Vietnam War Coverage vs Recent Wars

[jkjsooner]

Lately I've been fascinated by the Vietnam War and especially watching videos of how it was covered. It's interesting how much more intimate the coverage was of that war than we have today. The media followed soldiers around, let the TV audience learn about their stories, and in some cases ultimately how they gave their life.

Now we live in a world where information flows around the world at a rapid pace yet we just don't get that type of coverage. It seems somewhat ironic to me.

I understand why. The government has taken steps to make sure coverage of recent wars isn't like it was in Vietnam. There is a lot of negative consequences of that type of coverage. The more body bags the American public saw the more they turned against the war. But on the other side, much of American is not in tune with the sacrafices our soldiers are making. We can see numbers and pictures but we don't see nearly as much of their stories.

I'm not here to express an opinion but I am curious about other's opinions on this matter. I want to err on the side of our soldiers but I don't know what that means.

[Midtowner]

The press back in those days really cared about journalistic integrity, the government wasn't nearly as aggressive at going after journalists and trying to control them with criminal penalties. Look at how aggressively the government has gone after Bradley Manning and how widely he is condemned for releasing largely harmless material as opposed to Russo and Ellsburg's release of the Pentagon Papers which showed the government was still sending our young men to die despite knowing they couldn't win the war. Different times...

[KantoSooner]

Mid, while I agree with your take on journalists (today's crowd couldn't have been hired as interns 40 years ago), the Bradley Manning comment is off base.
During previous conflicts it is likely that he would have been court martialed, found guilty and had his 15 minutes of fame doing the aerial mambo at the end of a rope. He was utterly treasonous in his conduct and deserves to die for it.

[Midtowner]

Okay, so if you think that, what do you think should have happened to Russo and Ellsburg?

[KantoSooner]

Which of them were uniformed military or sworn intelligence officers? (and both might have been, my memory fails on this point). But that does make a difference.

[Midtowner]

Ellsburg worked as a civilian employee in the Pentagon. He worked for Gen. McNamara. The damage their leak did to the government was MUCH greater than that which Manning's leaks caused. Is the uniform all that matters? Ellsburg and Russo were both charged and tried under the Espionage Act. The cases were dismissed due to prosecutorial misconduct when G. Gordon Liddy and company breaking into various offices to attempt to steal Ellsburg's psychiatrist's file.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Mid, while I agree with your take on journalists (today's crowd couldn't have been hired as interns 40 years ago), the Bradley Manning comment is off base.
During previous conflicts it is likely that he would have been court martialed, found guilty and had his 15 minutes of fame doing the aerial mambo at the end of a rope. He was utterly treasonous in his conduct and deserves to die for it.

manning should be summarily shot, that's my opinion. He is a snot nosed little creep who should not be using oxygen. He wouldn't have gotten it this easy in WWII.

[Curly Bill]

I'm cool with Matlock's take on journalists, but Bradley Manning should be thrown in a deep hole and covered up.

[rock on sooner]

I'm cool with Matlock's take on journalists, but Bradley Manning should be thrown in a deep hole and covered up.

Nah, that'd be a waste of good real estate!

[Curly Bill]

Nah, that'd be a waste of good real estate!

Yeah, the little bastard prolly wouldn't even make good fertilizer.

[rock on sooner]

Speaking of traitors, Scooter Libby and journalist Novak both should have
had the same sort of treatment as Manning over the outing of Valerie Plame.
That ruined a long productive CIA career and more than likely endangered
other CIA operatives (which we'd never know about) Libby got off light
and Novak was nothing more than a smug faced worm that hid behind flimsy
confidential source crap...

[KantoSooner]

Mid, other than the prosecutorial misconduct by Liddy and others, what would Ellsberg and Russo have gotten? And, did they reveal details of ongoing secret operations....or just embarassing details of things that had gone on? Manning was simply dumping whatever he could get his hands on into a domain that would make certain that the greatest number of people possible would see it.

Aside on Valerie Plame: a lot is made of her being 'undercover'. How 'deep cover' can you be when you're the wife of a US Ambassador? Think that might tip off the bad hats that maybe, just maaaaaaaaybe you might be in cahoots with the US government? While what was done in exposing her was wrong, and criminal, she'd been no more than a cut out for at least as long as she was 'the wife of...'

[rock on sooner]

Kanto, read her book...Fair Game. Admittedly, the book is her side of the
whole sordid story, but she moved in circles that allowed her to do more
covert things that one might imagine. Having said that, you are correct
about what's obvious.

[C&CDean]

Mid finally got something right. Partially anyhow. Journalism/media today isn't even a shadow of what it was during Vietnam. What is also different is the government's control of it. Today, the "media" is a leftwing mouthpiece and nothing more. There's no such thing as "The News." Today there's "stories" - most of which are trumped up horse**** barely resembling fact. The only halfway thing close to news/truth is the 10 o'clock news with Linda freaking Cavanaugh.

[Midtowner]

Mid, other than the prosecutorial misconduct by Liddy and others, what would Ellsberg and Russo have gotten?

The feds were seeking a 115 year jail term.


And, did they reveal details of ongoing secret operations....or just embarassing details of things that had gone on? Manning was simply dumping whatever he could get his hands on into a domain that would make certain that the greatest number of people possible would see it.

They revealed to the American public that we had enlarged the war to cover several countries while our media and politicians reported otherwise. They showed Kennedy had planned in 1963 to overthrow the then South Vietnamese President. The Pentagon Papers were of course released through the NYT, so they could withhold anything which would have placed agents in the field at risk.

Bradley Manning though actually did go to the Times and multiple major media outlets, which again, shows you how timid these guys are, before in an act of desperation, he went to WikiLeaks. With our current media, Deep Throat would have had to go on WikiLeaks.

As to what damage Manning did, the government has withheld that information, but I haven't heard of a single incident except that there were a few trifling embarrassments from some frank analysis of world leaders by our diplomats. Do you think that was as big a deal as revealing that we continued to fight in Vietnam despite knowing we couldn't win?

Bradley Manning is going to get what the law says he gets. He broke it, so he's going to do his time. I just can't understand how some folks glorify the release of the Pentagon Papers as heroic while vilifying Manning. The way the government uses classification and punishes the release of these sorts of documents really has removed the voter so far from knowing what is being done in his name that any notion of the voters having a say in anything has become more myth than reality.

[rock on sooner]

As a former member of the AF that had a Top Secret Codeword clearance,
I hold in contempt anyone that reveals classified info for any reason. Our
gov't classifies stuff for a reason, normally very sound reasoning...some
journalist in search of a "scoop" or some poor enlisted mutt in search of
who knows what all deserve at a minimum a horse whipping and incarceration.
Just sayin'....

[Midtowner]

As a former member of the AF that had a Top Secret Codeword clearance,
I hold in contempt anyone that reveals classified info for any reason. Our
gov't classifies stuff for a reason, normally very sound reasoning...some
journalist in search of a "scoop" or some poor enlisted mutt in search of
who knows what all deserve at a minimum a horse whipping and incarceration.
Just sayin'....

So you think it would have been better that the American public never knew the content of the Pentagon Papers?

[C&CDean]

So you think it would have been better that the American public never knew the content of the Pentagon Papers?

Have you seen how pathetically stupid the "public" is? Sure you have. Hell, they're so stupid they voted for Obama...again.

[Jacie]

It reminds me of the Doonesbury cartoon from that time. Roland Hedley in Vietnam interviews a G.I., asks him, "Are American troops aware that the top brass consider the war unwinnable?" G.I. replies, "Pretty much all 1 and a half million of us . . ."

[rock on sooner]

So you think it would have been better that the American public never knew the content of the Pentagon Papers?

Honestly, I have mixed emotions about the release. On the one hand, I question
whether any civilian, with no understanding of the ramifications, should have knowledge
of government actions conducted with national security in mind. How can they judge,
without more information? A little knowledge is dangerous, not knowing how to use
that information can, and usually is, catastrophic!

The other hand, knowing what ones government is doing, legal or not, seems important
to know. The entire Vietnam deal was/is so convoluted. With crystal clear hindsight there
is still so much argument. Few people know that iconic Ike started U.S. involvement in
1958 with 300 Marine "advisors". Was that wrong? Right? Hindsight says we should have
stayed the hell away. History would say otherwise, who would have been able to help, save,
repair, rescue, rebuild?

I guess, bottom line, we have to trust our leaders. That's why we elect them. Bad apples?
Yup! Show me anywhere that's not the case. Imo, overall the government should decide what is
known publicly...key word here is "overall"...and elections are how we control. Is it perfect?
Not no, but Hell no!

Dint solve a dayum thing...

[Midtowner]

Trust our leaders? They sent 50,000 young men to die for nothing and these papers proved they knew it was for nothing. As far as "national security" goes, we're talking the Vietnam War. In retrospect, WTF did any of that have to do with our own national security?

[Soonerjeepman]

unfortunately I grow more skeptical of the gov leaders day by day...

I do believe though that there are some things that cannot and should not be known. The problem is, again, WHY...is it for political gain, national security, and who decides or "checks and balances".

At this point in time I have a hard time believing that MOST politicians do the job for love of country..some are very obvious it's about their benefits during and after serving.

Sad, but it's the way I feel. As far as VW...it happened 40 yrs ago...and NO DISRESPECT to those who served but WGAS about the USA's "angle".

[KantoSooner]

Mid, you are utterly wrong to characterize the Vietnam War as a failure. Could we have taken a better course? Yes. We could have screwed the French and worked with Ho Chi Minh from 1945 onwards. Probably would have made NATO unworkable, but it might have been worth it. The Vietnam War prevented Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei from being taken over by their local versions of 'socialists'. All of the above had insurgencies that would have 'succeeded' had they had direct support from a triumphant North Vietnam. As it was, we stopped the rot at Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Burma.
How many Khmer Rouges does it take for us to learn this lesson?

[olevetonahill]

Mid, you are utterly wrong to characterize the Vietnam War as a failure. Could we have taken a better course? Yes. We could have screwed the French and worked with Ho Chi Minh from 1945 onwards. Probably would have made NATO unworkable, but it might have been worth it. The Vietnam War prevented Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei from being taken over by their local versions of 'socialists'. All of the above had insurgencies that would have 'succeeded' had they had direct support from a triumphant North Vietnam. As it was, we stopped the rot at Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Burma.
How many Khmer Rouges does it take for us to learn this lesson?

matlock has diarrhea of the mouth

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

...Today, the "media" is a leftwing mouthpiece and nothing more. There's no such thing as "The News." Today there's "stories" - most of which are trumped up horse**** barely resembling fact...The Media don't go after democrat presidents. If my memory serves me properly, they didn't go hogchit wild on the US Army in Vietnam until Nixon became president.

[KantoSooner]

Eh, they were pretty much up Lyndon's rear already. Nixon was elected in '68, not in office 'til '69. So most of 'the sixties' was on the Dem's watch.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Eh, they were pretty much up Lyndon's rear already. Nixon was elected in '68, not in office 'til '69. So most of 'the sixties' was on the Dem's watch.The Media was on Lyndon's case somewhat, but he was not all that likeable anyway, and I doubt he would have been a candidate for pres. if he hadn't been Kennedy's VP.(and, the Media effectively soured folks on Goldwater in '64.) Although, he certainly didn't get a complete pass from the Media like Obama has. Yes, I DO realize we had been in Vietnam for a long time before Nixon inherited it. (I was at OU '63-67)They didn't get wild and frantic about the war til Nixon became president, IMO.

[jkjsooner]

The Media don't go after democrat presidents. If my memory serves me properly, they didn't go hogchit wild on the US Army in Vietnam until Nixon became president.

Wow, that could not be more wrong.


The Media was on Lyndon's case somewhat, but he was not all that likeable anyway, and I doubt he would have been a candidate for pres. if he hadn't been Kennedy's VP.

You can't just cut your losses and admit you were wrong?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Wow, that could not be more wrong.



You can't just cut your losses and admit you were wrong?Hiya sparky