Eriksen 1
It can stir emotions across the world, bringing tears, both those of sadness and of joy. It
has the potential to change the lives of millions, and bring light to even more. It is how we obtain
the information that shapes our decisions and perceptions each and every day. It can break the
hearts of many, instill fear and distrust, and ruin careers. It is both daring and wonderful, but yet
without it, we as humans would never be capable of obtaining knowledge as quickly as this
phenomenon has enabled us to. With such versatility, one could describe its impacts and
characteristics in an infinite amount of ways. The term uniting all of these qualities is news
media. From the very beginning, the collection and presentation of news has helped to shape the
futures of nations, including the general opinion of their citizens. A prime example is in the
effect news media had on the American public opinion of the United States’ involvement in the
Vietnam War. News media coverage of the Vietnam War, both in print and through television
broadcasts, is directly associated with the decreased trust in the United States government and
change in public opinion toward opposition to the war.
After the Cold War, much of the United States’ foreign policy was formulated on what
was known as the domino theory. According to this concept, the United States pursued foreign
policies with an intent to contain the spread of communism (Rhodes n.p.). In 1954, Vietnam
became of interest to the United States when they won their independence from France. Upon
gaining independence, Vietnam divided itself in two parts: the communistic North, and noncommunistic South (American Experience n.p.). Though not affiliated with communist forces,
communist members of Southern Vietnam quickly became identified as the Viet Cong. Their
Eriksen 2
presence led the United States to fear the domino effect, that if Southern Vietnam fell to
communism, all surrounding countries would soon follow.
On the first of August in 1964, the United States military vessel, the Maddox, was
attacked by Northern Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin (Rhodes n.p.). The United
States military retaliated, both on the seas and in the air. Soon after, the United States
government drafted the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, authorizing U.S. forces to defend themselves
in any manner necessary from the Vietnamese (Rhodes n.p.). This action is now considered the
direct cause for military involvement by the United States in Vietnam. As the United States
introduced ground troops to the nation, the war progressed to a guerilla warfare state, which U.S.
forces were not accustomed to. To counteract this activity, the Unites States developed a searchand-destroy strategy, taking advantage of their presence in the air and chemicals that would
allow them to clear large areas of land that could potentially be housing members of the Viet
Cong (Rhodes n.p.).
At a point during the war, the United States and Vietnam reached a mutual will to
continue fighting, regardless of the sustained casualties. With a stalemate likely, public support
became the key stress point and ‘essential domino’ to the war effort (Gelb 459). To feed a
positive public opinion, the United States government supplied the impression that victory was
near. Providing these messages were the various news media sources. Journalists relied on
government officials and United States soldiers as sources for their publications. However, as the
falsified optimism of the government began to fade, such sources became divided as well, with
the media taking the side against the government (Hallin 10).
Eriksen 3
The Vietnam War was often described as the war Americans watched from their living
rooms, as media coverage was supplied constantly thanks to the development of television and
news broadcasting (Melbourne Experience n.p.). In fact, the media became so influential that it
“… came to dominate the domestic opinion about its [the war’s] purpose and conduct.” (Hallin
3). Three instances can be analyzed where the media had a direct effect on the public opinion of
America with the intent to turn them away from war. Through journalistic efforts that revealed
information concerning the Tet Offensive, the My Lai Massacre, and the content of the Pentagon
Papers, news media “…brought the issues of the war to the people… and [ultimately] forced the
withdrawal of American power from Vietnam.” (Hallin 3).
In January of 1968, the North Vietnamese launched the Tet Offensive, bringing the war
into Southern Vietnam for the first time since it began. Capturing the capital city of Hue while
targeting another 39, the Northern Vietnamese also bombed the United States Embassy located
in Saigon, killing five American soldiers in the process (Culbert 420). The assault, although
technically considered a loss by the North for failure to retain land, made a mockery of President
Johnson’s public relations campaign, in which he was promising ‘a light at the end of the tunnel.’
(Culbert 420). Additionally, the attack proved to Americans who had believed victory would
easily be theirs, that it was not going to be easy, and was in fact no where near its end
(Streitmatter 177).
Television news coverage played a crucial role in the relaying of information from
Vietnam to the American public throughout the war, but specifically in the case of the Tet
Offensive. In 1968, the color television was introduced, bringing visual representations to the
homes of thousands of Americans. After the initial attack, the Tet Offensive continued for a
Eriksen 4
series of days, providing countless opportunities for news footage, all of which reached the
American public in less than a day. A shift soon became evident, however, in the presentation of
the news footage.
Rather than encouraging the war effort, television reporters began to criticize the
American presence in Vietnam, using the footage to support the notion that things were not in as
good standing as the federal government was making it out to be (Streitmatter 178). One
correspondent in particular drove this message into the minds of many Americans when he
reported on what he had witnessed at the Tet Offensive. CBS commentator Walter Cronkite
made a special broadcast statement on the 27th of February, concluding the situation was a
“bloody stalemate” (Hallin 6). In his report, Cronkite declared,
“To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of evidence, the
optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to
yield unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only
realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the
only way out then would be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people…”
(Culbert 430).
Here, Cronkite single-handedly exposed the American public to the idea that the war was not
going to end soon, and that it was not even possible to negotiate as a victor. Furthermore, he
suggested a credibility gap between the words and actions of the federal government, a notion
the people quickly adopted.
While Cronkite’s verbal depiction of the Tet Offensive and situation in Vietnam pointed
out to Americans the divergence between reality and the information they were otherwise
receiving from the government, nothing else was more influential in altering the public’s
mentality than ‘the shot heard (and seen) ‘round the world.’ A few days after the onset of the Tet
Eriksen 5
Offensive, the execution of a Viet Cong sympathizer by General Loan provided the most
dramatic news footage and accompanying photographs Americans had witnessed thus far.
According to Alan Brinkely, “no single event did more to undermine support in the United States
for the war” (Culbert 422). Photographs captured the murder step-by-step, while video footage
allowed one to observe the unjustified event as one fluid motion. One television viewer, a
graduate student at the time, described his experience of the shooting in the following manner:
“I was just watching the news. General Loan pulled out his gun and shot the man, and at
first I could not believe that it was happening. It was unlike anything that I had seen
before, and then I saw the blood coming out of the guy’s head… It really turned my
stomach… After that I decided what we were doing in Vietnam was wrong, I could not
conceive all of the callousness with which one person executed another with no pretense,
with no trial, with no evidence… After that I became active in the antiwar movement”
(Culbert 422).
A reaction of this kind was not uncommon throughout the nation. It was after the exposure of
such conditions and cold truths of the war that viewers became horrified at not only the unjust
actions being carried out, but also how different their perceptions were from the truth
(Streitmatter 180). As a result, the anti-war movement quickly gained pace, clearly showing the
media’s ability, specifically the television, to influence a change in the national public opinion.
Only a few months after the Tet Offensive, came one of the most sickening events of the
Vietnam War, and also who’s exposure then became one of the driving factors in the shift away
from the war effort. My Lai was a quiet town in the Vietnamese village of Song My. In March of
1968, American Lieutenant Calley and his men were sent there to search for members of the Viet
Cong. When him and his men were finished, an estimated 300-400 civilians were dead (Rhodes
n.p.). However, this was to go unknown for a year and a half. The day after, a story ran in the
Eriksen 6
New York Times, reporting 128 Viet Cong dead, deeming the event a great U.S. victory
(Moments of Truth: Vietnam n.p.).
The real story came to light when a young journalist, Seymour Hersch, received a tip
while working at the Pentagon. After following various leads, Hersch was able to track down
Calley and produce a story that shocked not only the nation, but also the world (Moments of
Truth: Vietnam n.p.). In an article that only the little-known Dispatch News Service would
publish, Hersh revealed the atrocities of what became known as the My Lai massacre, titling his
work, “GI’s call Viet Killings Point-Blank Murder.” In his piece, Hersch disclosed eyewitness
accounts of houses being burned, and people being lined up and deliberately shot into ditches
(n.p.). Sargent Michael Bernhardt was quoted in reminiscing, “The whole thing was so
deliberate. It was point-blank murder and I was standing there watching it” (n.p.). Hersch was
even able to uncover the story of an officer who attempted to stop the shootings after landing
nearby soon after the massacre had begun. According to Hersch’s article, the young man was
ordered not to speak of the event. The next day, the same officer was killed in the line of duty,
but after a day and a half of investigating possible suspicion, the case was dropped due to
“insufficient evidence” (Hersch n.p.).
When news of the My Lai massacre reached the American public, everyone was shocked.
To learn that only months after witnessing the televised murder of an apparently innocent Viet
Cong sympathizer that hundreds of innocent civilians were carelessly and unnecessarily
murdered was disheartening to all. If it were not for the investigative skills displayed by
Seymour Hersch, there is no telling whether or not certain truths would have ever been revealed
Eriksen 7
to the American public. Moreover, the fact that the federal government and military had hid the
event from the public for more than a year while playing off messages of justified and
praiseworthy victories did more to suggest a credibility gap that anything Americans had
experienced thus far. More and more, Americans were turning against the war effort, driven by
the truths uncovered and supplied by news media outlets.
Also contributing to the public opinion’s shift toward an anti-war stance, on June 13,
1971, was Neil Sheehan’s Pentagon Papers in the New York Times. Leaked to him by Daniel
Ellsberg, Sheehan titled the article, “Vietnam Archive: Pentagon Study Traces 3 Decades of
Growing United States Involvements.” Within this article, Sheehan revealed that the optimistic
face that the American government had been portraying for years was not only weakly supported,
but also planned, premeditated, and a mask of what was really going on (Blanton n.p.). The
following day, Attorney General John Mitchell warned the Times against publishing any further
information concerning the Papers. Additionally, the federal government sought and obtained a
restraining order, legalizing the prohibition of further publication (Blanton n.p.).
The Pentagon Papers contained top-secret history of United States political and military
involvement in Vietnam, documenting plans of action from 1945-1967 that had been ordered by
Defense Secretary at the time, Robert S. MacNamara (Pincus n.p.). Most noteworthy though,
was the amount of information contained in the Papers that had failed to be mentioned to the
American public (Blanton n.p.). Capitalizing on this fault, the New York Times focused on the
credibility gap made clear by the Papers between what President Lyndon B. Johnson as well as
Nixon had said publically, and what was being said and planned privately. For example, it was
Eriksen 8
disclosed to the public that when running for the presidency in 1964, though claiming he was
“seeking no wider war,” Johnson was actually planning to expand the military effort by
extending bombing into Northern Vietnam (Pincus n.p.). Senator Birch Bayh, who supported the
publishing of the Pentagon Papers, elaborated on its effect to the credibility gap, stating “The
existence of these documents, and the fact that they said one thing and the people were led to
believe something else, is a reason we have a credibility gap today, the reason people don't
believe the government… There is a difference between what the President says and what the
government actually does…” (1971 Year in Review: The Pentagon Papers).
For a country that had already been experiencing a war for almost a decade, the press’
decision to reveal such information had a critical effect on the national opinion toward the war.
Widening the credibility gap, the publishing of the Pentagon Papers intensified the American
distrust and disgust in their government, for it revealed that the President had lied and obscured
information relevant to each and every citizen of the United States.
An analysis of news media’s role in the shift in the American public’s opinion toward an
anti-war stance provides a generous stage on which to apply media-related theories. One in
particular, the social responsibility theory, is particularly applicable to the Vietnam War era. This
theory, developed in 1947 by Henry Luce and the Hutchinson Commission, declares that the
media have an obligation to society to remain truthful (Cubbage 3). During the Vietnam War, the
decision to televise and publish stories that exposed the government’s attempt to cover up what
was really going on can be identified as a prime example of the social responsibility theory. In
his book, The Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam, author Daniel Hallin makes note of this
occurrence. He states, “The journalists who went to Southeast Asia in the early 1960’s were in
Eriksen 9
fact intensely committed to reporting ‘the story,’ despite the generals and ambassadors who were
telling the to ‘get on the team’ … [They were] deeply committed to the ‘national security’
consensus… and acted as ‘responsible’ advocates of that consensus” (8-9). Rather than
publishing solely for the sake of boosting American morale and keeping the national government
and military leaders happy, news media publishers took matters in to their own hands, feeling
that the American public had the right to know what was really going on.
Additionally, the agenda setting media theory can also be applied to the news media’s
involvement throughout the Vietnam War. Throughout the war, media channeled images of the
battles and daily events on the warfront. As a result, publications and broadcasts reshaped the
American interpretation of the impact of the conflict. An important aspect of the agenda setting
the Vietnam War era media revealed information to the United States using facts, photographs
and footage unaccompanied by words that could serve as a call to action. Rather than telling the
American public what to think, the news brought to living rooms across the nation merely
brought to light what citizens should potentially take into consideration. The media strongly
defined the audience’s perceptions of the war, and imposed its narratives on to the White House
interests.
In conclusion, without the investigative exposure brought to the American public by
news media outlets, it becomes questionable as to whether or not we would have ever learned the
truths attempted to be kept from the general public during the Vietnam War. Moreover, had the
press opted to support the government’s decision to front an optimistic perception of the war,
rather than expose the gap between words and actuality, it can be asked how many more
casualties would we have suffered? How long would it have been before we, as a nation, decided
Eriksen 10
enough was enough? Would events have proceeded in the same way? It is undoubtedly clear that
the decrease in public support for the Vietnam War in the 60’s and 70’s is nothing less than an
exceptional example of the power news media has on a population, and the subsequent power the
population has on public opinion.
Eriksen 11
Works Cited
"1971 Year in Review: The Pentagon Papers." UPI. N.p., 1971. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.
"American Experience: Vietnam Online." PBS, 29 Mar. 2005. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.
Blanton, Thomas S. "The Pentagon Papers: Secrets, Lies, and Audiotapes." George Washington
University, 29 June 2001. Web. 15 Mar. 2013.
Cubbage, J. Research Paper Assignment. 1-4. 2013. Print.
Culbert, David. "Television's Visual Impact on Decision-Making in the USA, 1968: The Tet
Offensive and Chicago's Democratic National Convention." Journal of Contemporary
History 33.3 (1998): 419-49. Web.
Gelb, Leslie H. "The Essential Domino: American Politics and Vietnam." (2004): 459-75. Web.
11 Mar. 2013.
Hallin, Daniel C. The "Uncensored War": The Media and Vietnam. New York: Oxford UP, 1986.
Print.
Hersch, Seymour. "GIs Call Viet Killings ‘Point-Blank Murder’." Plain Dealer [Cleveland] 12
Nov. 1969: n. pag. Print.
"Media and Vietnam War." Melbourne Experience. N.p., 13 Nov. 2010. Web. 13 Mar. 2013.
Moments of Truth: Vietnam. Dir. Charles Lewis. Investigating Power. N.p., 2012. Web. 15 Mar.
2013. <http://www.investigatingpower.org/vietnam/>.
Pincus, Walter. "Wikileaks' Afghanistan War Log vs. the Pentagon Papers." The Washington
Post. N.p., 26 July 2010. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.
Rhodes, Henry A. "The News Media’s Coverage of the Vietnam War." Yale-New Haven
Teachers Institute, 2013. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.
Eriksen 12
Streitmatter, Rodger. "Vietnam War." Mightier Than The Sword. 3rd ed. N.p.: Westview, 2012.
171-87. Print.