![]() For example, in the wake of the Tet offensive, many more stories criticized the South Vietnamese government as undemocratic, even though there was no drop in its popularity with its citizens.īut Hallin argues that this doesn’t mean the media actually became more oppositional. Hallin finds that this wasn’t just a matter of reflecting a worsening situation for the U.S. The news media certainly changed during the course of the Vietnam War, but one scholar argues that this doesn’t mean it actually became more oppositional.Īfter 1968, the T.V. Stories concluded that the American-supported South Vietnamese were winning, characterized actions of the North Vietnamese forces with loaded terms like “butchery,” and discussed the morale of U.S. Up until the 1968 Tet offensive, it consisted largely of one-sided reports favoring U.S. Looking at a random sample of 779 television broadcasts from 1965 through 1973, Hallin finds that the tone of war coverage did change significantly. Hallin digs into the commonly accepted story that the media became more adversarial over the course of the Vietnam War. But how well does it really serve that function? news shows have repeatedly been caught off guard when President-elect Donald Trump makes statements that are blatantly false.Ĭonventional wisdom holds that, particularly since the late 1960s, the media has acted as a watchdog, holding politicians accountable when they misbehave or try to deceive the public. Over the past weeks and months, newspapers and T.V.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |