IndexIdentifying and Evaluating SourcesInvestigationReflectionIdentifying and Evaluating SourcesFor this particular essay, there will be four primary sources used to understand the relationship between the media and the events that took place during the Vietnam War. Vietnam War. The first source will be Reporting Vietnam: Media & Military at War by William M. Hammond. The main objective of this source is to document and analyze different attributes of reporting conducted in Vietnam. This source claims that the agencies responsible for managing information and reporting at the start of the war were not given significant control over how the media portrayed the war itself and what limitations should be placed on which media emanated from the country. war efforts. As Hammond discusses, this played an important role in the portrayal of the war and what America's interests were in the Vietnam War itself. This source questions the journalists' motivations and evaluates them thoroughly, arguing that the media's interests initially represented those of the government, as they sought more specifically to illustrate the effects of communism and the potential rise it could have in a country like Vietnam. As such, this source is particularly important in addressing the rudimentary causes of the escalation of the war in Vietnam, and places emphasis on discussing the effects of the media on the war effort in particular. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The next source came from Daniel C. Hallin, titled The Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam. In this book, Hallin examines the nature of the American media and why it had such a profound impact on governance and in particular on the conflict and the decision to go to Vietnam for war. This essay brings to light various studies and references conducted that illustrated the authoritative power of the national media during this period and how it was used to prominently regulate public opinion regarding certain social issues. Hallin also takes the time to summarize how the change in the media's portrayal of the war changed as the war itself progressed. Hallin's views are well summarized and this source manages to tap into several aspects of the war that are rarely considered in depth, such as the portrayal of television violence and public reactions. As such, this source is important because it broadly addresses how the media was able to distort and sculpt these particular stories and how this in turn affected the war efforts in Vietnam. Moving away from this theme is Ron Stienmann's Inside Television's First War. This source discusses at length the relationship television had in perceptions of the Vietnam War. Given the importance of television as a media entity in this period, this source is crucial as it shows the impact of television as a news source and what effect this had on the general public. In a survey conducted in 1964, over 58% of the entire U.S. population responded that they get most of their news from television sources. Television, as a result, became the primary means of information for the American public during the conflict. As Stienmann explains, key events such as the Battle of Ap Bac, the self-immolation of the Buddhist monks and the Tet Offensive were all described in detail and in depth to the public, on national television, which in turn caused that their opinions yesthey spread. they change dramatically when presented with the real, unfiltered events that occurred in Vietnam. Steinmann's analysis of the impact of television is thorough and well-articulated, and given the impact television has had, it is important as a resource to highlight the connections between audiences and the events themselves. Finally, the final source that will be used is that of Douglas Kinnard, entitled The War Managers. This source is relevant because it shows the events that happened from the point of view of a high-ranking general and chief of staff during the war, Douglas Kinnard. Kinnard uses his platform to show the different ways the Vietnam War failed and what happened to ensure the eventual collapse of public support. Contained in this book are several reports and extensive interviews with other members of the military during this period that reveal a general consensus regarding the overall nature of the Vietnam War. A defining attribute of this assessment was the ability of the media to respond to events almost instantaneously as they occurred and the ability by which the public was able to grasp this information without filters. This source relies on this as a primary attribute as to why the Vietnam War was received with such attention and how the media's portrayal of these events had a resounding impact on the war's conclusion as well. Investigation As these sources have illustrated, the principle Media reaction to the conflicts in Vietnam was initially focused on investigating communist influences in the region, as well as the general nature of the Cold War itself and how it was being conducted in foreign territories such as Vietnam . Initially, the conflict was perceived as an American attempt to stifle the advance of communism around the world and help curb the effects of countries like China and Russia. The administration was able to largely influence how the overall framing of the war itself was conducted, and the reports made about the conflict were based primarily on Cold War conditions, as the administration saw it. The attention of the newly elected president of South Vietnam at the time, Ngo Dinh Diem, was largely focused on the anti-communist tendencies he displayed. However, this was affected greatly when several citizens were killed in an attempted coup against Diem in late 1960. Due to this and the nature of how the conflict began to escalate, several journalists began flocking to Saigon to report directly from the region. . At the time, it was thought that America's intentions were only to maintain a sense of active advice and to help oversee any efforts to maintain stability in the region and keep it free from Communist interference. William M. Hammond illustrates this, arguing that initially the media had a different idea of ​​what the United States would do in Vietnam and as this changed and intensified, so did the media coverage of the events. One of these particular events was that of the Battle of Ap Bac. Correspondence on this topic made it appear that there were many questions regarding the conflict, without directly addressing them as such. While they arguably did not state outright that America's involvement was unlikely to help win the war or that the administration's claims that it would be solely to stop the spread of communism were only part of the reason for country became involved, the coverage was enough to prompt the Kennedy administration to bomb publishers in the statesUnited with what they believed to be inaccurate representations of events. However, these portrayals and subsequent reactions created a clear divide between the government and the media, with many individuals and media entities in the United States beginning to believe that there may be more to the entire conflict than what the government was willing to to disclose. . This set a precedent for further coverage and correspondence, as many news outlets began to backtrack on their support for military intervention by the United States. This was further exacerbated during the Buddhist crisis in 1963. It was during this period that the Diem government began to view the foreign press and media outlets as vehement antagonists and began to oppose foreign media intervention. Although it can be argued that the US military officers present in Saigon were not open to the media, many people in Saigon, especially those who opposed Diem's ​​support, leaked information from Diem to members of the press. This was a central attribute of Kinnard's book, as he discussed how divisions grew between the information the government was disseminating and that reported to Saigon, and as a result, so did public opinion. The South Vietnamese government had attempted to crack down on many of Buddhist monks' resistant attempts to display their religion, including banning Buddhist flags at celebrations. These events came to a traumatic climax, when in June 1963, a monk named Thích Quảng Đức set himself on fire, while a photographer was there to capture the image. Despite attempts to suppress publication of the photo, it eventually made its way into media circulation in the United States and fueled the questions and lack of trust the American public had in the South Vietnamese government and, for extension of American support. government. Finally, and perhaps the most defining moment in the divide between public support and government motivations and operations, came from the depiction of the Tet Offensive. Historically, much of the warfare between the North and South Vietnamese and the American allies came from guerrilla operations in the jungles. However, the Tet Offensive brought conflict to urban areas and exposed serious flaws in America's war efforts. Although it can be said that the Tet Offensive was unsuccessful in its attempts for the communists of North Vietnam, it was a serious blow to the American public and to the war effort in general. It was publicly demonstrated that the efforts did not stop the North's advance towards the South, which was also poorly covered by the White House. It was evident that they had no warning of the events, which resulted in heavy casualties. This occurred towards the end of a propaganda campaign by the US government, which had emphasized that the Americans were winning the war, when in fact it was clear that exactly the opposite was true. As a result, the public was hopelessly skeptical of government actions and the dissemination of information. The media covered this attack more significantly than any previous attack, televising the events that occurred and the depth to which the North had been able to do so. influence the region with these attacks. The coverage of the Tet Offensive has brought a sobering reality to the American population, and in conjunction with the events mentioned above, the level of damage done to the government's image has created deep resentment among the American public. The media has been largely responsible for receiving this information and showing the continuing standoffs,.