Well, what exactly are you asking, Rob?
I was too young to know what was going on in Vietnam. How the hell did the Media handle our soldiers dying by the thousands?
A lot of the media of the era had served, in both Korea and/or WW II. Casualties were known as a fact of war.
Today, according to the media, every casualty could apparently be avoided, provided our top strategists knew everything about everything, all the time. Today's media reps live and operate in the fantasy world of Ratings, so fact is replaced with fiction, reality with dreams, and real news with sensationalized text.
During the Vietnam War, the reports were taped or run live from the front lines. Their was also a lot of negative reporting, but reporting backed by facts. According to Walter Cronkite, the media did America a disservice in Vietnam, slanting too heavily on failed missions and downplaying solid victories.
Today, everything done in Afghanistan to date seems to be:
* wrong
* poorly conceived
* a waist of taxpayer money
* a U.S. war crime
It's a different world,
Dan
Current Events » in reply to I don't follow ? (n/t)
Re: The reporting of the time was more matter-of-fact . . .
