Hallin argues that during the beginning of the war, journalists were usually supportive of what the government was doing which was then reflected in what they wrote or said.  The press did not become a moving force of public opinion until American citizens had already begun to divide their sentiments about the war.  This did not happen until the mid 1960s, around ten years after first going into Vietnam.  In the late 1950s-early 1960s, the Cold War was still going strong and most of the American people, including the press, believed in everything about the Communist threat that the government was telling them.  The American people seemed to want this kind of news because they did not want Communism and the influence of the USSR and China to spread.  The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is an example of how the government covered its tracks by saying a Communist country had fired on them first, therefore necessitating the need to fire back.  The press did not feel the need to question the government's Containment policies, and so it was reported how the government wanted it to be.  However, during the Vietnam War, the government decided not to censor the press, and so they broke free of writing what the government wanted and began to write about what was really happening, on both sides of the war.  There were few protests in the early years of the war.  In "A New Kind of War", from Vietnam Reporting Selections, the author writes, [there were] "No roars of protest... from the public... no editorialists thundered..."  (New War 307).  As long as the press and news reporters were talking about the good things that were happening in Vietnam, Americans were happy as well; they were helping a country overcome Communism to become a Democracy.

            I think that journalists became more critical as the war went on because they were allowed to actually go to where the fighting was, as opposed to waiting in a specified area for news to come to them; they went out and found their stories.  Their criticisms came in the form of the kinds of stories that were published-they were now more outspoken, using information that the government and military would not necessarily want the American public to know about.  Many of the critical newspapers echoed the sentiments of Americans as the war progressed, that we needed to get out.  Also, the critical press coverage began to center on what exactly American soldiers were doing in Vietnam, or what they were letting happen such as the execution of a Vietcong member by a South Vietnamese General that was caught on film and tape.  The criticisms did not really change over time except that they became more pronounced and more people were criticizing.  This was about the time that American opinions on the war began to divide and so defends Hallin's argument; the press generally supported government policies up until these significant events began to occur in Vietnam and also in the United States.     

            Peter Grose, of The New York Times, wrote an article about Vietnam in November of 1964, Vietnam Outlook Bleaker a Year after Diem's Fall.  In this article he writes about how Diem was an authoritarian ruler instead of a democratic one, how areas that were safe before are now very dangerous, etc... "The United States has never made a declaration of war here, but it cannot withdraw without a grievous loss of power and prestige" (Grose).  This is the issue that the American Government had to deal with for years, often directly in conflict with the anti-war groups.  This article would contradict Hallin's analysis because in his article Grose does not seem very supportive of the government; he listed things that had gone wrong in the first few years and basically criticized the Diem regime, which basically criticized the American government since it was they who set Diem up as leader.

            The stories of protestors were portrayed more strongly than other stories, especially in the late 1960s and early 1970s.  An article by Charles Mohr, of The New York Times, reported that American soldiers have a variety of opinions when it comes to the protestors.  The main point of the article is, "Some soldiers ascribe the demonstrations to cowardice or political radicalism but in almost the same breath add that a major problem is that the American public does not understand what is going on in Vietnam...the American public had not grasped the realities of the Vietnamese situation..." (Mohr).  Soldiers anywhere will generally always follow orders no matter who gives them within the military which includes the president, and because of this they are usually supportive of the policies that the government is making.     

            Certain newspapers focused on certain aspects about the demonstrators, which shaped people's opinions depending on which paper they read, or which TV stations were watched.  The Christian Science Monitor focused on the more violent protest groups, including those thought to be Communist.  Howard James writes in October of 1965, "In the wake of demonstrations which involved between 35,000 and 100,000 persons..., Attorney General Katzenbach has charged Communist involvement in the protest movement..." (James).  Malcolm Muggeridge, who wrote an article in the Chicago Tribune about The Agony of the American Left by Christopher Lasch, writes in a more negative view.  He says, in March of 1969 that, "...while the students-alas and alack, the students who should be carrying the torch of progress and culture-have dashed it in the dust and charge through their campuses yelling in unison, ‘Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh!'..." (Muggeridge).  These articles support Hallin's argument in a way because these men are talking about how awful these student demonstrators are, and how they're being investigated as Communists which was government policy at the time; Containment.  This has become more critical of the student antiwar movement than four years ago, it is more outspoken.    

              The time that the news criticized most, in my opinion, was between 1969 and 1970.  Americans found out about the My Lai massacre in 1969, a year after it happened which caused many to stop supporting the war and soldiers.  Another incident that changed many opinions was that of Kent State University when the National Guard opened fire on student antiwar protestors, killing four.  This same author writes again, "In the televised and written reports arriving from Vietnam-and from American campuses-war lost its heroic, romantic, and adventurous luster:  It never actually had any of the above, but now Americans on the home front were seeing it too"  (New War 309).  This supports Hallin because the author was severely criticizing the war, talking about Americans not supporting it anymore, students being killed on college campuses, the American and South Vietnamese losses, and more.  At this point in time the country was sharply divided, probably the most divided during the course of the war.  According to Hallin, it is around this time that the press became openly critical about government policies regarding Vietnam.    

            The coverage given to antiwar demonstrations rose each year the war went on until the end when troops began to come home.  The American public did not really care about what was happening at the beginning of the war in the way that they did towards the end when more reports, videos and photographs were appearing in their newspapers and televisions.  It is true that the press may have focused more on the protests than was needed, but I feel that all of the exposure was needed, bad and good, because that is what shapes how we, as individuals think.  We read the newspaper and watch TV and based on what is shown we make our own judgments.  However, I do agree with Hallin's analysis that the press did not become critical of the war and government policy until the American public began to realize what was going on around them.  As the public began to listen and voice their opinions, such as those raised in the protests and demonstrations, the press began to write about them and then voice their own opinions too.  While not creating the divide in public opinion, the press becoming critical deepened the rift between groups causing more conflict, but also providing an outlet for editorials and opinions. 

Works Cited

Grose, Peter. "Vietnam Outlook Bleaker a Year After Diem's Fall." New York Times 2 Nov. 1964. ProQuest.

James, Howard. "Antiwar Protests Echo." The Christian Science Monitor 19 Oct. 1965. ProQuest.

Mohr, Charles. "G.I.'S in Vietnam Bitter At War Protests At Home." New York Times 21 Oct. 1965. ProQuest.

Muggeridge, Malcolm. ""Each Liberal Dawn Has Proved in Practice to Be a Sunset"" Chicago Tribune 16 Mar. 1969. ProQuest.

Vietnam Reporting Selections.  "A New Kind of War" p. 307-309.