In Source B, a scene in a small town in America is described, where the inhabitants are pro-war. The source accuses the media of ignoring the ‘public acceptance’ of the war across America and it is claimed that the media are trying to create an ‘anti-war’ feeling across America. The source implies that there is more public support for the war than the media acknowledges and that the media creates a false impression of what the public opinion of the war is in America. The source suggests there would be a lot more people influenced into being ‘pro-war’ if the media showed scenes such as these. In some ways Source B supports Source K as it describes the influence the media has on public opinion and how quickly the media could change the opinion of millions of people It also implies that the media has done a convincing a job of the true public opinion of the war in America. On the other hand, Source B says that the media has not been totally successful in its ‘anti-war’ campaign, as there is still plenty of support for the war.
Source C shows the number of US troops deployed in Vietnam during the war. The statistics show that troops were pulled out of Vietnam since 1971. This shows that the government had given up on winning the war and was admitting defeat by pulling the troops back. This may be due to the media’s constant criticism of the war and their influence over the American people. The government may have done this to try and gain favour with the media, who would then show the government in a more positive light to the public. Of course, this may not have been the case as the source does not tell us why the troops were withdrawn from Vietnam but if this is the reason then it adds weight to Source K’s claim.
Source E is a cartoon making fun of America’s foreign policy with regard to Vietnam. This source shows that without censorship, even the most important people in the world can be ridiculed by the media. The source may be trying to influence the public against the war but that is unlikely as it is published after American involvement in the war has ended and also it seems to be more of a satire aiming to be humourous than an actual serious assault on the American government. The source cannot be accurately compared to Source K because they are from different mediums of the media.
Sources H and I are both written by David Halberstam. He is a popular non-fiction writer and many Americans who have read his books are likely to believe him. Sources H, I and J all support Source K’s claim and all show the importance of the television media. All three of the sources are clearly anti-war and so there may be a slight bias in the sources.
Source H suggests that media coverage had ‘stripped Johnson naked’ on the war. His lies were exposed to the public by the media and his credibility was destroyed. The source shows that the claims of the American politicians were destroyed by the media and their images of the war. The source also tells us that it was television cameras that showed the American public that the war was going badly. Halberstam does not support his claims with facts, although he presents the information as fact. This means that the source may not be completely reliable.
Source I also shows that images of the war defeated politician’s claims that the war was going well. The soldiers’ actions show their frustration at being put in this situation by their government. The source prepared the people for a different perspective on the war and it led to many American citizens questioning the war. This only Halberstam’s opinion on the impact of Safer’s film as again, he does not back up his statement with factual evidence.
Source J shows a US soldier criticising his government and portraying them in a bad light on television. This would have been very damaging to the government as this incident must have influenced the viewers watching at home against the government and the war. This is also captured by the television media and its images again show condemnation of the war. However, we have to question the motives of the media. The soldier was interviewed while he was reloading his rifle. The producers must have known that the soldier would be in an emotional mood at that time and not in the right frame of mind to answer questions. Due to this, we must question the source’s reliability and assume that this was not representative of the soldiers as a whole. The media wanted to show war in this way to shock the viewers and gain support for its ‘anti-war’ campaign.
The sources do not give a clear answer to the question. Most of the sources are not completely reliable and only give a partial answer to the question. We must take into account that many factors other than the media contributed to the public antipathy towards the war, so evidence that American citizens were against the war does not automatically mean that the media were successful in manipulating the public’s opinion of the war
