American Valor Quarterly Issue 1 - Winter 2007 | Page 21

Even with the threat of communism the American people
came to resent military presence in Vietnam. In 1965, the
year U.S. troops entered the country, the Gallup Poll revealed
that only 24 percent of Americans felt that it was a mistake
to commit such forces. As each year progressed the polls
show that support for the war dwindled. After the 1968
battles of the Tet Offensive, 46 percent of Americans
believed it was a mistake to send troops, and only 42 percent
were still supportive of the decision. This was only the
beginning of what would seem like endless feelings of regret
from the American public.

Journalists began to relay their skepticism of government
and military actions through their reporting. It is unarguably
the job of the press to present the truth in order to keep the
government transparent and responsible to the people, but
skepticism that leads coverage away from the truth is equally
as dangerous as blindly trusting the state. In Vietnam,
journalists seemed to find a way to manipulate the truth in
order to convey their skepticism. One common practice
was the use of unnamed sources to generalize an opinion, a
dangerous tactic when trying to appropriately inform the
public. While many recognize the turn in public opinion
and media support after the Tet Offensive in 1968, Mark
Moyar, author of Triumph Forsaken,
argues that journalists such as David
Halberstam of the New York Times
presented a contaminated truth
during the early years of the war.
Misinfor mation, confusion and
critiques of allied performances
were common themes from the
beginning.

Public
fr ustration
and
misunderstanding is a clear problem
concerning the history of the
Vietnam War that must be properly
critiqued to provide the most
complete and accurate information
possible. In order to do this the press
must be examined, as it writes the
first draft of history with
unmatchable influence on public
opinion. This influence on opinion
is also what sets the tone for years
to come. The information provided
to the public during the Vietnam
War began with negligent reporting
styles that often led to
misinformation that was never
corrected, re-evaluated or well
A political cartoon published in the New York Times in
rounded.

Not recognized as a top story, the
Vietnam War drew many reporters
who were young rookies becoming
acquainted with the field.
Halberstam, arriving in Saigon at age
28, was quick to trust as his source
the war hero Col. John Paul Vann,
who provided biased information
concerning the battle of Ap Bac.
1962 before the media noticed the war.
Vann told Halberstam, and his
This trend was a symptom of a changing media. Suddenly colleague Neil Sheehan of the Washington Post, that the
print media was not the only source for news. USA Today failures of the battle were to be blamed on the South
reporter Richard Benedetto explains “[d]uring Vietnam, vivid Vietnamese troops, who “…make the same goddamn
daily reports of mayhem and dying were brought onto every mistakes over and over again in the same way.” The next
living room TV screen, not only shocking Americans, but day the New York Times headline of Halberstam’s article
causing them to question whether the fight was worth it.” read: “VIETNAM DEFEAT SHO
-L