Reporting Vietnam : media and military at war

For many Americans during the Vietnam era, the war on the home front seemed nearly as wrenching and hardfought as the one in Southeast Asia. Its primary battlefield was the news media, its primary casualty the truth. But as William Hammond reveals, animosity between government and media wasn't always the rule; what happened between the two during the Vietnam war was symptomatic of the nation's experiences in general. As the ""light at the end of the tunnel"" dimmed, relations between them grew ever darker. ""Reporting Vietnam"" is an abridgement and updating of Hammond's massive two-volume work issued by the Government Printing Office. Based on classified and declassified government documents - including Nixon's national security files - as well as on extensive interviews and surveys of press war coverage, it tells how government and media first shared a common vision of American involvement in Vietnam. It then reveals how, as the war dragged on, upbeat government press releases were constistently challenged by journalists' reports from the field and finally how, as public sentiment shifted against the war, Presidents Johnson and Nixon each tried to manage the news media, sparking a heated exchange of recriminations. Hammond strongly challenges the assertions of many military leaders that the media lost the war by swaying public opinion. He takes readers through the twists and turns of official public affairs policy as it tried to respond to a worsening domestic political environment and recurring adverse ""media episodes"". Along the way, he makes important observations about the penchant of American officials for placing appearance ahead of substance and about policy making in general. Although Richard Nixon once said of the Vietnam war, ""Our worst enemy seems to be the press"", Hammond clearly shows that his real enemies were the contradictions and flawed assumptions that he and LBJ had created. ""Reporting Vietnam"" brings a critical study to a wider audience and is both a major contribution to an ongoing debate and a cautionary guide for future conflicts.