Seminar paper from the year 2004 in the subject American Studies - Culture and Applied Geography, grade: 1,0, Martin Luther University (Anglistik/Amerikanistik), course: Vietnam War and American Society, 17 entries in the bibliography, language: English, abstract: The Vietnam War was and still is a decisive chapter in U.S. history. It was the longest military conflict, which on top of everything ended in defeat for the Americans. This war had an enormous impact on various spheres both in private and public life. Above all, it drastically shaped the relationship between politics and public opinion and raised questions on the role the media played during the military conflict. The Vietnam War and its perception were unprecedented in their entire dimension. In general this was due to the climate of social and political change taking place during the 1960's and, more specifically, because of a totally new institution being embedded in this situation- television. During this decade television expanded and became the most important source of information for the people. This medium offered totally new perspectives and dimensions both of war coverage and its perception, which is clearly expressed in the following statement: "Television brought the brutality of war into the comfort of the living room".1 The fact that there was no experience with regard to the mechanisms, methods and effects of TV war coverage made a rather experimental reporting possible. Both journalists and politicians were facing a new situation, concerning the intertwining between television, politics and the Vietnam War issue. This paper aims at examining this interrelation by analysing the way the Vietnam War was covered by U.S. television and by looking at the consequences of this coverage. This examination shall provide answers to questions asking for the impact of television on public opinion, U.S. politics and the course of war. The focus is put on television, because studies and surveys have show

"One doesn't have to be a panjandrum of Communications to realize that television does something to us," Michael Arlen (former TV critic of The New Yorker) writes in the Introduction to Living-Room War. He continues, "Television has a transforming effect on events. It has a transforming effect on the people who watch the transformed events-it's just hard to know what that is." Living-Room War is Arlen's valiant-and entertaining-attempt to figure out exactly what exactly television does to us. This timeless collection of essays provides a poetic look at 1960s television culture, ranging from the Vietnam war to Captain Kangaroo, from the 1968 Democratic convention to televised sports.

“The eyewitness accounts of the many phases of the war in this memoir bring events to life as if they had happened yesterday” (Vietnam Veterans of America Book Reviews). On the Frontlines of the Television War is the story of Yasutsune “Tony” Hirashiki’s ten years in Vietnam—beginning when he arrived in 1966 as a young freelancer with a 16mm camera, but without a job or the slightest grasp of English, and ending in the hectic fall of Saigon in 1975, when he was literally thrown on one of the last flights out. His memoir has all the exciting tales of peril, hardship, and close calls of the best battle memoirs, but it is primarily a story of very real and yet remarkable people: the soldiers who fought, bled, and died, and the reporters and photographers who went right to the frontlines to record their stories and memorialize their sacrifice. If this was truly the first “television war,” then it is time to hear the story of the cameramen who shot the pictures and the reporters who wrote the stories that the average American witnessed daily in their living rooms. An award-winning sensation when it was released in Japan in 2008, this book has been completely recreated for an international audience. “Tony Hirashiki is an essential piece of the foundation on which ABC was built . . . Tony reported the news with his camera and in doing so, he brought the truth about the important events of our day to millions of Americans.” —David Westin, former President of ABC News

"Asks whether it is ever possible for a president to nudge the nation toward war without lying. And if he does, is it sometimes all right? Most of these authors would vote no."--Columbia Journalism Review "It was a pleasant and poignant surprise to find an afterword written by the late David Halberstam, one of the best reporter-historians of the last century. It may be his last major piece of writing. . . . It is an appropriate way to wind up the collection, because his words are a sobering reminder that the press is important yet not all-powerful in a democracy. Presidents long ago mastered the tools at their disposal to achieve policy ends."--American Journalism "American history at its best--insightful and revealing about the past, yet at the same time illuminating the vital questions of our own day."--Jeffrey A. Engel, Texas A&M University George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner in 2003 and the misleading linkages of Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 terrorist attacks awoke many Americans to the techniques used by the White House to put the country on a war footing. Yet Bush was simply following in the footsteps of his predecessors, as the essays in this standout volume reveal in illuminating detail. Written in a lively and accessible style, Selling War in a Media Age is a fascinating, thought-provoking, must-read volume that reveals the often-brutal ways that the goal of influencing public opinion has shaped how American presidents have approached the most momentous duty of their office: waging war. Kenneth Osgood, associate professor of history at Florida Atlantic University, is the author of Total Cold War: Eisenhower's Secret Propaganda Battle at Home and Abroad, winner of the Herbert Hoover Book Award. Andrew K. Frank, associate professor of history at Florida State University, is the author of Creeks and Southerners: Biculturalism on the Early American Frontier. A volume in the Alan B. Larkin Series on the American Presidency, edited by Kenneth Osgood

Media Nation brings together some of the most exciting voices in media and political history to present fresh perspectives on the role of mass media in the evolution of modern American politics. Together, these contributors offer a field-shaping work that aims to bring the media back to the center of scholarship modern American history.

When John F. Kennedy was shot, millions were left to wonder how America, and the world, would have been different had he lived to fulfill the enormous promise of his presidency. For many historians and political observers, what Kennedy would and would not have done in Vietnam has been a source of enduring controversy. Now, based on convincing new evidence--including a startling revelation about the Kennedy administration's involvement in the assassination of Premier Diem--Howard Jones argues that Kennedy intended to withdraw the great bulk of American soldiers and pursue a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Vietnam. Drawing upon recently declassified hearings by the Church Committee on the U.S. role in assassinations, newly released tapes of Kennedy White House discussions, and interviews with John Kenneth Galbraith, Robert McNamara, Dean Rusk, and others from the president's inner circle, Jones shows that Kennedy firmly believed that the outcome of the war depended on the South Vietnamese. In the spring of 1962, he instructed Secretary of Defense McNamara to draft a withdrawal plan aimed at having all special military forces home by the end of 1965. The "Comprehensive Plan for South Vietnam" was ready for approval in early May 1963, but then the Buddhist revolt erupted and postponed the program. Convinced that the war was not winnable under Diem's leadership, President Kennedy made his most critical mistake--promoting a coup as a means for facilitating a U.S. withdrawal. In the cruelest of ironies, the coup resulted in Diem's death followed by a state of turmoil in Vietnam that further obstructed disengagement. Still, these events only confirmed Kennedy's view about South Vietnam's inability to win the war and therefore did not lessen his resolve to reduce the U.S. commitment. By the end of November, however, the president was dead and Lyndon Johnson began his campaign of escalation. Jones argues forcefully that if Kennedy had not been assassinated, his withdrawal plan would have spared the lives of 58,000 Americans and countless Vietnamese. Written with vivid immediacy, supported with authoritative research, Death of a Generation answers one of the most profoundly important questions left hanging in the aftermath of John F. Kennedy's death. Death of a Generation was a CHOICE Outstanding Academic Title for 2003.