war. Thus, Americans increasingly depended on television for
images and accurate accounts of the Vietnam War; what they were
watching, however, were edited, thirty-minute versions of an
extremely complex war.
Early Coverage
The television news industry is a business with a profit
motive before it is a public service; consequently, producers and
reporters attempt to make the news more entertaining by airing
stories that involve conflict, human impact, or morality.
Television news did not find material that was dramatic enough
until the number of American troops was raised to 175, 000 in
July 1965 (Hallin, 1986, p.115). Combat, interviews with American
soldiers, and helicopter scenes all provided the television news
industry with the drama that it required. The networks set up
permanent bureaus in Saigon and sent hundred of correspondents
there throughout the war. From 1965 through the Tet Offensive in
1968, 86 percent of the CBS and NBC nightly news programs covered
the war, focusing mostly on ground and air combat (Bonior,
Champlin, Kolly, 1984, p.4). This coverage was generally very
supportive of U.S involvement in the war and of the soldier
himself until 1967. The media labeled the conflict as a "good
guys shooting Reds" story so that it could fit into the ongoing
saga of the Cold War (Wyatt, 1995, p.81). As part of the human
impact frame, network correspondents relied on American soldiers
for their most important sources. During this early part of the
war, the soldier was portrayed as a hero. One example is a
striking story reported by TV correspondent Dean Brelis. As he
was having his leg amputated, Marine colonel Michael Yunck said:
"I said hell, they can't be right around in there. So I didn't
call bombs
and napalm on these people. But that's where they were. I'm sure
that's
where they were. God damn it. I hate to put napalm on these women
and
children. I just didn't do it. I said, they can't be there."
(Bonior, Champlin, Kolly, 1984, p.13-14)
Thus, the anti-communism frame significantly contributed to
the positive coverage that vilified the war, not the soldier
(Bonior, Champlin, and Kolly, 1984, p.13).
The Turning Point
By the fall of 1967, 90 percent of the evening news was devoted
to the war and roughly 50 million people watched television news
each night (Bonior, Champlin, Kolly, 1984, p.4-5). Up until this
time, the war had strong support from the media, the public, and
Congress. The military continuously reported that the U.S was
making encouraging progress. Gradually, however, support for the
war began to decrease. Because no military censorship was
established, journalists could follow the military into combat
and report their observations without formal censorship. Thus, as
journalists saw more grisly combat, they presented the public
with more graphic images. Also, for the first time, interviewed
soldiers expressed their frustration with the progress of the
war.
Support began to decrease in the fall of 1967, but the major
turning point in television's coverage of the war occurred during
the Tet Offensive in late January 1968. Though North Vietnamese
soldiers swept through more than one hundred Southern Vietnamese
cities, Tet was actually a U.S victory because the North suffered
enormous casualties. Television, however, portrayed the attack as
a brutal defeat for the U.S; the media, not the military,
confirmed the growing perception that the U.S was unable to win
the war. The percent of television stories in which journalists
editorialized news jumped from 5.9 percent before Tet to 20
percent in the two months after (Hallin, 1986, p.170). The most
significant statement came from the "most trusted man in
America", Walter Cronkite. In a CBS special, Cronkite concluded,
'To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the
face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the
past.to say that we are mired in a bloody stalemate seems the
only realistic, yet unsatisfactory conclusion" (Hallin, 1986,
p.170). After the Tet Offensive and Cronkite's statement,
coverage of American involvement in the war became predominantly
negative. Before Tet, journalists described 62 percent of their
stories as victories for the United States, 28 percent as
defeats, and 2 percent as inconclusive. After Tet, 44 percent of
the battles were deemed victories, 32 percent defeats, and 24
percent inconclusive (Hallin, 1986, p.161-162). Combat scenes
were also more graphic. Films of civilian casualties increased
from a pre-Tet average of 0.85 times per week to an average of
3.9 times per week. Films of military casualties also jumped from
2.4 to 6.8 times per week (Hallin, 1986, p.171). The most
negative change in coverage was the portrayal of the U.S troops.
Before the Tet Offensive, there were four television stories
devoted entirely to the positive morale of the troops and zero
negative stories. After Tet, two and a half stories mentioned
positive morale while the number of negative morale stories
increased to fourteen and a half (Hallin, 1986, p.180). Most of
these negative references included increasing drug use, racial
conflict, and disobedience among the U.S soldiers.
Television coverage of the massacre at My Lai was perhaps
the most damaging image for the U.S soldier's reputation. Though
initial reports stated that the operation killed 100 enemy
soldiers in March 1968, it was revealed a year later that First
Lt. William Calley and his taskforce had killed up to 350 South
Vietnamese civilians (Hammond, 1998, p.192). The massacre and Lt.
Calley's trial became one of the war's leading stories. Moreover,
it introduced the subject of American war crimes into
television's remaining coverage of the war.
Withdrawal from Vietnam
The intensely negative coverage of the war influenced both
politicians and the public. Americans depended on television to
see and understand the war, but the death and destruction they
saw appeared as irrational killing when prospects for the war
became increasingly negative. Therefore, the majority of
Americans withdrew their support for the war after the Tet
Offensive. War coverage declined from 90 percent of all newscasts
to 61 percent from Richard Nixon's election through February 1969
(Bonior, Champlin, Kolly, 1984, p.7). Though the media had been
covering the anti-war movement before 1968, it now overshadowed
the war itself. Draft-card burning and demonstrations provided
television with fresher conflict, human impact, and moral issues.
With the massive loss of public support for the war, politicians
initiated withdrawal policies. Television no longer focused on
combat, but on the political process. From 1965 to 1969, the
percentage of combat stories had been 48 percent; from 1970 until
the end of U.S involvement, only 13 percent of news stores
involved soldiers in combat (Bonior, Champlin, Kolly, 1984, p.8).
Thus, Bonior, Champlin, and Kolly (1984, p.16) best sum up the
damage done to the Vietnam veteran's image: In the rush to
declare the Vietnam War over through stories on Vietnamization
and the Paris Peace Talks, in the rush to judgment without second
thought on Tet, in the rush to avoid controversy at any cost, the
U.S public was left with one climactic image of their soldiers in
Vietnam-losing the Tet Offensive while massacring civilians at My
Lai.
See the Warbird's Bookshelf