Kodiak, you keep returning to your main thesis that:
I think the reporters were uniquely unfit to report factually about "war" in general, and their editors were unfit to exercise editorial work, and because of it the enemy was aided, the war extended and many good people did not return. Those that did were "greeted" with bile.
What was it that they SHOULD have been reporting in the 68-72 time period of the war so that the war would not have been "extended," so that good people did "return," and so that the enemy wasn't "aided?" Should they have avoided reporting anything that might have caused those of us that did return from being greeted with "bile?"
Can you support your conclusions with some underlying logical and factul underpinnings that illustrate the basis for your "incontrovertable" conclusions?
You might, by the way, want to read the book by Laurence. It's titled "The Cat From Hue." He was, according to many experts, the leading reporter from the Vietnam war. His book is not only a great overview of the war, it's a fantastic insight into the relationship between the military and the press.
I think that you'll find indications that not only did the press not have a predisposition to undercut the military's official line, they had all kinds of reasons and pressures that made them captives of the "official" military line. That, and the military's control of the access of the press, delayed for years the reporting of the realities on the ground in Vietnam.
The bottom line is that the press, contrary to what many apologists for the war allege, erred far more on the side of failing to seek out and debunk the "lies" of the military than it did in failing to support the "truths" advanced by our military. I suspect that's typical. See, eg., Iraqi war.
I know that seems incomprehensible to those who despise the "eastern elite" and the "liberal press," but read the book and you'll understand why it's clearly an accurate summary of the situation.
As far as today's mainstream "news," it's a "for profit" business now. The days of the Fred Frendlies and Roone Arlidges are past. It's all about telling the public what the public wants to hear so that readership or viewership and advertising revenues are maximized. Those businesses controlled by those with an agenda are very aware of this and are sometimes using their advertising dollars as a tool to control the "news" reporting. That's part of the reason why Bush got a free ride on Iraq for so long. If you think that's better, then we'll have to disagree. |
