Vietnam War: My Lai Massacre & Beyond

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter denverdoc
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War and its implications for contemporary media coverage of war atrocities. Participants highlight the stark contrast between the graphic reporting of past events like My Lai and the sanitized portrayal of current conflicts, particularly in Iraq. They emphasize the lack of visceral imagery in modern news, which diminishes public outrage over civilian casualties. The conversation also touches on the use of controversial weapons like napalm and SMAW NE in Iraq, drawing parallels to historical events and questioning the ethics of military engagement.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the My Lai Massacre and its historical context
  • Familiarity with media ethics and war reporting standards
  • Knowledge of military terminology, including napalm and thermobaric weapons
  • Awareness of the impact of public perception on military actions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the My Lai Massacre and its aftermath in detail
  • Examine the role of media in shaping public perception of war
  • Investigate the use and effects of thermobaric weapons in modern warfare
  • Analyze case studies of media coverage of contemporary conflicts
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for historians, journalists, military personnel, and anyone interested in the ethical implications of war reporting and the historical context of military actions.

  • #31
denverdoc said:
PBS was gutted and Democracy Now only comes on Dish. It's really a very a very impoverished place for balanced news or even occasional reporting of different perspectives==don't want to offend any corporate sponsors.
Democracy Now's daily broadcasts are available on the 'web, as well as transcripts and archived interviews.

http://www.democracynow.org/

Even if you are not a progressive/liberal, everyone owes it to themselves to hear the viewpoints expressed on this show. It's the only venue in which I have seen prominent representatives of Israel and Palestine debate regarding the viability of peace initiatives and the hurdles that face each side. You can't get that kind of coverage on network TV. In recent months Scott Ritter (former UN weapons inspector) has been on the show with some interesting insights regarding Iran and the Bush administration's plans for regime change, including historical perspectives on previous administrations' support for a nuclear power program in Iran, so that Iran could continue to build their infrastructure, while freeing up more oil for export. (second link) Cheney and Rumsfeld both supported that policy.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/21/143259&mode=thread&tid=25
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/16/144204&mode=thread&tid=25
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32
I really enjoy the show and have had the pleasure of hearing Amy Goodman speak live. I think it is cutting edge journalism, and as you say, one of the few shows that makes an effort to present various views. In fact, it is where I learned of several of the issues I mentioned that were patently fallacious, but still used andf quoted thru out mainstream media during the run-up to the invasion.

I'm aware of the radio presence and net streaming, just wish comcast carried it. Dish had some interesting shows including a middle east feature from various sources, but i was seduced into the triple play from comcast for phone, internet, and TV programming.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
More from the front lines - US servicemen were sent into a situation unprepared! They were equipped for a peace keeping mission - not combat with insurgents. In effect, they were set up.

Journalist Examines Iraq Battle In-Depth
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7668067

Morning Edition, March 2, 2007 · The First Cavalry Division was caught largely unawares in Baghdad's Sadr City in April 2004. Soldiers who thought they were on a peacekeeping mission faced intense gunfire instead. Many had just arrived in Iraq. For some, it was their first battle.

"Everything they had been told about where they were going, Sadr City, was that it was pretty peaceful, that it would probably be a babysitting mission. And they end up in Iraq pretty much thinking they're going to be passing out candy," says ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Martha Raddatz.

The troops were unprepared for combat. They lacked the proper gear — even basics such as GPS information. Communications broke down. Unable to call for backup, the soldiers struggled to defend themselves.

Raddatz details the devastating attack that ensued — which became a turning point in the Iraq war — in a new book, The Long Road Home.

After a dramatic rescue, she says, the surviving soldiers and their families struggled to make sense of the ambush.

"They all beat up on themselves, when, in fact, it was the circumstances," she says.

Raddatz recounts the dramatic battle for Sadr City — and the lessons it holds for U.S. troops

Excerpt from the book is on the webpage.
 
  • #34
I used to visit democracynow a lot until they ran a story about a 9/11 conspiracy with allegations of Mossad agents in the form of furniture movers and cosmetics/artwork salesmen.
 
  • #35
Yonoz said:
I used to visit democracynow a lot until they ran a story about a 9/11 conspiracy with allegations of Mossad agents in the form of furniture movers and cosmetics/artwork salesmen.

Two weaknesses of Demo. Now! : a soft spot for conspiracy theory and weak science reporting at times. But some/many of these conspiracy stories seem to have foundation.

If they miss one on occasion, they are doing their job. If they never miss one, than it would be the mass media all over again. You look at Rather, everyone knows he got the story right, if not all the details, then went looking for alternative sources when the official ones "disappeared," and is hung up to dry.
 
  • #36
denverdoc said:
Two weaknesses of Demo. Now! : a soft spot for conspiracy theory and weak science reporting at times. But some/many of these conspiracy stories seem to have foundation.

If they miss one on occasion, they are doing their job. If they never miss one, than it would be the mass media all over again. You look at Rather, everyone knows he got the story right, if not all the details, then went looking for alternative sources when the official ones "disappeared," and is hung up to dry.
True, but I would rather get my news from sources that have a clear, defined agenda.
 
  • #37
Thats the problem in my view--most other sources have very clear, well defined agendae--make $$, avoid controversy.
 
  • #38
denverdoc said:
Thats the problem in my view--most other sources have very clear, well defined agendae--make $$, avoid controversy.
Another problem is that the right-wingers on hate radio and the blogosphere keep up a steady drumbeat of "liberal media", when in fact the the national media are actually quite complacent and generally allow the radical neo-cons a free ride. Note that they didn't show Clinton that kind of deference when he was having his "troubles". The "liberal media" is a myth used to deflect attention away from any bad news by disparaging the messenger. I would prefer to see a few news outlets adopt progressive agendas to help balance out the many right-wing outlets and the eviscerated PBS and commercial networks.
 
  • #39
turbo-1 said:
Another problem is that the right-wingers on hate radio and the blogosphere keep up a steady drumbeat of "liberal media", when in fact the the national media are actually quite complacent and generally allow the radical neo-cons a free ride. Note that they didn't show Clinton that kind of deference when he was having his "troubles". The "liberal media" is a myth used to deflect attention away from any bad news by disparaging the messenger. I would prefer to see a few news outlets adopt progressive agendas to help balance out the many right-wing outlets and the eviscerated PBS and commercial networks.

Countdown with Keith Olbermann fits the bill nicely in my opinion. While it's only one hour, his special comments segments he does every now and then is quite interesting and thought provoking.