Media: Power and Influence on Public Perception of the Vietnam War The power of the media has long been understood, and part of that power is in shaping popular opinion. The media can show emotionally poignant images, give a platform to expert authorities and together these two factors can influence the minds and hearts of people. This was something that was particularly true during the era of the Vietnam War, sometimes referred to as America’s first “television war” (Hillesheim, 2017). In 1965, nearly every household in America owned a television (90%) and depended on this television to get the bulk of their news (Hillesheim, 2017). Television was a new technology—used for broadcasting the news and information and was not at this time privy to censorship or comparable laws of media. This meant that the average American had unparalleled access to the Vietnam War. In some ways, this freedom of access and information was a once in a lifetime event, and certainly something that would not occur in this day and age. Seeing uncensored images and footage of the atrocities of war is a blessing and a curse: it’s a blessing to receive such a candor of information, of what is actually going on overseas, but it will almost inevitably sour the human heart, causing the average person to lose sight of the bigger picture of being at war. This paper will discuss how the media had an undeniable influence on the opinion of Americans’ in the Vietnam War and how it impacted most Americans with the desire of wanting to pull out of the war or to be unable to see the benefit of our participation.

It’s important to bear in mind that the media’s influence and interest in Vietnam was gradual at first: when the war first started there were few reports on small country, with a few reports here and there about the growth of communism within the nation (Ronn, 2014). This changed at the end of 1960 when many civilians died in an attack waged against President Diem. This event is precisely what caused more reporters to be sent there. For many Americans, this coup, and all the civilian lives it took, has a humanizing impact on their viewpoint of the war. From this point on, “the war started to come to many American living rooms and usually with bad news. On the media, the battle of Ap Bac was described as a debacle of the South Vietnamese Army. The Buddhist Crisis highlighted by the famous picture of Thich Quang Duc’s self-immolation portrayed Diem’s regime as a brutal and dictatorial regime” (Ronn, 2014). Scholars have argued that the more the details of the war were broadcast to homes all over the nation, the lower public support fell. Other scholars argued that support for a war decreases over time as a fact of collective human behavior and has nothing in particular to do with the Vietnam War.

It’s also important to note that during the years of the war, television was becoming a more trusted source of news: Roper surveys administered at the time as Americans who they would trust if they ever received conflicting accounts of a particular story. 48 percent of the people surveyed said television while only 21 percent said newspapers (McLaughlin). These results aren’t surprising for the era: at this point in time Americans were connecting nightly with news anchors who were able to make a human connection over the television set, appearing in people’s homes like trusted friends.

“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...

Hence the media was able to give Americans a heightened sense of immediacy with the Vietnam War and Americans put their total trust in these anchors, with Walter Cronkite quickly being dubbed the most trusted man in America (McLaughlin). This high level of trust set the stage for these personalities to have influence on how many citizens perceived the war. Many argue that this created a dependence of Americans on television for images, perspectives and true accounts of the realities of the war. In reality, they were watching very carefully edited, half-hour versions with very real human bias of a incredibly intricate war.
Another element which makes this situation even more complex and biased is that its important to remember that television is an industry just like any other: it is motivated by profits before it is motivated by public service. The professionals running the nightly news want to keep their jobs; they want high ratings; they want promotions. Hence, they all have their own inner stimuli that impact how they shape the stories told on the nightly news. Producers and reporters have long tried to make the news more entertaining by telling stories that have elements of heroism, excitement or conflict. Some scholars have argued that the television news didn’t cover Vietnam all that extensively until the amount of American troops was elevated to 175,000 in the summer of 1965, and when hence the war was considered to be more “dramatic” (Hallin, 1986). “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” (Mclaughlin). Initially, the media was able to shape a positive opinion of the war in Americans at large because they presented the war in overly simplistic ways that made the American soldier look positive. Soldiers were portrayed as “good guys shooting reds”; this was a familiar narrative of the nice American military man fighting against communism (McLaughlin). During this time period, American soldiers were relied upon as sources for information and they were almost always portrayed heroically. The slant that these stories took was almost always anti-communism, and if they were going to vilify anyone, they vilified the war, not the soldiers. Hence during this time, it was no surprise that American opinion of the war was still generally positive: it was an unfortunate situation, but it had to be done—a necessary evil.

The general turning point of this coverage occurred during the autumn of 1967. At this time, the nightly audience of the news was huge and around 50 million people watched the television news nightly (Bonier et al., 1984). The lack of censorship of news coverage was part of what drew such a big audience, and also what gathered such firm support of the war—but it also ended up being what caused American support to war and deteriorate. Journalists overseas covered the war intrepidly and began to show two elements to the public that chipped away at their support: graphic combat and disturbed soldiers.

The Tet Offensive

The Tet offensive was one of the most concrete moments in history that demonstrated the damage that can occur when the media reports inaccuracies, and is allowed to influence the public in the name of ratings (Just & Bates, 2000). If one views the nightly news as show, by 1968 it was time to shake up and change up the coverage of the Vietnam war, in order to reengage…