Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/01/2003 11:35:00 PM (Archive Link)
Peruse this article on Editor and Publisher concerning the media coverage of the Iraq War. Generally, it compares the present conflict to Vietnam. The best part of the piece is this: “Of course, it is absurd, on one level, to compare a war of less than two weeks with one that lasted decades. But still, many hear echoes, faint or strong, of Vietnam.” So, on just what level is it not absurd to compare a war of less than two weeks with one that lasted decades?

Every time there’s an armed conflict anywhere in which America is involved, the media simply chomps at the bit to compare it to Vietnam. Much as many boomers look back at the sixties and seventies as a period of glory, so does the media look at the time as some kind of mythic era to be resurrected. For them, war coverage didn’t start until then. While the journalists drool over Cronkite and Rather and complain about the objectivity of embedded reporters, they forget about the likes of Ernie Pyle, the WWII correspondent who risked and lost his life while covering the war in various army units. Generations of battlefield journalists were concerned with the nitty-gritty of wars and the men who fought them. It wasn’t about sensationalism and trying to catch government spokesmen off guard, it was eye-level reality. Perhaps the change is because of the 24 hour news-cycle and the need to fill the television with images as opposed to daily newspapers with words. At any rate, Vietnam is not the root of war journalism and it was no golden age. Modern reporters should stop looking to it as a model.