Manufacturing Consent_ The Political Economy of the Mass Media - Edward S. Herman [155]
In summary, the national media, overcome by jingoist passion, failed to provide even minimally adequate coverage of this crucial event, although appropriate skepticism would have been aroused in the mind of the reader of the foreign or “alternative” media, or the reader with the sophistication to treat the media as a disinformation system disguising a reality that can perhaps be ascertained with sufficient energy and dedication. The Pentagon Papers analyst describes these events as “an important firebreak,” noting that “the Tonkin Gulf Resolution set U.S. public support for virtually any action.”103
The willingness of the media to serve as a vehicle for government propaganda helped impel the country toward what they were later to regard as “the tragedy” of Vietnam. The reaction of Congress and the public laid the basis for the outright invasion of early 1965, providing support for the planners who were secretly concerned that the NLF was continuing “to seek a political settlement favorable to the communists” through the device of “neutralism” and “a coalition government” (Maxwell Taylor, Aug. 10, 1964), and who warned about “Saigon and Vientiane hanky panky with Reds” (John McNaughton, October 1964)—that is, moves toward a political settlement—in accordance with the NLF program as described by intelligence: “to seek victory through a ‘neutralist coalition’ rather than by force of arms.”104 When the United States extended the war in early 1965 to try to salvage its position in the South, the media continued to offer total support, in accordance with “the guiding principle of American foreign policy since 1945” as outlined by the distinguished liberal commentator of the New York Times James Reston,
that no state shall use military force or the threat of military force to achieve its political objectives. And the companion of this principle has been that the United States would use its influence and its power, when necessary and where it could be effective, against any state that defied this principle,
which was “at stake in Vietnam,” where “the United States is now challenging the Communist effort to seek power by the more cunning technique of military subversion.”105
In the Orwellian world of American journalism, the attempt to seek a political settlement by peaceful means is the use of “military force,” and the use of military force by the United States to block a political settlement is a noble action in defense of the “guiding principle” that the use of military force is illegitimate.
The United States then proceeded to fight a long and brutal war to try to achieve its objectives in Vietnam, demolishing much of Indochina in the process and leaving a legacy that may never be overcome. Finally, in January 1973, the United States formally accepted a peace treaty that was virtually identical with the Vietnamese consensus it overturned by violence in 1964, except that by that time, the indigenous NLF had been effectively demolished and little remained in Indochina outside of North Vietnam, laying the basis for North Vietnamese domination of Indochina, exactly as had been predicted, long before, by “the wild men in the wings.” The media bear a major responsibility for these tragic events, coverage of the Tonkin Gulf incident with its congressional “blank check” for further aggression serving as a notable example.
5.5.2. THE TET OFFENSIVE
Media coverage of the Tet offensive has been the centerpiece of the critique of the media for “losing the war” by their incompetent reporting and their anti-government bias reflecting their passion for confronting