Today’s post comes from Madie Ward in the National Archives History Office.
The Vietnam War (1955–75) was a time of great controversy in the United States. Cold War tensions ran high as the country relentlessly fought against the alleged evils of communism.
At the same time, advances in video and audio recording enabled both easier and more news coverage. From 1950 to 1966, the percentage of Americans who owned a television skyrocketed from 9 percent to 93 percent as televisions became essential for everyday life.
With the proliferation of televisions, news networks strived to have the most exciting, dramatic, and attractive stories. They competed for the finest reporters, highest-rated equipment, and largest number of viewers. To succeed, they had to do something unprecedented: on-site coverage of the war in Vietnam. For the first time in American history, the news from the front lines was brought straight into the living room.
So why was Vietnam called the first “television war”?
During World War II, morale was high. Camera crews stayed in noncombat areas to show the happier, more upbeat side of war. The stories were broadcast as motion pictures shown in theaters. And the newscasters shared only good news and reported bad news with a cheery disposition.
Government censorship over the media influenced this outlook—if the press wanted access to stories about the war, they had to receive credentials from the military. This ensured that the news didn’t report anything that the military did not want disclosed to the public. Big stories like the A-bomb stayed out of the news until after the war ended. The main focus of the media was high morale and support for the war effort.
In contrast, the television news networks had a bleaker view of the war in Vietnam. After the Tet Offensive in 1968—which the public saw as a defeat—reports turned unfavorable toward the war effort. The censorship that was in effect during World War II was much more lax by the 1960s. Camera crews were on-site almost constantly in combat zones. Journalists wrote day-to-day coverage and recorded their stories in the field. This gave Americans a more realistic glimpse into the lives of their soldiers, and they didn’t like what they saw.
On April 1, 1968, the day after President Lyndon B. Johnson announced that he would not run for reelection, he stated:
As I sat in my office last evening, waiting to speak, I thought of the many times each week when television brings the war into the American home. No one can say exactly what effect those vivid scenes have on American opinion. Historians must only guess at the effect that television would have had during earlier conflicts on the future of this Nation: during the Korean war, for example, at that time when our forces were pushed back there to Pusan; of World War II, the Battle of the Bulge, or when our men were slugging it out in Europe or when most of our Air Force was shot down that day in June 1942 off Australia.
Televising the Vietnam War helped to divide a nation that took pride in its ability to unify. The dramatization of stories in the news distorted the public’s perception of what was actually happening in the field. Since it was visible in their homes, Americans were able to connect and empathize with the soldiers more than ever before. This caused an outcry of public opinion against the war.
By seeing the war on television, the anti-war advocates argued that the war was unnecessary, and hundreds of thousands of “American boys” were not dying for a noble cause. In fact, they believed that the United States was involved in a war in which they shouldn’t be involved at all.
In contrast, the pro-war supporters regarded anti-war marches as disloyal to U.S. soldiers. They saw the perils of the battlefield and felt an obligation to support their troops regardless of whether they should be there or not. The disagreements between the pro-war and anti-war advocates caused a partition in the American population that still persists.
In addition, the strong public anti-war opinions expressed in the media influenced U.S. policy makers. Americans could see military abuses on television, such as the My Lai Massacre in 1968, which sparked riots in cities and university campuses across the nation. This outrage, fueled by television coverage, ultimately led to the decision to withdrawal of U.S. troops in 1973, and end of the U.S involvement in the war.
To learn more, visit the National Archives’ Vietnam War exhibit, “Remembering Vietnam,” in the Lawrence F. O’Brien Gallery on display through January 6, 2019. And visit our Vietnam War website for researching related National Archives records.
This story presents an important point: should we televise the horrors of war. More here: >>> http://vietnamveterannews.com/1117/
Thank you.
Thanks for this informative article. I especially enjoyed the effort to contrast Vietnam media coverage with previous wars.
I did find the first paragraphâs phrase âalleged evils of communismâ a bit debatable. True, our South Vietnamese allies were hardly paragons of liberal democracy. However, the two largest communist nations, the Soviet Union and Communist China, had both committed atrocities with millions of victims that were quite fresh in the memory of American Cold War leaders.
Re. the Soviets, most scholars agree the dead number in the millions. Among the most notorious phases were the forced collectivization of agriculture including the dekulakization (eliminating an entire class of wealthier farmers deemed politically unreliable: âthe kulaksâ) and the Holomodor (where a man-made famine especially impacted the Ukraine). Then in the latter 1930âs, there was Stalinâs Great Purge, known in Russia as the Yezhovshchina). In the early years of World War II, during the time of their pact with Nazi Germany, the notorious Katyn Forest massacre of captured Polish officers was carried out. For further info see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge ; & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre.
As for Maoâs China, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution ran from roughly 1966-76, occurring simultaneously with the Vietnam War right next door. The Wikipedia page for it gives various estimates of its death toll: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution. A footnote from that page linked to a 1995 talk by a scholar at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum suggests 5-10 million victims: https://www.ushmm.org/confront-genocide/speakers-and-events/all-speakers-and-events/genocide-and-mass-murder-in-the-twentieth-century-a-historical-perspective/the-chinese-case-was-it-genocide-or-poor-policy.
Not to lessen the facts of huge war losses due to communism, to a lesser degree smaller battles like in the vietnam war still had horrendous communist driven incidents. Ie: personal experience had my Infantry company come across a rural village ransacked by viet cong. They killed all the fighting age men that they couldn’t co..opt Into their units. Killed all male children regardless of age, killed many of the women that weren’t kidnapping age. Stole everything, all food so survivors would starve. Personally never saw the cruelty of the Vietnamese as stark as those times. Will always remember that time.
In 1962 as an NCO in a Marine Reserve company I and others were briefed on the political and physical problems we would face during combat in Vietnam. Although not participating in action during the Korean War, with the cease fire there just 10 years old, I had lived through the controversy surrounding that opening gun, if you will, of our participation in foreign adventures not to our advantage. During the question and answer session following the briefing I questioned the value of our participating in a civil war where the side we were going to support was only half-heartedly, if that much, supporting the effort.
I was told I did not understand the situation. I responded that was the genesis of my question which was never satisfactorily answered.
I was part of the half supporting our troops effort while at the same time totally convinced it was the wrong war for us to be engaged in, especially with the Prevaricator in Chief leading it. I was torn between support for the grunts in the field and vocally voicing protest against the wrong war in the wrong country. The whole experience soured me on anything emanating from Washington DC which lasts to this day. If I see anyone from the federal government talking on any subject I immediately am suspect and look for the lies in what that individual is saying. I think I am not alone. That is a bad feeling to have about a governmental body, that they lack so much credibility that everything they say is scrutinized for lies. This latest business with the viral epidemic just reinforces the adage, “If their lips are moving, they’re lying.”
Thanks
Nicely written and really helpful for a school project about the Vietnam War and how media affected the morale and support of the war.
Thanks.
i was in Vietnam
Thank you for your service. Hard time. We prayed for you guys, boys really. I thought you might like to know that. I hope you are doing well.
I was there too it was so hard. I had not seen my family in 15 years it had been bad for so long that I thought I would never come back home. I steel get flash back’s
Who would be the author to cite for this article, Jessie Kratz or Madie Ward? Thank you
Please cite Madie Ward. Thanks!
Thanks!!
Girl I actually love you for this article it saved me and my coursework so much you’re such a slay love you lots xoxxoxoxo