Manufacturing Consent_ The Political Economy of the Mass Media - Edward S. Herman [144]
There are, of course, those who demand still higher standards of loyalty to the state, and for them, the fact that critical perceptions of American military officers in the field sometimes reached public attention is an intolerable “adversarial stance” reflecting the left-wing proclivities of “the culture.” Putting this interesting perspective to the side, as far as this period is concerned we may dismiss the conception that the media “lost the war,” although it would be quite accurate to conclude that they encouraged the United States to enter and pursue a war of aggression, which they later were to regard as “a tragedy,” or “a blunder,” while never acknowledging their fundamental contribution to rallying public support for the policies that they were ultimately to deplore. Given the conformism and obedience of the media during this crucial period, when the basis for U.S. aggression was firmly and irrevocably laid, it is small wonder that public concern was so slight, and that opposition was so negligible as to be entirely without significance. Only the most ardent researcher could have developed a moderately clear understanding of what was taking place in Indochina.
Public attitudes after the bombing of North Vietnam in February 1965, in “reprisal” for an attack on U.S. military installations by the “Viet Cong,” are therefore hardly surprising. Asked “Who do you think is behind the attacks by the Viet Cong?” 53 percent blamed the Chinese Communists and 26 percent blamed North Vietnam, while 7 percent said, “Civil war.”69 In no identifiable sector of American opinion would it have been possible even to ask the obvious question that would receive an easy and accurate answer in the case of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan: “Why do you think the southern resistance is attacking U.S. military installations in South Vietnam?” In fact, even at the peak of peace-movement activities—or today, many years later, when it should be possible to observe the plain facts with some detachment—it would be quite impossible to raise this simple and obvious question, or to answer it, within the mainstream media and most of “the culture.”
In this dismal record we see very clearly the consequences of mindless media obedience in a state with enormous resources of violence.
5.4. REPORTING ON THE WAR
As the U.S. invasion mounted in scale and intensity, Indochina was flooded with war correspondents, many of whom reported what they saw and heard with honesty and courage. With rare exceptions, however, they gave an account of the war as perceived by the U.S. military on the ground or as offered in press briefings. In the home offices, Washington’s version prevailed until elite divisions within the United States expanded the range of tactical debate.
Reporters often did not conceal atrocities committed by the U.S. military forces, although they did not appear to perceive them as atrocities and surely did not express the horror and outrage that would have been manifest if others were the perpetrators, and the United States or its clients the victims.70 Malcolm Browne quotes a U.S. official who describes B-52 strikes in the South as “the most lucrative raids made at any time during the war”:
Every single bomb crater is surrounded with bodies, wrecked equipment and dazed and bleeding people. At one such hole there were 40 or 50 men, all in green North Vietnamese uniforms but without their weapons, lying around in an obvious state of shock. We sent in helicopter