thedrifter
01-22-08, 07:15 AM
Telling War Stories
Vietnam War reporters worked in safer conditions and had more access than journalists covering the Iraq conflict.
By TERRY GANEY of the Tribune’s staff
Published Sunday, January 20, 2008
One of the most vivid memories George Esper has from his years as an Associated Press correspondent during the Vietnam War was of a flight he took on a U.S. military transport plane loaded with the bodies of dead American soldiers.
Esper had been in the demilitarized zone covering a battle. Afterward he asked the pilot of the plane if he could hitch a ride back to Saigon. The pilot agreed, and Esper was directed to the aircraft’s freight section.
There, Esper found he and the plane’s loadmaster were the only living people in the belly of the transport.
"I was just stunned," Esper said in an interview last year. "I looked around, and I saw these scores of body bags, and I am sitting in the middle of them in a bucket seat."
Esper’s anecdote demonstrates one of the biggest differences between the combat coverage of the Vietnam War and the conflict in Iraq. Reporters in Vietnam had much greater access to the stark realities of the war and encountered fewer obstacles from the military to cover them.
It might be unfair to compare the coverage of the Iraq conflict with what many believe to be the most accessible and visible war in U.S. history. But there is no denying the American public got a more vivid picture of what was happening in Vietnam than from the level of news coverage in Iraq.
"The best way to report a story is to be there," Esper said. "And you were able to do that in Vietnam, for the most part." Esper said the "huge advantage" reporters in Vietnam had over those in Iraq was access to what was actually going on. Esper believes the military of today wants to limit press access partly because of the way the Vietnam War was reported.
Interviews conducted over the past year and a half with three AP reporters who covered the Vietnam War and seven newspaper journalists who reported from Iraq indicate journalists in Iraq faced greater physical dangers and worked with a military less willing to facilitate coverage of the conflict.
There were other differences as well. Technological improvements gave reporters in Iraq better means of communication, which journalists said should make coverage more accurate. Reporters covering Vietnam were more likely to have had military experience, which might have given them an edge in understanding what was going on.
But for journalists, one of the biggest differences between Vietnam and Iraq was the danger.
The Committee to Protect Journalists has reported 125 journalists and another 49 media support workers were killed in Iraq between March 2003 and the end of 2007. During the 10-year period of the Vietnam War, 1965-1975, 71 television, photo and print journalists from 14 countries were killed: 33 in Vietnam, 34 in Cambodia and four in Laos, said Richard Pyle, a reporter who covered the war there for The Associated Press.
Reporters and photographers in Vietnam faced physical threats, but they did not encounter the random violence and intentional killing and kidnappings that have made ready casualties of the journalists in Iraq.
"I never covered Vietnam," said Michael Phillips of the Wall Street Journal. "But I don’t think journalists were targets in Vietnam. It’s one thing to be unarmed in combat and sort of hope that the fact that it says ‘press’ on your flak jacket will catch you a break to the extent that a break can be caught. But it’s another thing where you’re going into a situation and putting ‘press’ onto your flak jacket is equivalent of saying ‘shoot me.’ And Iraq is that place."
Phillips, 44, has been to Iraq five times as an embedded reporter with the U.S. Marines.
Esper, 75, is now a professor of journalism at West Virginia University. He covered the Vietnam War for 10 years and was the AP’s Saigon bureau chief when the war ended in 1975. Esper said in Vietnam it was unlikely a reporter would be kidnapped or deliberately murdered.
"Indeed, I admire the Iraq war correspondents because I think covering Iraq is much more dangerous than was Vietnam," Esper said.
The cost of access
A survey conducted between Sept. 28 and Nov. 7 of 111 journalists who covered the war in Iraq showed a majority believe most of the country is too dangerous to collect news. The survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism indicated most news organizations rely on local staff to conduct on-the-scene reporting and that most cannot carry equipment that might indicate they are working for the news media.
Sixty percent of those surveyed in Iraq believed the embedded system gave them access to stories they would not otherwise have. They agreed there were some limitations but that overall the embedded program was working.
Under the embedded system, reporters are attached to a particular unit. Compared with Vietnam, collecting the news in Iraq is more difficult because of the time and paperwork required to get to another unit where news is developing. In Vietnam, the military facilitated the movement of reporters to help them do their jobs.
Jeff Bundy, a photographer with the Omaha World-Herald, covered a Nebraska Army National Guard unit in Iraq during fall 2005. Bundy said books he has read about Vietnam suggest it was a much easier war to cover simply because of mobility.
"When you talk to those guys, they’d just jump on a Huey, and they go out," Bundy said. "There was no jumping on a Huey for us. Now you have to do the paperwork and the disclaimers and get yourself on a flight. Because of the way the world has moved, it’s tougher to move throughout the country."
And unlike the reporters who covered Vietnam, the journalists embedded with the military in Iraq signed an agreement acknowledging that all comments of military personnel are "on the record." In Vietnam, reporters made much greater use of unnamed sources.
The promise of confidentiality can encourage a news source to divulge important information. On the other hand, the use of anonymous sources can also erode the credibility of a report. In the military, it’s unlikely an officer would voice critical opinions if the soldier knew such a disclosure would ruin a career.
Pyle, who covered the Vietnam War for the AP from 1970 to 1973, said entire stories were written with no named sources.
"We could quote people without divulging who they were," Pyle said. "Today this is very rare."
Although the rule for embedded reporters in Iraq required that all quotes from military personnel be on the record, not everyone abided by it.
Ron Harris, who covered a U.S. Marine company during two Iraq tours for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, said there was a time when he did not identify a Marine source to protect him from retribution. Harris said he did not identify a Marine on another occasion as the source of a quote and that later there was an inquiry about who made the remark. Harris said he told the Marine officers asking about the source that he would not divulge the name.
Better communications
Satellite telephones, the Internet, digital cameras and laptop computers have revolutionized combat coverage from the field. Reporters can almost immediately and reliably communicate with their home offices. At the same time, troops in the field with Internet access can read what is written about them.
In Vietnam, reporters used typewriters, telephones of dubious quality and a radio link that was often unreliable. The reporters from that era believe the improved technology would have made stories more accurate. Fixes to copy could have been communicated more quickly. Misunderstandings caused by delays or interruptions in communications could have been avoided.
"I think it would require" the reporter "to be more honest, or should I say a bit more careful with his facts, and that would improve the final product," said George McArthur, 83, who joined the AP’s Saigon bureau in 1965 and later became bureau chief.
Pyle believes the better technology would have made the reporting more accurate because a reporter in the field could call an editor immediately with corrections.
"It removes some of the excuses that reporters would have for making mistakes: the time lapse or bad connection or all the different things that might have happened or somebody at the other end having to fill in the blanks because the whole story didn’t arrive," Pyle said.
Because the draft existed until 1973, reporters who covered the Vietnam War were more likely to have had military experience than those who covered the Iraq war. Of the three interviewed journalists who worked in Vietnam, all had served in some branch of the military. Of the seven journalists who covered the Iraq war, only one had been in the military.
Those who had military experience said it might have given them a better feel for the story. In at least one case, a reporter with military experience believed that experience engendered more trust in him in developing a news source relationship with an Army commander.
Journalists who covered both the Vietnam War and the Iraq war acknowledged that gaining intimate familiarity with the military was a necessary tactic in their coverage but that it didn’t affect their objectivity.
Harris and photographer Andy Cutraro covered a company of Marines for the Post-Dispatch during the initial invasion of Iraq and returned a year later to recount their experiences as an occupying force. Harris said the Marines "saw how hard we worked to be accurate," and at the same time Harris developed a level of respect and kinship with the Marines.
Phillips believed embedding gave him much better access than he would otherwise have but that the military doesn’t like the press in general.
"You will find there are lots and lots of officers and enlisted who have this Vietnam-era mind-set, even if they weren’t even born during Vietnam, that the press is their enemy and much more liberal than they are," Phillips said.
He said reporters have to win their trust by writing accurate and fair stories about them.
Although there are differences between coverage of Vietnam and Iraq, journalists were drawn to the two war stories for similar reasons: the chance to cover the biggest story of their times.
"What journalist doesn’t want to cover the biggest story?" Harris said. "It was as simple as that."
Esper said covering the Vietnam War changed his career.
"I felt I could never do anything - and I feel this way now - more important than covering the Vietnam War," Esper said. "And I think a lot of journalists felt this way."
Reach Terry Ganey at (573) 815-1708 or tganey@tribmail.com.
Ellie
Vietnam War reporters worked in safer conditions and had more access than journalists covering the Iraq conflict.
By TERRY GANEY of the Tribune’s staff
Published Sunday, January 20, 2008
One of the most vivid memories George Esper has from his years as an Associated Press correspondent during the Vietnam War was of a flight he took on a U.S. military transport plane loaded with the bodies of dead American soldiers.
Esper had been in the demilitarized zone covering a battle. Afterward he asked the pilot of the plane if he could hitch a ride back to Saigon. The pilot agreed, and Esper was directed to the aircraft’s freight section.
There, Esper found he and the plane’s loadmaster were the only living people in the belly of the transport.
"I was just stunned," Esper said in an interview last year. "I looked around, and I saw these scores of body bags, and I am sitting in the middle of them in a bucket seat."
Esper’s anecdote demonstrates one of the biggest differences between the combat coverage of the Vietnam War and the conflict in Iraq. Reporters in Vietnam had much greater access to the stark realities of the war and encountered fewer obstacles from the military to cover them.
It might be unfair to compare the coverage of the Iraq conflict with what many believe to be the most accessible and visible war in U.S. history. But there is no denying the American public got a more vivid picture of what was happening in Vietnam than from the level of news coverage in Iraq.
"The best way to report a story is to be there," Esper said. "And you were able to do that in Vietnam, for the most part." Esper said the "huge advantage" reporters in Vietnam had over those in Iraq was access to what was actually going on. Esper believes the military of today wants to limit press access partly because of the way the Vietnam War was reported.
Interviews conducted over the past year and a half with three AP reporters who covered the Vietnam War and seven newspaper journalists who reported from Iraq indicate journalists in Iraq faced greater physical dangers and worked with a military less willing to facilitate coverage of the conflict.
There were other differences as well. Technological improvements gave reporters in Iraq better means of communication, which journalists said should make coverage more accurate. Reporters covering Vietnam were more likely to have had military experience, which might have given them an edge in understanding what was going on.
But for journalists, one of the biggest differences between Vietnam and Iraq was the danger.
The Committee to Protect Journalists has reported 125 journalists and another 49 media support workers were killed in Iraq between March 2003 and the end of 2007. During the 10-year period of the Vietnam War, 1965-1975, 71 television, photo and print journalists from 14 countries were killed: 33 in Vietnam, 34 in Cambodia and four in Laos, said Richard Pyle, a reporter who covered the war there for The Associated Press.
Reporters and photographers in Vietnam faced physical threats, but they did not encounter the random violence and intentional killing and kidnappings that have made ready casualties of the journalists in Iraq.
"I never covered Vietnam," said Michael Phillips of the Wall Street Journal. "But I don’t think journalists were targets in Vietnam. It’s one thing to be unarmed in combat and sort of hope that the fact that it says ‘press’ on your flak jacket will catch you a break to the extent that a break can be caught. But it’s another thing where you’re going into a situation and putting ‘press’ onto your flak jacket is equivalent of saying ‘shoot me.’ And Iraq is that place."
Phillips, 44, has been to Iraq five times as an embedded reporter with the U.S. Marines.
Esper, 75, is now a professor of journalism at West Virginia University. He covered the Vietnam War for 10 years and was the AP’s Saigon bureau chief when the war ended in 1975. Esper said in Vietnam it was unlikely a reporter would be kidnapped or deliberately murdered.
"Indeed, I admire the Iraq war correspondents because I think covering Iraq is much more dangerous than was Vietnam," Esper said.
The cost of access
A survey conducted between Sept. 28 and Nov. 7 of 111 journalists who covered the war in Iraq showed a majority believe most of the country is too dangerous to collect news. The survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism indicated most news organizations rely on local staff to conduct on-the-scene reporting and that most cannot carry equipment that might indicate they are working for the news media.
Sixty percent of those surveyed in Iraq believed the embedded system gave them access to stories they would not otherwise have. They agreed there were some limitations but that overall the embedded program was working.
Under the embedded system, reporters are attached to a particular unit. Compared with Vietnam, collecting the news in Iraq is more difficult because of the time and paperwork required to get to another unit where news is developing. In Vietnam, the military facilitated the movement of reporters to help them do their jobs.
Jeff Bundy, a photographer with the Omaha World-Herald, covered a Nebraska Army National Guard unit in Iraq during fall 2005. Bundy said books he has read about Vietnam suggest it was a much easier war to cover simply because of mobility.
"When you talk to those guys, they’d just jump on a Huey, and they go out," Bundy said. "There was no jumping on a Huey for us. Now you have to do the paperwork and the disclaimers and get yourself on a flight. Because of the way the world has moved, it’s tougher to move throughout the country."
And unlike the reporters who covered Vietnam, the journalists embedded with the military in Iraq signed an agreement acknowledging that all comments of military personnel are "on the record." In Vietnam, reporters made much greater use of unnamed sources.
The promise of confidentiality can encourage a news source to divulge important information. On the other hand, the use of anonymous sources can also erode the credibility of a report. In the military, it’s unlikely an officer would voice critical opinions if the soldier knew such a disclosure would ruin a career.
Pyle, who covered the Vietnam War for the AP from 1970 to 1973, said entire stories were written with no named sources.
"We could quote people without divulging who they were," Pyle said. "Today this is very rare."
Although the rule for embedded reporters in Iraq required that all quotes from military personnel be on the record, not everyone abided by it.
Ron Harris, who covered a U.S. Marine company during two Iraq tours for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, said there was a time when he did not identify a Marine source to protect him from retribution. Harris said he did not identify a Marine on another occasion as the source of a quote and that later there was an inquiry about who made the remark. Harris said he told the Marine officers asking about the source that he would not divulge the name.
Better communications
Satellite telephones, the Internet, digital cameras and laptop computers have revolutionized combat coverage from the field. Reporters can almost immediately and reliably communicate with their home offices. At the same time, troops in the field with Internet access can read what is written about them.
In Vietnam, reporters used typewriters, telephones of dubious quality and a radio link that was often unreliable. The reporters from that era believe the improved technology would have made stories more accurate. Fixes to copy could have been communicated more quickly. Misunderstandings caused by delays or interruptions in communications could have been avoided.
"I think it would require" the reporter "to be more honest, or should I say a bit more careful with his facts, and that would improve the final product," said George McArthur, 83, who joined the AP’s Saigon bureau in 1965 and later became bureau chief.
Pyle believes the better technology would have made the reporting more accurate because a reporter in the field could call an editor immediately with corrections.
"It removes some of the excuses that reporters would have for making mistakes: the time lapse or bad connection or all the different things that might have happened or somebody at the other end having to fill in the blanks because the whole story didn’t arrive," Pyle said.
Because the draft existed until 1973, reporters who covered the Vietnam War were more likely to have had military experience than those who covered the Iraq war. Of the three interviewed journalists who worked in Vietnam, all had served in some branch of the military. Of the seven journalists who covered the Iraq war, only one had been in the military.
Those who had military experience said it might have given them a better feel for the story. In at least one case, a reporter with military experience believed that experience engendered more trust in him in developing a news source relationship with an Army commander.
Journalists who covered both the Vietnam War and the Iraq war acknowledged that gaining intimate familiarity with the military was a necessary tactic in their coverage but that it didn’t affect their objectivity.
Harris and photographer Andy Cutraro covered a company of Marines for the Post-Dispatch during the initial invasion of Iraq and returned a year later to recount their experiences as an occupying force. Harris said the Marines "saw how hard we worked to be accurate," and at the same time Harris developed a level of respect and kinship with the Marines.
Phillips believed embedding gave him much better access than he would otherwise have but that the military doesn’t like the press in general.
"You will find there are lots and lots of officers and enlisted who have this Vietnam-era mind-set, even if they weren’t even born during Vietnam, that the press is their enemy and much more liberal than they are," Phillips said.
He said reporters have to win their trust by writing accurate and fair stories about them.
Although there are differences between coverage of Vietnam and Iraq, journalists were drawn to the two war stories for similar reasons: the chance to cover the biggest story of their times.
"What journalist doesn’t want to cover the biggest story?" Harris said. "It was as simple as that."
Esper said covering the Vietnam War changed his career.
"I felt I could never do anything - and I feel this way now - more important than covering the Vietnam War," Esper said. "And I think a lot of journalists felt this way."
Reach Terry Ganey at (573) 815-1708 or tganey@tribmail.com.
Ellie