“Why We Write”: Journalistic Ethics in Vietnam War Reporting and Their Relationship to Trust in the American Media and Government By Bailey LeFever Department of History University of Florida Thesis Adviser: Dr. Matt Jacobs 1 Table of Contents: Introduction: Media Ethics and their Influence on Public Trust ........................................2 Chapter 1: Monks and Hysteria ........................................................................................... 14 Chapter 2: Maybe the Best Weren’t the Brightest ............................................................. 26 Chapter 3:1968 and Everything After ................................................................................. 32 Chapter 4: Conclusion: What type of reporting was most effective? ............................... 38 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ 41 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 42 2 Introduction “And in the end, of course, a true war story is never about war. It's about sunlight. It's about the special way that dawn spreads out on a river when you know you must cross the river and march into the mountains and do things you are afraid to do. It's about love and memory. It's about 1 sorrow. It's about sisters who never write back and people who never listen.” — Tim O'Brien, The Things They Carried I didn’t grow up during the Vietnam War. I did, however, spend most nights at family dinner watching highlights from the Iraq War, craning my head to see around our marble lamp. So I see myself in Kevin Arnold from The Wonder Years watching the Christmas bombings from his living room. The fiery blasts of bombs on the Television screen, the booming dissenting opinion of my father, the confusion of school protests and what they meant for me. Though we grew up nearly 50 years apart, Kevin and I both represent the average American media consumers of today. But it was his war that influenced how my war was covered. It was the Vietnam War that shifted how journalists approach covering conflict. It was the Vietnam War that changed how much Americans trust the media. The American coverage of the Vietnam War represents the largest discernable shift in recent history in the ever-changing relationship between the public and the media and the media and the government. The once friendly relationship between the media and the government became a vestige of what it once was; reporters covered the conflict honestly and pursued stories 1 O'Brien, Tim. 1990. The things they carried: a work of fiction. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 3 that were more than shiny press releases given out by colonels. The war marked the first in American history that was told honestly, and its transmission to the public arguably led to its demise. Reporters like David Halberstam, Malcom Browne, Nick UT, Ted Koppel and Walter Cronkite immortalized the Vietnam War in the same way that Christiane Amanpour and Katie Couric covered the Iraq War in recent years. Cronkite’s “Evening News” was replaced with 60 Minutes in my world, and instead of the fireplace, we gathered around the flat screen. The reporting hasn’t changed. What changed was the public demand for this kind of biting, all- encompassing reporting. Americans today want to know the whole truth, for they now know the folly of trusting the government’s intentions blindly. The press corps covered the misconduct of American soldiers, the horrors of the My Lai Massacre and the fabrications presented by the U.S. government. The photos and stories broadcast around the world became a fixture at the dinner table of American families like Kevin Arnold’s. Civil unrest ensued in mass protests across the country from college campuses in Ohio and Gainesville, Florida to Washington, D.C. Citizens and policymakers alike realized that the United States’ effort in Vietnam might have been of nationalistic and selfish means, not for the “spread of American ideals” or the protection of the South Vietnamese. However, the government was still able to censor a good bit of coverage of the war, proving that the “guardians of the truth” role of the media had not completely evolved at that time. Some editors were sympathetic to various officials within the government or military and censored some of the most authentic storytelling out of Vietnam, namely coverage that showed the true brutality of American soldiers. Many of the accounts critical of the government were published overseas. One of which was Martha Gelhourn, whose revealing series on the 4 conditions of Vietnamese hospitals and orphanages was only completely published in Brittan as 2 no American paper would run the series The cohort of reporters grew as the conflict passed on through the 1960s, which allowed for them to forcefully resist censorship by both governments. Malcom Browne, Neil Sheehan, David Halberstam and others were added to the ranks and the dynamic began to change. Reporters became less supportive of the war as the years passed. As the government led press 3 trips to the country to promote occupation, anti-war sentiment began to grow. Some reporters, like Gelhourn, knew that the fate of “the luckless tribe” laid on their shoulders. There lies some honor in working for media outlets; in serving the community they love. There was no honor in working for a paper if they did not use their platform to spread the truth. Thus, the reporting became more revealing as the war went on and as journalists were exposed to the falsities perpetrated by the American government. Without ethical reporting, reporters sacrifice the honor that comes with journalism. These values are imparted on reporters not only by their respective employers, but by the collective. Journalists know that when one article is proved falsified, the entire news organization suffers. Ethics come into question in other ways as well. Writers must consider what context needs to be included in a story so as to properly inform the reader. Photographers must capture real moments, not allowing the subjects to pose or stage themselves. Anchors must triple check their copy for biases. Many Americans, albeit an aging demographic, still understand the mechanisms behind the newspapers they receive on their doorsteps each morning. A lot of this trust was built on the accurate portrayal of 2 Knightley, Phillip. The First Casualty. London: Quartet Books, 1978, 427. 3 ibid 5 the Vietnam War. Americans began to learn of how the newsgathering process operated, and demanded more and more. Ethical reporting practices influence trust, this is evident in the way Americans today disregard alt-weeklies that seldomly cite sources or stations that often misreport breaking news. However, I wanted to see how reporting practices changed in Vietnam and if this ethics began to change. My research encompassed several key lines of questioning, namely: did media coverage change over the course of the war? Can the viewer see bias shift from pro-war to anti-war? Which form of media coverage remained the most consistent throughout the war? Which reporters served as true public figures throughout the war? What specific pieces of their coverage had direct impact on public opinion? Which type of reporting actually provided an honest representation of the war? How was this piece received by the public? Are there key media episodes in the war where we can see public sentiment change? What distinguishes the reporting that emerged from the close group of reporters? Does this present new ethical dilemmas to consider? Different mediums offer their own levels of realness. Traditional written pieces lend a more holistic picture of the scene, allowing the author to weave in multiple perspectives along with their own experience. Articles are also edited for accuracy and voice, letting the organization’s voice into the story. While broadcast news and photos are subject to editing of their own kind, it simply seen as easily as it is in print journalism. Sometimes words are not enough to bring the reader into the scene—cold facts and a narrative cannot replace a striking photograph or the cries of survivors. 6 Photos offer looks at quick moments, sometimes serving as the most striking storytelling devices. They are best presented in series that show the consumer a “zoom in, zoom out” look at the scene, rather than the most powerful shot. Scope helps give these moments more context. This is how good photo stories are done well. However, some photos are best seen on their own for shock value. Ultimately what should be considered most by the photographer and editor is intent. Broadcast coverage allows reporters to take the viewer into longer points of the story, but, means that the reporter cannot convey opinions and stories that do not lend themselves to quick sound bites or refuse to be shown onscreen. It also is far less edited than print typically is, allowing the reporting to feel a bit more authentic. Of course, this presents its own dilemma, as less editing can lead to misinformation spreading and a less informed public. I was able to discern how ethical and authentic reporting influences the public’s relationship with the government by evaluating examples of broadcast, photo and written coverage from three different periods within the war, the beginning of the war, post-Christmas bombings and post-Tet, and polling from corresponding dates. My research will examine which type of reporting creates the most authentic portrayal of the situation. It is by this methodology that I hope to explore my topic. As the relationship between the media and government became more and more tenuous, public trust in the media increased and trust in the government declined. There are, however, limits to what my methodology can accomplish. While there are well-documented cases of some reporting, not all reporters gave interviews about their experience in Vietnam, and I have no such means to verify that their words are true without interviews with reporters who have since passed.