| | |
| Table of Contents Next Article Previous Article Contributors Search |
| 1 | In mid-1967, with the costs of the Vietnam War mounting daily and with no military victory in sight for either side, the North Vietnamese Communist leadership decided that the time was ripe for a general offensive against the South combined with a popular uprising in the cities. The primary goals of this combined major offensive and uprising were to destabilize the Saigon regime and to force the United States to withdraw their effort. In October 1967, the first stage of the offensive began with a series of small attacks in remote and border areas designed to draw the United States forces away from the cities. Infiltration of troops from the North rose considerably in late 1967, and the United States command in Saigon predicted a major Communist offensive in early 1968. The DMZ (demilitarized zone) area was expected to bear the brunt of the attack. Accordingly, United States troops were sent to strengthen northern border posts, and the security of the Saigon area was transferred to South Vietnamese government forces. In the previous years of the war, an informal cease-fire was observed during the Tet (Lunar New Year) holiday. However, it was not observed on January 31, 1968, when a full-scale Communist offensive began, with simultaneous attacks on five major cities, thirty-six provincial capitals, sixty-four district capitals, and numerous villages. The opposing forces even succeeded in taking the United States embassy, though they held it only for a few hours. Similarly, most of the attack forces throughout the country collapsed within a few days, often under the pressure of United States bombing and artillery attacks. The Tet Offensive is widely viewed as a turning point in the war, despite the high cost to northern forces for what appeared at the time to be small gains. |
| 2 | Commonly referred to as a military victory and a political defeat, Tet induced a "crisis of conscience" among the American populace. The confidence that the majority of Americans had in the United States' ability to win the war was greatly shaken. Journalists also experienced similar feelings to those felt by their fellow citizens, and yet they were still responsible for reporting the battles in South Vietnam and covering the reactions of American citizens (Dougan 127). Following Tet, reporters and editors began to see the Vietnam War in a different light. The press is extremely influential in regards to the formation of opinions. In order to view Tet as a major turning point in public opinion of the war, the press coverage of Vietnam before and after the Communist offensive must be comparatively analyzed. Three of the most prominent news-magazines of the late 1960s were Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report, and each deserves examination of their coverage of the Vietnam War and the influence of the Tet Offensive on such coverage. |
| 3 | During the two months prior to Tet, Time attempted objectivity, yet failed to report the war without bias. On December 1, 1967, Time published an article titled "The War: Will to Win," which describes the battle over Hill 875 near Dak To: "Crouching, dodging and crawling, the Americans returned up the slope to link with the shattered company coming down. They made it only because one soldier, wounded in both legs and disobeying orders to retreat, propped himself and his machine gun up in the middle of the trail. He held the Communist attackers at bay until his company got away" (24). The article continues by describing the severe lack of food and water, and the perseverance of the United States soldiers. One week later, Time printed an article focusing on the intensity of the Viet Cong attacks, using sentences such as: "Charging in mindless waves, the V.C. managed to reach one of the forts," and "With suicidal intensity reminiscent of the Chinese in Korea, wave after wave of Viet Cong rolled over each other toward the camp" ("War: Suicidal" 36). By accompanying tales of American heroism and endurance with descriptions of the perceived mindlessness of the Communist attackers, Time seems to have written a chapter in a war novel rather than an objective report on the events of the Vietnam War. |
| 4 | The language Time uses in describing the opposing forces is significant. For example, in the magazine's December 15, 1967 issue, coverage of the Viet Cong attack on the hamlet of Dak Son is clearly biased. Though this event was a serious atrocity, the chosen wording of the article fuels increased hatred against the Communists, and a desire for retaliation. Dak Son was a hamlet of a few thousand Montagnard refugees who were, according to Time, "the innocents of Viet Nam: primitive, peaceful, sedentary hill tribesmen" that had "fled from life under the Viet Cong . . . where they had been forced to work in virtual slavery." The article describes the flamethrower massacre of these unarmed innocents and proceeds to graphically illustrate what the survivors found when their attackers had left, "One by one the dogholes were emptied, giving up the fire-red, bloated, peeling remains of human beings. Charred children were locked in ghastly embrace, infants welded to their mothers' breasts. The victims were almost all women and children" ("War: Massacre" 32). This event could easily have been reported as a large massacre in the refugee hamlet of Dak Son by Communist forces. It is Time's choice of language that reveals an obviously pro-war sentiment in the months prior to the Tet Offensive. |
| 5 | Time magazine's coverage of the Vietnam War directly after the occurrence of Tet reflects the divided feelings about the war within the United States. This becomes evident through the overall wishy-washiness of Time's war coverage, despite its increased effort to remain objective. On February 9, 1968, Time published its first article of any significant length since the Communist offensive. In fact, Tet is the topic of the cover story, and the article exceeds ten pages in length, whereas in previous months the most the subject of Vietnam received was perhaps three or four pages per issue. Titled "The War: The General's Gamble," this article gives a brief account of the battles and then focuses on the impact, the successes, and the failures of the Tet Offensive. In describing the Communist attacks, Time uses language similar to the wording it used in previous months: "After the merrymakers had retired and the last firecrackers had sputtered out on the ground, they struck with a fierceness and bloody destructiveness that Viet Nam has not seen even in three decades of nearly continuous warfare. . . . Many of the attacking units . . . were avowedly suicidal" (22-23). Once again the northern forces are characterized as mindless and destructive units who attack innocent merrymakers. However, the article does acknowledge a Communist "victory of sorts." It states that "they succeeded in demonstrating that, despite nearly three years of steady allied progress in the war, Communist commandos can still strike at will virtually anywhere in the country" (22). Here Time concedes that the Tet Offensive was indeed effective politically, if not militarily, yet later in the article it presents arguments against any sort of victory. Stating that the Communist soldiers were ill-supplied with food and ammunition, the magazine claims that "such recklessness of life deprived the Communists of some of their best men." Time also notes that "by choosing for their attack the time of Tet, the sacred family time of the year for the Vietnamese, they undoubtedly alienated major portions of the population." In addition, the northern forces called for and expected a popular uprising to welcome them as liberators, but the South Vietnamese showed no signs of joining the Viet Cong or the North Vietnamese Army. Using arguments such as the preceding, Time concludes that "In its timing and total effect, the Communist offensive changed the rules of the war in a way that will make it more difficult for the enemy in the future" (23). Clearly, Time, just like the American public, was conflicted about the United States' position in Vietnam. |
| 6 | Like Time, in the months preceding the Tet Offensive, Newsweek's coverage of Vietnam was not without bias. Unlike Time, however, Newsweek's bias was a rather liberal one. In a December 4, 1967 article titled "Thanksgiving at Dak To," Newsweek clearly displays this liberal inclination. The article is accompanied by photographs of American soldiers in battle, American wounded, American dead, and fear and pain are strikingly clear on the faces of the soldiers. Journalist Edward Behr covered the final assault at Dak To, and illustrated it graphically: "Scattered all over the hill were vestiges of the battle: abandoned packs, charred helmets and scraps of uniforms, both American and North Vietnamese. Lying outside one bunker was a gray-green object which puzzled me. I looked more closely, and a wave of horror suddenly hit me. It was a man's shoulder and the stump of an arm. Nearby was a charred boot with black, burnt flesh attached" (24). In his article, Behr also mentions an incident during the battle in which a number of U.S. deaths were caused by a U.S. bomb: "Sweeping past at 300 miles an hour, a U.S. F-100 fighter-bomber dropped a 500-pound bomb into the U.S. perimeter. The bomb exploded at treetop level, showering the area with shrapnel. Recalls Pfc. Johnnie Hayes: 'A lot of guys died from that bomb. It just blew the dead and wounded all over the place. God, it was awful'" (27). By not only describing the terror and anguish that the American soldiers were experiencing, but by also publishing photographs and eyewitness accounts which reinforce the horror of war, Newsweek reveals a slightly anti-war inclination. |
| 7 | This liberal bias remains evident in further Newsweek coverage of Vietnam prior to the Tet Offensive. The cover-story for the January 1, 1968 issue of the magazine is titled "How Goes the War?" and is accompanied by a cover-photo of wounded G.I.s in the battlefield. Within this article, Newsweek examines many different aspects of the Vietnam War, one of them being that of a mounting sense of estrangement, resentment and hatred felt by many South Vietnamese towards their own government as well as their American allies. In interviews with citizens of South Vietnam, Newsweek found most individuals interviewed "demonstrated a deep cynicism about both the Communists and the government. A characteristic response came from a 56-year-old refugee in the coastal enclave of Da Nang. 'I don't know who will win the war,' he said, 'but I miss the bamboo of my village and the tombs of my parents. I don't worry about who will lead the country'" (23). With this sort of ambivalence about the fate of the leadership of their country, why should American soldiers have to fight for a people who don't believe in the cause? By printing such articles, Newsweek subtly makes another effective anti-war argument. |
| 8 | Newsweek's coverage of the Vietnam War became more intense after the Tet Offensive. Its first major article dealing with the Communist attack was published February 12, 1968. Accompanying incredibly graphic photos of the fighting at the U.S. embassy and throughout the country, the article, titled "Hanoi Attacks," begins: "All week long, the tragic land of South Vietnam lay pinned in the grip of the bloodiest single convulsion the war has yet produced. After months of confident American predictions that the enemy was on the run, the Communists staged their boldest military stroke--an astonishingly well-coordinated guerilla offensive against the supposedly secure cities of South Vietnam" (23). The language used to open this article, such as "confident American predictions" and "supposedly secure cities," clearly implies a deficiency in the effectiveness of United States military tactics in Vietnam. Newsweek continued to question the role of America in the Vietnam War for months after the Tet Offensive. On March 18, 1968, Newsweek published an article written by reporter Merton Perry after his visit to the U.S. Marine base at Khe Sanh. The most memorable and influential part of this article is not the actual text, but the color photographs which accompany it. Four entire pages are devoted to these pictures of marines in combat. None of the pictures contain dead bodies, only a few are of wounded men, but the faces of these soldiers are clearly visible. Fatigue, anger, frustration and fear are all represented in this small collection of photos. And the caption Newsweek provided reads: "Doomed patrol." These photographs and those words certainly entice anti-war feelings within the reader. Newsweek's mildly liberal view of the war was aggravated by the Tet Offensive, and became highly intense. |
| 9 | A more neutral and objective view of the Vietnam War in the months prior to the Tet Offensive can be found in U.S. News & World Report. U.S. News & World Report relies heavily on statistical information as the basis for its articles. In "Vietnamese Army Starts to Fight: The Meaning to the U.S.," published in early December of 1967, the magazine uses statistics compiled by the U.S. military headquarters in Saigon to illustrate the progress of the South Vietnamese army. U.S. News & World Report claims: "More backbone and a greater will to win--that's the latest assessment from the field of South Vietnam's fighting forces. It is encouraging news to American officials who want to 'phase out' U.S. troops if [the] Vietnamese can keep improving" (62). This statement is illustrated by the body count of a November battle between the Viet Cong and the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) in the Mekong Delta: "The Viet Cong lost 253 killed; the South Vietnamese suffered 61 deaths. This ratio is important. Brig. Gen. William R. Desobry, senior U.S. adviser in the Delta, says: 'In the autumn of 1965, ARVN losses were tremendous. I remember watching them fly bodies back to Can Tho after a battle. I quit counting after I reached 200. Now the ratio is just about reversed'" (63). By relying on statistics and testimony from credible sources, U.S. News & World Report is able to remain objective. Another method of objective reporting often used by U.S. News & World Report is to present both sides of any issue clearly and fairly. Towards the end of January, 1968, the magazine published a number of articles focusing on the issue of an extended bombing pause with regards to North Vietnam. In an article titled "Vietnam Bombing, Pro and Con--By a Panel of Leading Citizens," U.S. News & World Report includes a summary of the pros and cons of bombing North Vietnam. Drawn up by former President Dwight D. Eisenhower and seven other members of a special committee of the Citizens Committee for Peace with Freedom in Vietnam, the purpose of these lists was "to help Americans make up their own minds on the controversial question of whether or not the bombing should be stopped" (36-37). U.S. News & World Report took a rather objective look at the war through the use of statistics and the testimony of credible sources, and by consciously acknowledging both sides of an issue. |
| 10 | The objectivity U.S. News & World Report showed during the months prior to the Tet Offensive quickly evolved into cynicism about the United States and the Vietnam War after Tet. In early February, a short column about the attack on the U.S. embassy said: "A symbol of America's presence in South Vietnam--the gleaming new U.S. Embassy--has suffered a shattering blow. . . . The guerrillas did only minor damage. Bodies of 19 of them were found in the Embassy grounds. But the impact of the raid--on a building constructed to double as a fortress--was likely to be a long-remembered loss of prestige for the United States" ("Attack" 6). U.S. News' misanthropic approach to the Vietnam War is continued in the February 12, 1968 article "As Climax Mounts in Vietnam." In observing the ramifications of the Tet Offensive, U.S. News & World Report had this to say: "Despite defeats of the past year, the Communists showed they do not lack manpower--dedicated and skilled. . . . U.S. and South Vietnamese forces were shown to lack the ability to protect cities and people--anywhere in Vietnam--when the Communists decide to zero in" (23). The negativity reflected in the language of this article is not present in the wording of U.S. News & World Report articles prior to Tet. "As Climax Mounts in Vietnam" also examined the position of the marines awaiting attack at Khe Sanh:
Communist divisions were moving into positions surrounding the Khe Sanh air strip and base, not far from the Laotian and North Vietnamese borders, digging gun emplacements, surveying Marine defense positions. The decision as to when a major battle would erupt there rested with the Communists. U.S. troops were prohibited by White House policy from taking the offensive and carrying the battle to the enemy either by entering Laos or moving across the Demilitarized Zone into North Vietnam.And expressing incredible cynicism, the article concludes that "At this crucial point of the war it is the enemy--not the U.S.--that holds the initiative" (25). The Tet Offensive undoubtedly influenced U.S. News & World Report's coverage of the Vietnam War heavily. |
| 11 | Both a military victory and a political defeat, the Tet Offensive provoked intense conflict among the citizens of the United States. Following Tet, reporters and editors began to view the Vietnam War in a different light. The occurrence of a large Communist offensive deeply affected Americans, including reporters, and therefore the effect of the Tet Offensive is evident in the journalism of the time. This point is illustrated in the reporting of the prominent news-magazines of the Vietnam era: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report. By examining all three in regards to their coverage of the Vietnam War and the effect of the Tet Offensive on that coverage, the great variety in the quality and the objectivity of the reporting becomes obvious. During the two months prior to Tet, Time attempted objectivity, yet failed to report the war without bias. The magazine shows an obvious pro-war sentiment in articles published before the Tet Offensive. Time magazine's coverage of the Vietnam War directly after Tet reflects the divided feelings about the war within the United States. This becomes evident through the overall wishy-washiness of Time's war coverage, despite its increased effort to remain objective. Like Time, in the months preceding the Tet Offensive, Newsweek's coverage of Vietnam was not without bias. Unlike Time, however, Newsweek's bias was a rather liberal one. Newsweek's mildly liberal view of the war was aggravated by the Tet Offensive, and became intensely liberal thereafter. A more neutral and objective view of the Vietnam War in the months prior to the Tet Offensive can be found in U.S. News & World Report, relying heavily on statistical information as the basis for its articles. However, the objectivity U.S. News & World Report showed during the months prior to the Tet Offensive quickly evolved into cynicism about the United States and the Vietnam War after Tet. All three publications had differing views which were all affected by the occurrence of the Tet Offensive. This diversity of reporting significantly influenced public opinion and doubtlessly played an important role in the outcome of the Vietnam War. |
|
Nominated and Edited by Dr. Jackie Flowers, History Instructor
| |
