Put this in context. At least, let me try.
The ethics in combat journalism, and journalism in general, from the Viet Nam era are a whole different animal than what we see / hear / read now. Forty or so years ago, the number and circulation of newspapers was, even on a per capita basis, far less than today. Factor in that most people who actually owned televisions only had the “Big 3” networks from which to choose, and ethics just seemed a much more important factor then.
Today, we can practically turn on our satellite or digital cable television and tune in to the channel with the most appropriate content for our personal beliefs. The same can be said for the print or online subscriptions. So, by market demand, even journalism has become skewed.
As a previous poster observed, most of the information the public received in Viet Nam was via our own government. And, really, what do you think they would have said? “Wow. We were not prepared for this. Can we get a do-over?” Of course not. The administration was already invested in this war, yes – WAR – and what administration can back-track from that and believe they will come up all roses? So, the administration’s best stance on any coverage was to have it come out of their own offices.
It appears, however, that the media at that time disagreed. Enter the precursor to the “embedded journalist.” The only way to even attempt to get the media on board was to start allowing actual journalists into what was, at the very early stages, thought to be a done-deal. Positive press was desperately needed. Unfortunately for the government, it was a gamble that backfired.
On another point, I agree with another poster. When, in this movie, Galloway was handed a military rifle, I didn’t see it as “an order.” (Regardless of how the movie drama played it). It was a method of self-defense, and his personal choice. If someone is coming at you, firing, would you fire back to protect yourself or others? That’s a legal defense, and I can only imagine that it has to be valid in the middle of a war zone. A very hot one, at that. I suppose the fact that he was from Texas and from a family of soldiers might have been to his benefit. At least he was depicted as knowing how to use the da*n gun. The NCO who tossed him the rifle in the movie did him a favor; he at least gave him the option of defense. And he put it in perspective. How many people can defend themselves in a fire fight with a Nikon? It would be great if you could just hold up your camera and yell “journalist” or something in their language but, unfortunately, reality doesn’t work that way.
As someone else on here put it, those countries don’t generally observe the articles of the Geneva Convention or any other law but their own.
So, if I were an embedded journalist, would I want the power, or at least the option, to defend myself? You’re da*mn right I would. And I would not hesitate.
If ethics were simple in any profession, there wouldn’t be specialists to advise people on them. And, sometimes, “popular” ethics have to be sacrificed in the name of self-preservation. Or, more importantly, the preservation of your family, your friends, your way of life.
Just so you know, I was born late into the Viet Nam War. So, I don’t have many personal memories except for a cousin who died. His parents lived next door to us, but I was too young to remember much about what was happening. No one likes to talk about it.
One of my closest friends is a veteran of that war. He, now, reminds me of Sam Elliot’s character. The old, grizzled wiseass. But you’d never find a better friend.
I await the bashing that always comes with a post on IMDB. But, hey, that’s the price of freedom of speech. At least, some of it.
reply
share
InUrFridge
16 years ago
On another point, I agree with another poster. When, in this movie, Galloway was handed a military rifle, I didn’t see it as “an order.” (Regardless of how the movie drama played it). It was a method of self-defense, and his personal choice. If someone is coming at you, firing, would you fire back to protect yourself or others? That’s a legal defense, and I can only imagine that it has to be valid in the middle of a war zone. A very hot one, at that.
But to what extent is it self defence when it was the people that you flew in with who are the agressors?
IMO you can't call it self defence when the people who you're defending yourself from are defending themselves.
reply
share
dmvksxyjtu
16 years ago
When Galloway was offered the rifle, he had a choice. He chose to use it in what he probably judged to be a kill-or-be-killed situation.
reply
share
max-silver
12 years ago
The NVA were the aggressors. They were occupying South Vietnam, where Ia Drang Valley is/was located.
In fact, no US battle was even fought in North Vietnam.
reply
share