Vietnam – The Fake News Debate

Judging from the responses to my  “Fake News” blogs posted on February 7th and February 22nd and letters to the editor in the WSJ last month, there remains a lot of interest in this subject. How much did the reporting of the Vietnam war’s progress influence American public opinion? Especially at the pivotal point in the war- the Tet offensive?

Nixon’s famous quote frames the debate – “No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam war. It was misreported then and it is misremembered now.”

Even that quote may be interpreted as controversial, but historically it rings true to most, especially vets. But, I’m sure some would argue otherwise. That’s how divisive Vietnam became.

There’s no question that our involvement in Vietnam gave rise to bitter divisiveness, political polarization, and simmering passions lasting three generations, over fifty years. Perhaps Vietnam explains in part our polar opposite worldviews and lack of civil discourse currently.

Let me summarize some responses in the debate without attribution for their privacy with the exception of consideration to a few famous photojournalists in Vietnam during the 1960’s. Their comments illustrate the divergent perspectives of Vietnam’s reality.

Courageous combat reporters in the field of action generally got it right. I cite prominent examples Uwe Siemon – Netto and  William Luti’s observations. They witnessed the war firsthand, up front and personal as did Peter Braestrup and Larry Burrows. Burrows’ helicopter was shot down over Laos in ’71. He died with three other noted photojournalists. (Burrows became famous with his famous ’66 photo,”Reaching Out.“)

Netto pointed out there were basically three categories of Vietnam reporters:

• Combat (30%) who reported firsthand accurately from the battlefield.
• Saigon journalists (70%) who rarely left the safety of their hotels and reported secondhand news, often biased and filtered.
• And, he cites the small third party. These were Washington DC/NYC media stars who flew in for a photo op, but overshadowed those combat reporters in the know.

Netto accused them of making ideologically motivated pronouncements on camera with battlefield background props for the folks and politicians back home. He thought this really constituted nothing more than a form of of journalistic malpractice

Netto and Braestrup called out Cronkite for telling millions of TV viewers during the ’68 Tet offensive that the war could not be won. They’d just witnessed the American and South Vietnam forces vanquish and destroy the invading NVR/ VC forces in fierce battles. The local uprising the enemy intended never happened. Militarily we were winning in Vietnam, but losing politically in the States. The first domino to fall was public opinion in America.

This viewpoint emphasized how political the war had become by 1968.  But, another reader commented that if the Tet offensive had been reported differently, the result would have been the same. This infers that public opinion at home had been so swayed by negative media coverage and antiwar activism that it would be difficult to define victory. Some would call this the “Fake News” effect at a pivotal moment in history. Others might interpret it a misread of history, at least from a military perspective. What do you think?

Another reader prompted some thought with,”I think of the 1944 Battle of the Bulge and what the outcome might have been with the same press coverage.” Now think about that interesting take home message…

A VN vet, class of 1967 wrote, “The real fake news was the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’  by General Westmoreland.” This vet felt it was propaganda intended to make the homefront warm and fuzzy. That was not the case for those serving “in country.” Vietnam was many things, but it was not a warm and fuzzy story.

Perhaps the most insightful appraisal at what had become a war of attrition came from a retired doctor. I paraphrase his reasons for our failure in Vietnam:

• Multiple illegitimate, often corrupt, governments in South Vietnam.
• Ignorance of Vietnamese culture and history.
• Poor contingency planning.
• Cold War perception of communism’s threat.
• DC administration’s ignoring intelligence agencies estimates on tactics and strategies.
• Indifference to numerous outcome studies on the efficacy of bombing and troop deployments.
• Failure to anticipate adverse PR in the States to what would become a war of attrition with untold casualties justified by reasons that would become increasingly nebulous.

That sorts sums it up. I would add- Failure to win the hearts and minds of the peasants caught in the crossfire and politicians trying to conduct a war with self-imposed limiting military restrictions. I explain this in my historical narrative RECALL. I suggest you read it to get the facts to better understand Vietnam and the answer to my question- How much did reporting contribute to negative public opinion during the Vietnam war?

There is no question in my mind that daily reports bombarding the public on TV and newspaper headlines, some of it “Fake News,” greatly influenced the public’s perception and the political outcome of the Vietnam war. I lived through both – Vietnam and the San Francisco aftermath. It got ugly.

So, get the facts before deciding what was “Fake News” back then – ’61 to ’75.  I think you will learn a lot. History is a pretty good teacher.

 

Want to Read RECALL? Click Here to Order

What Others Are Saying About Recall – Reviews