Re: [Leica] photos of war dead

[Eric Welch <eric@jphotog.com>]

That isn't how it happened. Listen to the reporters who were covering 
the war for the Washington Post and New York Times and you see a 
different picture. David Halberstam and his colleagues went over there 
fully supporting the war as a way to contain communism. They were 
convinced by the grunts that the war was un-winnable and that the 
leadership were not telling the truth about body counts and other 
aspects of the war (see Gulf of Tonkin).

Of course, as the war drug on things changed. Walter Cronkit's coverage 
of the Tet Offensive and his conclusion that he explained on the air 
that the war was a mistake caused a lot of the public to shift their 
attitudes. Researchers have actually traced that moment as the point 
where the war effort began to lose steam.

It all depends on perspective. I agree with you, that it was probably a 
good thing that the media made the war's costs clear to the American 
people, and that they pressured the government to stop and pull out. 
That's what democracy is about. And the grumbling to this day by our 
Military strategic thinkers (I learned that covering the Army's Command 
College at Fort Leavenworth) that it was the media's fault we lost that 
war\ is the perfect example of why the US puts civilians in charge of 
the military.

It might take some time, but eventually our system is self-correcting.

On Nov 15, 2003, at 2:20 PM, Emanuel Lowi wrote:

> It took some years of the Vietnam war before the US media felt the 
> massive home-grown
> opposition to that conflict and started publishing pictures that 
> eventually
> undermined the war effort -- and that may have been a good thing. It 
> would be
> inappropriate for the press to make things work the other way 'round.

Eric Welch
Carlsbad, CA
http://www.jphotog.com

AAAAAA - American Association Against Acronym Abuse Anonymous

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html