• Blanchard, Margaret. “Mass Media and the Antiwar Movement.” Mass Media and Terrorism . Print.
This article takes an in-depth look at some of the major Antiwar movement moments during the Vietnam war and talks about how they were covered during the Vietnam war. This article covers war media from 1965 until about 1970 with the end of the war. This article will play a larger roll in my paper because it talk about the direct relation between what the media was covering during the war and how the public responded, and felt about the war at different points along the historical time line.
• Barnouw, Erik. Tube of Plenty. 2nd Edition. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1975. Print
This book provides some general information about the different news networks operating at the time and how there coverage of the war. In particular and most useful was learning how the networks coverage of the war effect public opinion during the Vietnam war.
• May Fourth Task Force.” May 4 Chronology of Events (1996): n. pag. Web. 9 May 2011. http://dept.kent.edu/may4/chrono.html
This is an incredibly useful source chronologically breaking down the events that took place in Chicago during the 1968 Democratic National Convention. It also list the events that took place between May 1st through the 4th. Going in to detail about each event and why it took place the way it did. This article will be very useful in talking about more events that were covered by the media and how they effected public opinion of the war.
• Maniaty, Tony. “From Vietnam to Iraq: Negative trends in television war reporting.” Pacific Journalism Review. 14.2 (2008): Print.
This article looks at the major events going on during the Vietnam war such as the Tet offensive, talking about how they were covered by television and how during the Gulf war in 1991 the styles used by reporters of the media would be dramatically changed and censored. Something most useful about this article was the list of 12 rules implemented after Vietnam to control what was reported on from or during a war.
• Mueller, Brett. “Myths and Mistakes: Charles Mohr Discussess Vietnam War-Era Press Coverage.” Committee of Concerned Journalists (2006): n. pag. Web. 2 May 2011. ttp://www.concernedjournalists.org/myths-and-mistakes-charles-mohr-discusses-vietnam-war-era-press-coverage
This article wasn’t completely useful. What I did find most interesting about it was the opposing viewpoints to everything else I had read. This article was of the opinion that much was actually with held from the public during the war. It also made the argument that because media lost faith in the war it caused America to also loose faith and thus made Americans no longer see the war as important or winnable.
• Patterson, Oscar. “If The Vietnam War Had Been Reported Under Gulf War Rules.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 39.1 (1995): 1-13. Print.
This article beaks down the events of the war in chronological order, giving examples of how each event was covered by the media. At the end of each section the author compares the events that took place to the new rule list set in place after Vietnam and gives the percentage of rules broken during that time. This article will be very useful in showing how war coverage was changed after Vietnam and in showing that the war could have had a hole different out come publicly had these rules been in place before the start of the Vietnam war.
• Petersen, Neville. “The Coverage of the Vietnam War in an Organizational Context: The ABC and CBC Experience.” Canadian Journal of Communication 23.4 (1998): 1-20. Web. 9 May 2011. http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/artical/viewArtical/…
I would have to say this was the most interesting article to read because it talked about how other countries covered the Vietnam war at the same time we were. This article follows the Australian Broadcasting commission (ABC) and the CBC Canadian broadcasting corporation. What was most interesting about this article was learning that these furan broadcasting companies were all owned by the government so the style they reported in was way different then American companies. These companies were both very limited in what they could present and also had a much larger air of freedom to their reporting because they were not worried about public support.