» » The Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam

Download The Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam fb2

by Daniel C. Hallin

Download The Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam fb2
Author: Daniel C. Hallin
ISBN: 0520065433
Language: English
Pages: 304 pages
Category: Humanities
Publisher: University of California Press; First Edition edition (April 14, 1989)
Rating: 4.3
Formats: doc txt txt doc
FB2 size: 1432 kb | EPUB size: 1929 kb | DJVU size: 1388 kb
Sub: Other

There are a number of books about the mainstream media's coverage of the Vietnam War, and this is a very good one.

In examining the media itself, Hallin writes, From 1961 to 1967, for all the tension between the media and government, and for all the mythology about the press as an adversary or watchdog of the state, the independence of the American news media – at least those parts of it we are covering here – was very limited (pg. 162). There are a number of books about the mainstream media's coverage of the Vietnam War, and this is a very good one.

Hallin Daniel C. (EN). Vietnam was Americas most divisive and unsuccessful foreign war. It was also the first to be televised and the first of the modern era fought without military censorship. From the earliest days of the Kennedy-Johnson escalation right up to the American withdrawal, and even today, the medias role in Vietnam has continued to be intensely controversial.

Электронная книга "The Uncensored War: The Media and the Vietnam", Daniel C. Hallin. Эту книгу можно прочитать в Google Play Книгах на компьютере, а также на устройствах Android и iOS. Выделяйте текст, добавляйте закладки и делайте заметки, скачав книгу "The Uncensored War: The Media and the Vietnam" для чтения в офлайн-режиме.

Home Browse Books Book details, The "Uncensored War": The Media and Vietnam. The "Uncensored War": The Media and Vietnam. Hallin draws on the complete body of the New York Times coverage from 1961 to 1965, a sample of hundreds of television reports from 1965-73, including television coverage filmed by the Defense Department in the early years of the war, and interviews with many of the journalists who reported it, to give a powerful critique of the conventional wisdom, both conservative and. liberal, about the media and Vietnam.

Hallin does an excellent job puncturing the myth that the media-newspaper and television-was hostile to the war in Vietnam, and hence, to some degree responsible for its failure. The hostile media theory holds no water up until the Tet offensive in 1968 and is a relatively small piece of a larger complicated picture thereafter.

This book was finished in the tenth year after the end of the Vietnam Wa. The Uncensored War The Media and Vietnam, With a new preface. by Daniel C. Hallin (Author).

This book was finished in the tenth year after the end of the Vietnam War. The year 1985 was also the year of Rambo, and of a number of other celebration of the Vietnam War in popular culture. It was the year Congress cut off aid to the "Contras" in Nicaragua, and then abruptly reversed itself and approved "humanitarian" aid to support the guerrilla war in that country.

Hallin's spheres is a theory of media objectivity posited by journalism historian Daniel C. Hallin in his book The Uncensored War (1986) to explain the coverage of the Vietnam war. Hallin divides the world of political discourse into three concentric spheres: consensus, legitimate controversy, and deviance. In the sphere of consensus, journalists assume everyone agrees. The sphere of legitimate controversy includes the standard political debates, and journalists are expected to remain neutral

The Vietnam War was complicated by factors that had never before . 9 Much of this literature is listed in Daniel C. Hallin, The Media, the War in Vietnam, and Political Support: A Critique of the Thesis of a. .

The Vietnam War was complicated by factors that had never before occured in America's conduct of a war. between the media and the government during Vietnam was in fact one of conflict: the media contradicted the more positive view of the war officials sought to project, and for better or for worse it was the journalists' view that prevailed with the public, whose disenchantment forced an end to American involvement. Hallin, The Media, the War in Vietnam, and Political Support: A Critique of the Thesis of an Oppositional Media, Journal of Politics 46 (Feb.

Vietnam was America's most divisive and unsuccessful foreign war. From the earliest days of the Kennedy-Johnson escalation right up to the American withdrawal, and even today, the media's role in Vietnam has continued to be intensely controversial.

This book was finished in the tenth year after the end of the Vietnam War. The year 1985 was also the year of Rambo, and of a number of other celebration of the Vietnam War in popular culture. It was the year Congress cut off aid to the "Contras" in Nicaragua, and then abruptly reversed itself and approved "humanitarian" aid to support the guerrilla war in that country. The "Vietnam Syndrome" showed signs of giving way tot he "Grenada Syndrome": the fear of repeating the Vietnam experience showed signs of giving way to a desire to relive it in an idealized form. The nation seemed deeply confused about its identity as an actor in world politics, and thus particularly vulnerable to appealing myths. So it is a good time to take a sober look back and the nation's consciousness during the Vietnam War itself--which as we shall see, despite the popular image of an independent media demolishing the nation's illusions, was also governed by a powerful mythology, born in part out of the traumas of earlier wars.
Comments (7)
Morad
Great documentation well worth having....
Wyameluna
Very helpful for my research paper
Rishason
Got what i wanted within a reasonable time frame. I was hoping to receive it quicker but as my first purchase, it was good.
Stan
In "The 'Uncensored War': The Media and Vietnam", Daniel C. Hallin argues, “The apparently growing prominence of the media coincided with what seemed to be a crisis in political institutions: public confidence in government declined dramatically during these years, public attachment to both political parties weakened, and the political system began a twenty-year period during which not a single president would serve two full terms of office. These developments, along with Vietnam, have provoked a broader controversy about the relation of the media to the institutions of American government” (pg. 4). Hallin focuses on the print media and television. He follows print stories chronologically, but admits a gap in the record of television stories as most were not recorded nor did stations keep detailed transcripts of content. Despite this, he is able to refute the idea that the media was solely responsible for a loss of American will to fight.
Hallin writes, “It is only in the context of a certain political climate and a certain conception of what journalism is about that an administration’s control of information can give it this kind of control [as in the Gulf of Tonkin incident] over the content of the news” (pg. 21). He continues, “The president’s power to control foreign affairs news in the early 1960s rested primarily on two factors. The first was the ideology of the Cold War: the bipartisan consensus, forged during the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, that had identified foreign policy with ‘national security,’ and hence removed most foreign policy decisions from the agenda of political debate” (pg. 24). Secondly, professional journalism’s commitment to objectivity relied on official facts from the government. Hallin continues, “Where consensus reigns, however, they [journalists] rely as heavily as anyone else on the symbolic tools that make up the dominant ideology of their society” (pg. 50). He argues, “The continuing strength of the Cold War consensus is no doubt the most important reason the [Johnson] administration was able to contain the debate over Vietnam policy” (pg. 61). Hallin further argues, “In many ways, the professionalization of journalism in the United States has strengthened rather than weakened the tie between press and state” (pg. 64).
Hallin writes of early television coverage of the war, “While the coverage of a paper like the Times had a dry and detached tone, television coverage presented a dramatic contrast between good, represented by the American peace offensive, and evil, represented by Hanoi” (pg. 118). Beyond this, “Television, moreover, tends to ‘thematize’ – that is, to simplify and unify – not only within a particular story or broadcast, but over time as well. Television tends, in other words, to pick out a limited number of ongoing stories and cover them day in and day out” (pg. 120). Hallin continues, “Television reporting of Vietnam was structured primarily by a different, much less conscious level of ideology: it was structured by a set of assumptions about the value of war – not so much as a political instrument, but as an arena of human action, of individual and national self-expression – and by images and a language for talking about it” (pg. 142). In examining the media itself, Hallin writes, “From 1961 to 1967, for all the tension between the media and government, and for all the mythology about the press as an adversary or watchdog of the state, the independence of the American news media – at least those parts of it we are covering here – was very limited” (pg. 162). This changed, as “By 1968, the establishment itself – and the nation as a whole – was so divided over the war that the media naturally took a far more skeptical stance toward administration policy than in the early years” (pg. 162). Even with this change, “For the most part, television was a follower rather than a leader: it was not until the collapse of consensus was well under way that television’s coverage began to turn around; and when it did turn, it only turned so far” (pg. 163).
Hallin concludes, “It is not clear that it would have been much different if the news had been censored, or television excluded, or the journalists more inclined to defer to presidential authority” (pg. 213). Further, “The collapse of America’s ‘will’ to fight in Vietnam resulted from a political process of which the media were only one part” (pg. 213).
net rider
Hallin demolishes the view put forward first by Peter Braestrup in Big Story, and then echoed down the years by conservative apologists for our loss in Vietnam. Braestrup claimed, and popular culture mythology like the Rambo series underlined, the idea that we "won the war in Vietnam," but "lost the war in America." The strongest military promoter of that view was Col. Harry Summers, who contested the view of counterinsurgency specialists like Andrew Krepinovich that a new kind of warfare was necessary in an age of "low-intensity conflict." Hallin surveys the output of "liberal" papers like the New York Time, and the Washington Post and proves conclusively that their coverage did not become critical of the war until quite late in the game, well after the Tet Offensive.
funike
There are a number of books about the mainstream media's coverage of the Vietnam War, and this is a very good one. He demonstrates how the corporate press hid behind "objectivity" for many years to avoid really deeply analyzing the war and telling the full truth to the American people.
Nakora
A very interesting book. Excellent service from seller.