The advent of television had changed the visibility of war. The vastly increased speed images of conflict conflict could reach the general public changed how governments were able to control the narratives surrounding them. During the Vietnam War, it was apparent to US Government that controlling the distribution of images of the war was becoming less possible; instead they opted to try to control what images were taken of the war. Through the usage of “press pools”, in which select groups of journalists accompanied US troops to document the war, the US government attempted to control what journalists were able to record of the war. While this worked relatively well during the early stages of the war, over time the effectiveness of the system deteriorated, and the true realities of the war were revealed to the general public (Hallin, 1986).

The US Government attempted to maintain control of the narrative surrounding images of the Vietnam war through optimistic briefings that framed the war as winnable and emphasised the need to contain the spread of communism. While traditionally governmental narrative would provide the basis for the opinion of the nation, the publics regualar exposure to the realities of the war through television was far more influential during Vietnam. What is also important to consider is the Vietnam’s role as the first televison war. Sontag (1971) suggests that the more we become exposed to types of images, particularly those of violence, the “less real” they become. As Vietnam was the first war to regularly have images of it featured through the medium of television, the general public that viewed them would have the strongest reactions to these shocking and disturbing images of the brutality of war. This new medium of circulation was yet to desensitise the public to these images of conflict, and so they were far more likely to engage with and react to the narratives surrounding them.

In this case, the narrative was being formed not by a story told about an image of one side of the conflict, but by the way the images were showing both side of war and contextualising each other with the horrors, blood shed, and ultimately, the futility of war.

It was seen through the thing that entertained → TV

Before papers still were the serious forum

Visibility Every night

On April 1, 1968, the day after President Lyndon B. Johnson announced that he would not run for reelection, he stated:

Televising the Vietnam War helped to divide a nation that took pride in its ability to unify.

<aside> 👉

More than ever before, television showed the terrible human suffering and sacrifice of war. Whatever the intention behind such relentless and literal reporting of the war, the result was a serious demoralization of the home front, raising the question whether America would ever again be able to fight an enemy abroad with unity and strength of purpose at home. - Nixon

</aside>

Although not intending to take a stand against the US governments involvement in Vietnam, many interpreted the television coverage that exposed the bloodshed and horrors of the war to be a commnetary against .

The advent of television fundamentally changed the visibility of war, increasing the speed at which images of conflict could reach the general public and altering the extent to which governments could control wartime narratives. During the Vietnam War, it became clear to the U.S. government that controlling the distribution of images was increasingly difficult. Instead, they sought to manage the production of those images through the use of “press pools,” whereby select groups of journalists accompanied U.S. troops to document the war. While this system was relatively effective in the early stages of the conflict, its control weakened over time, allowing the public to witness the war’s true realities (Hallin, 1986).

The U.S. government also attempted to shape public perception through optimistic briefings that framed the war as winnable and emphasised the need to contain the spread of communism. Traditionally, government narratives strongly influenced public opinion, but during Vietnam, regular exposure to televised images had a more immediate and powerful impact. As the first “television war,” Vietnam presented the public with unprecedented visual access to the brutality of conflict (Mandelbaum, 1982). Sontag (1971) argues that repeated exposure to certain types of images, particularly violent ones, can make them seem “less real”, and so, as television had not yet desensitised audiences, viewers were likely to respond strongly to these shocking and disturbing depictions. This immediate and visceral engagement amplified the public’s reaction to the war and the narratives surrounding it.

Many people interpreted television coverage of the Vietnam War to be a stand against the US governments involvement, despite this not being the intention. The violence and horrors shown on television, contrasted by the positive messaging from US government lead to a divide in public opinion of those who opposed and supported the war (Kratz, 2018). President Richard Nixon’s (1978) claim that, “Whatever the intention behind such relentless and literal reporting of the war, the result was a serious demoralization of the home front”, highlights the impact that this interpreted narrative had on the nation. This misinterpretation of the narrative presented by televsion aligns with Sontag’s (1971) argument that a photograph “cannot create a moral position, but the can reinforce one”. It’s important to consider that during the Vietnam War the United States of America was also undergoing significant civil unrest and change. With a significant amount of the population being dissatisified with the status quo of the government during this period, the reaction to interpret the images of the vietnam war being reported by televison to be taking a stand against the government is likely to be due to the those images reinforcing an already existing anti-government narrative.

The anit gov narrative formed because of civil unrest that already existed not because

photis cannot create a moral postion

photos are not rhetoric in and of themselves

This contrasts with the earlier Korean War (1950-1953) which while also fought by the United States, but saw far less coverage of graphic media. This was impart due to television being less widely adopted, but also due to the public being more content with society. As the general public was less doubtful of the government at the time, media circulation channels such as newspapers and television had less incentive to publish images of the conflict and violence, or steer a narrative other than the governments. This comparison further reinforces the idea that the public reactions of the public in response to narratives surrounding the Vietnam War were not simply because of the narrative surrounding the Vietnam War, but due to wider societal narratives than the war was reinforcing.