World & I Online Magazine  
World & I School | World & I Homeschool | World & I College | World & I Library
 Username:   Password:     Subscribe   Register               About Us | Contact Us | FAQs
18-Year Archive Peoples of the World Book Review Worldwide Folktales Fathers of Faith
Search  
Sort by: Results Listed:
Date Range:    Advanced Search

Online Magazine
 
  Current Issue
Editorial
Current Issue
The Arts
Life
Natural Science
Culture
Book World
Modern Thought
  Resources
18-Year Archive
American Waves
Book Reviews
Ceremonies/Festivities
Eye on the High Court
Fathers of Faith
Footsteps of Lincoln
Millennial Moments
Peoples of the World
Profiles in Character
Teacher's Guide
Traveling the Globe
Worldwide Folktales
Writers and Writing

Did the Media Lose the War?


Article # : 12313 

Section : BOOK WORLD
Issue Date : 1 / 1987  2,426 Words
Author : Harry M. Zubkoff
Harry M. Zubkoff is the former publisher of the Pentagon's Current News, the daily compilations of news stories on national security affairs that keep top officials in government apprised of media commentary. He is now a free- lance writer, specializing in analysis of media performance in the coverage of defense issues.

       THE "UNCENSORED WAR"
       The Media and Vietnam
       Daniel C. Hallin
       Oxford University Press, 1986
       285 pp., $22.50
       
        Seldom does a doctoral dissertation lend itself so aptly to publication in book form. This one is a rare exception to that general rule. It was completed ten years after the Vietnam War ended, and it captures, essentially and vividly, the manner in which the media treated the war and, to a substantial extent, the media's effect - or lack of effect - on public opinion and on the conduct of the war.
       
        Don't misunderstand. This is not a history of the U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia nor is it an analysis of the military conduct of the war in Vietnam, though a good deal of both elements emerge in the text. It is, rather, an analysis of media coverage, and while it reflects exhaustive, detailed, and painstaking research, it has some limitations. As Hallin himself points out, it is impossible for any single study to deal comprehensively with the media coverage of Vietnam. The problem is not simply one of volume; quite understandably the sheer volume of material from the nation's press is so immense as to be virtually unmanageable. More to the point, however, is the great diversity of reporting and opinionizing. Coverage of the war in the so-called liberal, prestige papers like The New York Times and The Washington Post, for example, was significantly different from coverage in the so-called conservative papers like the Chicago Tribune and the San Diego Union. Thus, anyone following events as reported in The New York Times and Newsweek were treated to much more critical views than those who followed events in the New York Daily News or Reader's Digest. Consequently, Hallin's study is based mainly on coverage in The New York Times with a "look occasionally at other papers," constrained, as he was, by the need to keep his raw material within manageable proportions.
       
        Television, of course, represents a separate sector of the media and, as such, requires separate treatment. It has become a cliché, but it is nevertheless true, that Vietnam was indeed the first "televised war" brought daily into the living rooms of America, with profound though immeasurable effect on public opinion. Unfortunately, no organized attempts to preserve the network broadcast was made until mid-1965. Accordingly Hallin divides his study into two parts, the first analyzing The New York Times coverage from 1961 through mid-1965, and the second analyzing the
... Read Full Article


Look for this article in Ask.com

Copyright © 2004 The World & I. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy