Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/11/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I think it is hilarious that Marc thinks there was some bucolic moment in the past where the media were not plugging some particular point of view and simply reported the facts, ma'am. I will bow to him on military history or Rollei lore, but I suggest he takes Media History 101 before he relies any further on this ridiculous argument. Same as it ever was. On Nov 16, 2003, at 7:55 PM, Marc James Small wrote: > At 09:05 AM 11/16/03 -0800, Eric Welch wrote: >> 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. > > Eric > > Several points. > > First, I recognize that you are a proponent of "advocacy journalism" > and I > trust that you recall that I am not. Thus, I do not want a media > which is > waving around the axes it intends to grind but, rather, wish the most > unbiased and neutral coverage I can get, coverage without cheap shots > at > emotionalism and the like. There IS a place for advocacy journalism in > fringe publications with a known political slant, such as THE DAILY > WORKER > or THE NATIONAL REVIEW, but the takeover of the "mainstream" media > over the > past sixty years by those claiming neutrality while advancing a > political > or social agenda has not done this country any good at all. (This > situation is exacerbated, of course, by the shift to broadcast media > with > its emphasis on "immediacy" and "shock value". There has been > extensive > research into jury composition, for instance, which shows that > convictions > are substantially likely if, say, a Black becomes involved in a > firearms > incident than if a white guy does the same -- and my own trial > experience > bears this out, as well. The public who goes home and gets the pulse > of > society from those "film at 11" guys never thinks too deeply on the > editorial approach of the broadcast media.) Democracy, to this > committed > citizen of the Great Republic, is NOT about the existence of a biased > press > pressuring for its own agenda to become adopted. It is about an > electorate > selecting those who will make decisions based upon the popular welfare > as > each voter believes it to be. > > Second, Tet was a major victory for the US, as the Viet Cong was wiped > out > by our vigorous and appropriate response. From 1968 to 1975, almost > all > hostile forces in the RVN were DRVN mainline units infiltrated south. > The > US did not properly exploit this victory, it is true, in large part > from > the reality that 1968 was an election year and the outgoing Johnson > administration was attempting not to embarrass things for Hubert > Humphrey's > campaign. > > Third, I recognize the role that Cronkite played in shaping US public > opinion during his two decades at CBS Evening News. But, to be fair, > the > US electorate continued to support the war until the end. Some polls > simply asked a yes/no question, and, yes, those polls show US support > falling. But the polls which asked more sophisticated queries, such as > Harris, which included discrimantors such as, "should the US a)do more > to > win the Viet-Nam War? b) do the same as it is doing now? or c) pull > out?" > found that the citizenry wanted the US to "win" in Viet-Nam but did not > want the US to continue to have young men killed for no discernible > purpose. This factor was especially true among those most likely to > vote, > as shown by the 1968 Presidential Election. > > Fourth, you must not have spent much time covering the Command and > General > Staff College. I am both a graduate of their Command and Staff Course > and > both a former instructor and Adjunct Faculty member. They certainly DO > stress a lot of the problems with Viet-Nam in their coursework, > especially > the necessity for high commanders to know when to tell the civilians > their > personally held "best assessments" instead of simply saying, "can do, > sir!" > to the President, as the JCS did at the time of Tonkin Gulf. You > probably > should read ON STRATEGY, a work that was long required reading at C&GS > and > whcih is still highly recommended. (The ethics block, now taught in > the > earlier "CAS-Cubed" course, includes a block on GEN Harold K Johnston, > Chief of Staff of the Army from 1964 to 1968 and his own moral > quandries > over whether or not he should have resigned in opposition to the war, > on > the grounds that the civilian government refused to set and adhere to > "war > aims", so that the military was simply trapped in an expensive war > which > was giving us casualties without any goal towards which to work.) > (And remember that there are no longer more than a very small number of > Viet-Nam War veterans on active duty today. For that matter, well > over 90% > of those who were involved in Grenada are now gone, while almost 75% of > those from the First Gulf War are no longer in service. The present > crop > of soldiers really have no emotional connection to these earlier > conflicts.) > > Marc > > > msmall@infionline.net FAX: +540/343-7315 > Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir! > > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > - -- John Brownlow pictures: http://www.pinkheadedbug.com warblog: http://www.unintended-consequences.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html