Matt Clark

The culture of the Old South, as described by author Donald Matthews, was a culture steeped in religion. The belief was that God and religion provided guidance in even the daily actions of man. To those in the South, this included the institution of slavery and the Bible was used more than other text as the justification of that institution. Now, the argument over the justification of slavery revolves around debauchery and a Southern lifestyle viewed as abhorrent and degrading by Northern counterparts and, even today, by those who have been raised in new Southern culture. However, Matthew points out that the Old South religious doctrine, called the slaveholding ethic, was a widespread belief even prior to the Civil War. In this paper, I will show the slaveholding ethic of the 19th century South and the common belief by those in it that slavery was rooted in an interpretation of biblical scripture. The pro-slavery movement of the time believed slaves were property and condoned the treatment of that property. This was a position defended rigorously by clergy and common man. I will show, conversely, the abolition movement found comfort for their argument against the practice in the Bible and, more specifically, the teachings of Jesus. It is my belief that neither side was able to hold the biblical high ground in the argument as the Bible contained chapters and verses that spoke both for, and against slavery, or servitude. To that end, this paper will find that the biblical uses for and against slavery were more based on scripture interpretation rather than biblical fact.

The American involvement in Vietnam between 1958 and 1975 could be considered one of the most divisive conflicts to date. After World War II, American foreign policy could be defined as being one of modernization. The United States went from being an isolationist nation prior to World War II to being one of reconstruction — particularly in Western Europe — following the fall of Axis powers in 1945. This policy started to take shape and expanded when communist North Korea invaded its capitalist neighbor to the south. American military units were used as part of an international force sponsored by the United Nations to halt the incursion into South Korea by the Chinese-backed North. This along with the fall of the Iron Curtain — where the Soviet Union divided the continent between eastern communist nations and western capitalist ones — set the stage for the Cold War pitting the capitalistic ideology against that of the communists. The policy of stopping the spread of communist ideology expanded further following the removal of French forces from North Vietnam. Once France lost control of the North, the Communist-led regime sought to reunite the country and began invading the South. With America’s foreign policy, the government believed it was the role of the United States to bolster the efforts of South Vietnam. This involvement only escalated in the early 1960s and, at its peak, American forces numbered over 536,000. From the end of World War II to Vietnam, the role of the media and its coverage of conflict abroad changed. During World War II, the media included only print and some radio broadcasters reporting from locations away from the front lines. In Korea, that practice remained the same. At home, coverage of foreign policy decisions was confined to being managed by the presidential administration. However, during the Vietnam era, journalists found themselves embedded with military units in-country and domestic coverage went beyond regurgitation of government messages as journalists exerted more freedom from political elites. Despite the increased involvement of the press in coverage of on-ground actions in Vietnam and policy coverage in Washington, D.C., the shaping of American foreign policy during the conflict was limited in more of a mirror of political elites and their growing distaste for American involvement in Southeast Asia. The question this study will address is just how did media shape the foreign policy decisions made during the Vietnam War? This study will begin with a review of relevant literature pertaining to the media and its role in shaping public opinion. From there will be an examination of the American foreign policy doctrine under the presidential administrations of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon as it pertains to involvement in Vietnam. Following that examination, the actions of the press and its coverage of troop actions in Vietnam and foreign policy decisions made by presidential administrations and Congress will be documented. This will culminate in the thesis that the American media did very little to shape the foreign policy decisions made by leaders of the time. It is, in fact, the leaders themselves who caused public upheaval and their decisions forced a deviation in foreign policy from modernization and stopping the spread of communism to a “peace with honor” strategy that led to the end of American involvement in Vietnam.

Social media has changed the face and function of today’s traditional newsrooms. But, more than that, social media has changed how editors and reporters report the news and, perhaps more importantly, control the flow of information via social media channels. Because social media has sped up the news gathering process, the way news and information in controlled from newsrooms to the general public and vice versa has changed. This study examined seven news professionals ranging in title and duty and asked how big of a part social media played in their day-to-day professional lives and how their respective news outlets “screen” social media news, both incoming and outgoing. The respondents were interviewed and asked a series of 15 questions related to social media, newsroom strategy and news judgement in their respective organizations. Shoemaker’s gatekeeping theory is the basis for this research. Shoemaker and Vos (2009) suggested gatekeepers maintain the flow of information and help that information flow onward. However, the research here shows that downsizing of newsrooms has made an impact on the traditional role of editor to serve as the newsroom gatekeeper, specifically when it comes to social media news and information. The seven respondents were asked a battery of questions to determine how social media plays a role in their daily professional lives and how the flow of news and information works in their respective newsrooms. Those newsrooms varied in size from small community newspapers to larger metropolitan organizations and also included citizen journalism organizations. While this research did show patterns in newsroom gatekeeping processes for social media news and information, additional studies into the dynamics of downsized newsrooms and the evolution of the gatekeeping process with news and information not obtained by social media channels is necessary to paint a more complete picture on the status of overall gatekeeping in today’s newsrooms. GATEKEEPING SOCIAL MEDIA IN TODAY’S NEWSROOMS

With wounds, still fresh from Vietnam which ended 15 years prior, the American military prepared to embark on another incursion to remove a stronger foreign power from its weaker neighbor. One of those wounds felt by the American military establishment was how it believed the American media was partially responsible for its defeat in Southeast Asia. The ‘Vietnam Syndrome’ was the idea within American military circles that it had lost the war in Vietnam “because pessimistic press coverage tipped public opinion against the conflict.” Following Vietnam, President Ronald Reagan attempted to deviate from his predecessors’ relationship with the media to one of attempting to work with the media, but keeping the administration’s disdain for it behind the scenes. The first instances of the administration to work with the media in a “wartime” setting since Vietnam was brief incursions in Grenada and Panama, which were characterized by the Twentieth Century Fund task force as the “government’s failure, at the onset, to allow an independent flow of information to the public about a major military operation was unprecedented in modern American history.” In both engagements, the military held the media at bay and did not allow media boots on the ground until military operations were all but finished — contrary to its policy in Vietnam where the media at virtual free reign over the countryside. This presented a challenge in 1990 with the onset of operations in the Middle East to remove Iraqi military forces from Kuwait. During this time, the military enacted recommendations presented following Grenada from a commission chaired by retired U.S Army general Winant Sidle that included the creation of a national press pool “that could be sent within hours to the site of combat.” It was this press pool that will be the center of analysis for this paper. In this paper, I will begin with a review of relevant literature surrounding the media’s relationship with the military and government actors in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama and the first Gulf War. There will be an examination of the trust issues between the media and the military and government that stems from the wounds of Vietnam. Then, there will be a look at how the Defense Department enacted the press pool and how the media responded to it during the days leading up to and after the first Gulf War. An examination of the “CNN Effect” and how it changed the dynamic of wartime coverage by the American media will be followed by answering the fundamental question this paper will answer: Did the military control of the press work in controlling the message put to the American public during the first Gulf War and not repeat the same mistakes made during Vietnam? I will show that the military’s control of the press through rules and press pools did, in fact, allow the military and the government to control its message during the short time of engagement.

The company for which I am currently employed does not hold to a strong top-down leadership mechanism. Newspapers are treated individually with little to no guidance from corporate management. This is a stark contrast to a previous newspaper group I worked for where the top leadership provided, at times, too much structure from the top down. This lack of senior guidance has left newspapers in the group to flounder along with on-site managers. With no advanced training provided from corporate leaders and little to do directives it leaves news organizations of multiple sizes to their own devices. Success is measured in the bottom line, not the generation of proper news content for readers. At times, on-site managers are left to guess the appropriate course of action in determining proper content or revenue-generating solutions. Judge correctly means little communication from corporate management. Judge incorrectly, and your product and leadership comes under a microscope from that same leadership. This paper will look at the issue using the various perspectives of the five organization frames (Carey, 1999) including the rational, human, political, systems and cultural frames. In the end, an examination of a potential solution will be provided.

The relationship between the American military, government and media has sometimes been harmonious, but more often during modern war times it has been the opposite. During World War II the three entities worked closely, but, the relationship deteriorated rapidly during Vietnam and through the Gulf War of 1991. Yet this was followed by a return to harmony during the Iraq War. This study provides an in-depth examination of the dynamic relationship between the military, government and media during Vietnam, the Gulf War and the Iraq War. There is a special focus on analyzing government and military attempts to control media to influence public opinion and how this has evolved over time. Control over the media by government and military actors was loose during Vietnam which led to a mutual distrust between the media and government/military. During the Gulf War of 1991, the government and military attempted to reverse course and implemented strict controls over the media, leading to a further strain in the relationship. Finally, during the Iraq War and action in Afghanistan, there seemed to be a somewhat happy medium between the three parties allowing them to better coexist on the battlefield. This study shows the complex dynamic between the media, military, government and public opinion. Over the course of the three conflicts studied, the military found a balance in how to manage its challenging relationship with the media over how to cover a war. Even so, very little media coverage itself influenced the foreign policy decisions of leaders or even public opinion.

The culture of the Old South, as described by author Donald Matthews, was a culture steeped in religion. The belief was that God and religion provided guidance in even the daily actions of man. To those in the South, this included the institution of slavery and the Bible was used more than other text as the justification of that institution.
Now, the argument over the justification of slavery revolves around debauchery and a Southern lifestyle viewed as abhorrent and degrading by Northern counterparts and, even today, by those who have been raised in new Southern culture. However, Matthew points out that the Old South religious doctrine, called the slaveholding ethic, was a widespread belief even prior to the Civil War.
In this paper, I will show the slaveholding ethic of the 19th century South and the common belief by those in it that slavery was rooted in an interpretation of biblical scripture. The pro-slavery movement of the time believed slaves were property and condoned the treatment of that property. This was a position defended rigorously by clergy and common man. I will show, conversely, the abolition movement found comfort for their argument against the practice in the Bible and, more specifically, the teachings of Jesus. It is my belief that neither side was able to hold the biblical high ground in the argument as the Bible contained chapters and verses that spoke both for, and against slavery, or servitude. To that end, this paper will find that the biblical uses for and against slavery were more based on scripture interpretation rather than biblical fact.

One of the biggest questions facing constitutional scholars  asks if the existence of the states furnish an independent determinant of, or limitation upon national power? The question regarding the states and the federal government has been a paramount issue since before the creation of the American republic and one that was generated in the Federalist papers.
“The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the Consent of the People. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.”
Hamilton went on to suggest “the government of the Union must be empowered (sic) to pass all laws”  and “the same must be the case in respect to commerce and to every other matter to which its jurisdiction is permitted to extend.”  The overriding question is just how far does that jurisdiction supposed to extend.
The United States Supreme Court has played a strong role in promoting early nationalism, specifically from the enacting of the U.S. Constitution to property rights, slavery and the Civil War. The research will range from books to journals to give a comprehensive account of how the Supreme Court exercised judicial power to give the federal government reach over state’s rights including property rights and slavery.

In South Carolina - a state where Republicans have controlled the House, Senate and Governor's office since 2005 - Gov. Nikki Haley has proposed three points of focus for the 2016 General Assembly session: transportation infrastructure, education funding and law enforcement funding in relation to domestic violence.
In the opening weeks of the session, the mood inside the Statehouse has been anything by adversarial regarding Haley's executive budget proposals. Lawmakers have admitted there is a struggle with finding funding to overcome a sizable transportation infrastructure deficit through 2040 along with finding a court-ordered equitable K-12 funding formula and additional monies for Haley's request regarding public safety.

On Dec. 22, 2008, a dyke holding coal ash — a byproduct of coal-fired electric generating plants — ruptured at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston Fossil Plant in Roane County, Tennessee. The result of the rupture was 1.1 billion gallons of toxic coal fly ash slurry being spilled into the Clinch River near the city of Kingston (Paine & Sledge, 2008). It was the largest coal ash spill in United States history.
A similar incident occurred in February 2014 when tens of thousands of tons of coal ash and 100,000 cubic meters of contaminated water poured into the Dan River in northern North Carolina after the collapse of a corrugated pipe under a coal ash pit at Duke Energy’s closed Dan River coal fired electric generation plant ("Ash in river," 2014).
This paper will look at how the Tennessee Valley Authority and Duke Energy responded to each of these events. We will examine the actual event and immediate response from each entity, how the mood of each organization set the tone for future communications and how that communication was handled and the role of which it played in the overall event. We will look at the timeline of each event and how communication was handled over that timeline. Finally, we will compare each strategy and its effectiveness.

Most employees have the expectation of being treated fairly and justly in the workplace. For the most part, research shows this is the case in most organizations. However, there are instances where organizations or departments within organizations experience poor leadership that can lead to dysfunction in a work environment. Researchers have discovered a leader’s self-esteem can be directly related to their leadership ability. A leader’s moral compass and ability to adhere to a code of ethics can also play into the perception of whether or not they are good leaders or managers. In some cases, managers and leaders may have plenty of confidence, self-esteem and moral fortitude but simply lack the knowledge of the job of which they are tasked. Charisma is another strong characteristic of an effective leader. Occasionally, charisma can be confused with narcissism or the distorted view of self. While businesses and other organizations can be prone to bad, or toxic leadership, those leaders who manifest destructive leadership styles can be problematic for armed forces.

Politics around the globe have shifted over the last decade and beyond. The same can also be said about the realm of journalism and the coverage of events such as conflict and politics. While traces of media coverage of conflict and politics can be traced back to ancient Roman times, one of the first true media wars began in 1855 with the outbreak of the Crimean War. Some can trace media coverage of war back even to the American Civil War with photos by acclaimed photographer Matthew Brady illustrating the casualties of war mixed with newspaper accounts of action and casualty lists. The first significant correlation between media coverage and public opinion regarding politics and war following the end of the Cold War happened during the Vietnam War. It can be argued that the most celebrated example of ‘adversarial’ journalism is U.S. coverage of the Vietnam War when the uncensored and brutal portrayal of American casualties undermined public support and effectively ‘lost the war’ (Thussu & Freedman, 2003, p. 5). A suggestion in coverage of conflict and war is that of the compassion factor. Journalists want their coverage of crises to be a “page-turner,” but frequently the public’s response is to just “turn the page.” It can be called veiled ignorance or simple lack of integrity when it comes to the American media reporting on the events leading up to and including the war in Iraq. The media bought into the claim of President George W. Bush when he said: “We cannot wait for final proof: the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud (Moyers, Hughes, & Amron, 2007).

The landscape of modern journalism has changed over the last few decades. Long rooted in traditional research and investigative methodologies, the art of journalism has been transformed to a “get it first” over the “get it right” mentality. Today, there exists three kinds of newspapers. There are those good, intelligent, honest newspapers, morally pernicious and intellectually contempt newspapers, and the colorless, indifferent, innocuous newspapers (Yarros, 1922, p. 410). It has become common for newspapers — large and small — to commit daily sins innumerable because of the desire to shield injustice and wrong-doing and to prevent well-intentioned and reasonable people from learning the truth regarding iniquities of social order (Yarros, 1922, p. 410). Competition, short staffing and pressures from sources can be the root to any newspaper evil. In this paper, I will examine common ethical issues within the newspaper world and look at the steps I take, as a manager, to solve these dilemmas.

Newspapers are tasked with providing information to the general public through means including print, broadcast and digital. Principles of gathering news and information have been long governed by a set of rules and ethical principles that have been augmented very little since their inception. A primary ethical guideline is for journalists to act independently meaning not to have conflicts of interest or perceived bias ("Journalist’s Ethical Code," 1996). The point of this section of the code is to maintain a level of integrity and to ensure that the public’s right to know is the lone motivating factor when presenting news.
However, in newspapers, the code applies only to journalists and does not reach to other departments within the organization such as advertising, delivery and administration. Because of this, there can be ethical issues and questions which arise and require additional analysis before a final decision is made. In this paper, I will identify an ethical situation I have been a part of and utilize an ethical decision-making model proposed by Terry Cooper which examines many facets of the decision-making process (Cooper, 2006, p. 29). Finally, I will propose a solution to the problem based on the model presentation.

Utilizing shared values is paramount in the construction of productive working relationships, especially between diverse groups of individuals in their achievement of a common goal (Kouzes & Posner, 2011, p. 86). But, decision-making in a group setting can bring about its own sets of challenges. Oftentimes, groups can take part in what is called “groupthink” or the process of groups putting unanimous agreement ahead of reasoned problem-solving (Johnson, n.d., p. 218). Another problem that can arise from group decision-making is the “false agreement” or the use of group pressure to justify individual shortcomings (Johnson, n.d., p. 221). Conversely, a positive of utilizing the group decision-making process is the ability to involve multiple worldviews and opinions into deriving a single decision. The process of communication plays a strong role in that it becomes a key component in the relationship between the individual group members and the quality of their ethical choices (Johnson, n.d., p. 223).

It is human nature for people to seek out a strong leader to follow. It is also true organizations have their fair share of good and bad leaders. The key for the individual is to find what leadership quality works for them and to stick with it. However, that can prove to be a difficult undertaking. Bad leaders, which are more often the norm in organizations, can produce problems with their team because of a lack of focus and a decline in productivity. Bad leaders can be toxic to their group and create chaos with the simplest task. Good leaders, on the other hand, know how to motivate, coach, mentor, and when to stand back. In this paper, I will look at what I see as my bad qualities as a leader and those I view as being good. In the end, I will meld those into what I want to be in a leader.

It can be called veiled ignorance or simple lack of integrity when it came to the American media reporting on the events leading up to and including the war in Iraq. As journalists, we bought in the claims of the Bush Administration and failed to conduct due diligence in investigating claims of weapons of mass destruction and their potential uses against Americans following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. We bought into the claim of President George W. Bush when he said: We cannot wait for final proof: the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud (Moyers, Hughes, & Amron, 2007). When it was all said and done, the end result was a maelstrom of belief that traditional national media bought into the theory that American needed to end the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq based on loose “evidence” of his country developing weapons of mass destruction following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The company for which I am currently employed does not hold to a strong top-down leadership mechanism. Newspapers are treated individually with little to no guidance from corporate management. This is a stark contrast to a previous newspaper group I worked for where the top leadership provided, at times, too much structure from the top down. This lack of senior guidance has left newspapers in the group to flounder along with on-site managers. With no advanced training provided from corporate leaders and little to do directives it leaves news organizations of multiple sizes to their own devices. Success is measured in the bottom line, not the generation of proper news content for readers. At times, on-site managers are left to guess the appropriate course of action in determining proper content or revenue-generating solutions. Judge correctly means little communication from corporate management. Judge incorrectly, and your product and leadership comes under a microscope from that same leadership. This paper will look at the issue using the various perspectives of the five organization frames (Carey, 1999) including the rational, human, political, systems and cultural frames. In the end, an examination of a potential solution will be provided.

Theories involving communication are vast and varied. It can be difficult to wrap ones head around the different conjectures and thoughts each theorist has regarding the realm of communication. Even more so is it difficult for one to decipher what each theory represents and whether there is a subject matter of which to agree. The theories are complex and have varied meanings that have parts that resonate and others that seem to be far-reaching.
In examining Stan Deetz’s approach to theory as a way of seeing and thinking, he suggests we theorize as we engage the activities of the day, as we fix our hair, choose clothes, and plan a schedule (Deetz, 2000, p. 2). He also suggests some theories applied in a classroom setting can fail due to bad applications of accurate theories or less than useful practical theories (Deetz, 2000, p. 4). Deetz says practical theory is based on responses to real problems. I find there is some validity to that. He suggests survival value is the test of any theory (Deetz, 2000, p. 6). The validity to me comes in the fact that a theory is only as good as its implication in practice. If the theory is not practical to an individual, it is likely that individual will not find the theory of use

Walter Ong was born in Kansas City, Mo. and graduated from Rockhurst College in 1933 with a major in Latin. Over the course of his lifetime, the world saw significant events from the Cuban Missile Crisis to the civil rights movement and from Vietnam to the end of the Cold War and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Over the course of his life, Fr. Ong created a significant amount of contributions to the study of communication theory. His interpretation of communication, mass media and culture ranks him among the top theorists of his time. As times change, so has our mode and method of communication. Even in the latter stages of his work, Ong recognized the advent of digital communication. However, his studies remained focused on how the printed or spoken word weaved its way from the first forms of communication to this new advent.

In 2013, Senate Democrats enacted a rule eliminating the ability of Republicans — then in the minority — from using the filibuster to block confirming federal court judges. This practice, called the " nuclear option " changed the rules of confirmation by reducing the number of senators required to confirm a nominee from 60 — also the number required to break a filibuster — to a simple majority of 51. In her presentation " 'Going Nuclear' over Appointments: The Causes and Consequences of Filibuster Reform, " political science professor Lisa Holmes examines the rationale used for implementing this nuclear option as well as what potential consequences may come from this rule change. It is important to note the history of the filibuster, the history of tampering with the judicial confirmation process and why the " nuclear option " was enacted in 2013. While Holmes suggests the filibuster reform had an initial positive impact, I argue that the process actually created an atmosphere of heightened political discourse in the Senate and can be tracked as the first shot in what may be a slow and overly-contentious Senate process for the future.

Social media has changed the face and function of today’s traditional newsrooms. But, more than that, social media has changed how editors and reporters report the news and, perhaps more importantly, control the flow of information via social media channels. Because social media has sped up the news gathering process, the way news and information in controlled from newsrooms to the general public and vice versa has changed.
This study examined seven news professionals ranging in title and duty and asked how big of a part social media played in their day-to-day professional lives and how their respective news outlets “screen” social media news, both incoming and outgoing. The respondents were interviewed and asked a series of 15 questions related to social media, newsroom strategy and news judgement in their respective organizations. Shoemaker’s gatekeeping theory is the basis for this research. Shoemaker and Vos (2009) suggested gatekeepers maintain the flow of information and help that information flow onward. However, the research here shows that downsizing of newsrooms has made an impact on the traditional role of editor to serve as the newsroom gatekeeper, specifically when it comes to social media news and information.
The seven respondents were asked a battery of questions to determine how social media plays a role in their daily professional lives and how the flow of news and information works in their respective newsrooms. Those newsrooms varied in size from small community newspapers to larger metropolitan organizations and also included citizen journalism organizations.
While this research did show patterns in newsroom gatekeeping processes for social media news and information, additional studies into the dynamics of downsized newsrooms and the evolution of the gatekeeping process with news and information not obtained by social media channels is necessary to paint a more complete picture on the status of overall gatekeeping in today’s newsrooms.

With wounds, still fresh from Vietnam which ended 15 years prior, the American military prepared to embark on another incursion to remove a stronger foreign power from its weaker neighbor. One of those wounds felt by the American military establishment was how it believed the American media was partially responsible for its defeat in Southeast Asia. The ‘Vietnam Syndrome’ was the idea within American military circles that it had lost the war in Vietnam “because pessimistic press coverage tipped public opinion against the conflict.”
Following Vietnam, President Ronald Reagan attempted to deviate from his predecessors’ relationship with the media to one of attempting to work with the media, but keeping the administration’s disdain for it behind the scenes. The first instances of the administration to work with the media in a “wartime” setting since Vietnam was brief incursions in Grenada and Panama, which were characterized by the Twentieth Century Fund task force as the “government’s failure, at the onset, to allow an independent flow of information to the public about a major military operation was unprecedented in modern American history.” In both engagements, the military held the media at bay and did not allow media boots on the ground until military operations were all but finished — contrary to its policy in Vietnam where the media at virtual free reign over the countryside.
This presented a challenge in 1990 with the onset of operations in the Middle East to remove Iraqi military forces from Kuwait. During this time, the military enacted recommendations presented following Grenada from a commission chaired by retired U.S Army general Winant Sidle that included the creation of a national press pool “that could be sent within hours to the site of combat.” It was this press pool that will be the center of analysis for this paper.
In this paper, I will begin with a review of relevant literature surrounding the media’s relationship with the military and government actors in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama and the first Gulf War. There will be an examination of the trust issues between the media and the military and government that stems from the wounds of Vietnam. Then, there will be a look at how the Defense Department enacted the press pool and how the media responded to it during the days leading up to and after the first Gulf War. An examination of the “CNN Effect” and how it changed the dynamic of wartime coverage by the American media will be followed by answering the fundamental question this paper will answer: Did the military control of the press work in controlling the message put to the American public during the first Gulf War and not repeat the same mistakes made during Vietnam? I will show that the military’s control of the press through rules and press pools did, in fact, allow the military and the government to control its message during the short time of engagement.

The American involvement in Vietnam between 1958 and 1975 could be considered one of the most divisive conflicts to date. After World War II, American foreign policy could be defined as being one of modernization. The United States went from being an isolationist nation prior to World War II to being one of reconstruction — particularly in Western Europe — following the fall of Axis powers in 1945.
This policy started to take shape and expanded when communist North Korea invaded its capitalist neighbor to the south. American military units were used as part of an international force sponsored by the United Nations to halt the incursion into South Korea by the Chinese-backed North. This along with the fall of the Iron Curtain — where the Soviet Union divided the continent between eastern communist nations and western capitalist ones — set the stage for the Cold War pitting the capitalistic ideology against that of the communists.
The policy of stopping the spread of communist ideology expanded further following the removal of French forces from North Vietnam. Once France lost control of the North, the Communist-led regime sought to reunite the country and began invading the South. With America’s foreign policy, the government believed it was the role of the United States to bolster the efforts of South Vietnam. This involvement only escalated in the early 1960s and, at its peak, American forces numbered over 536,000.
From the end of World War II to Vietnam, the role of the media and its coverage of conflict abroad changed. During World War II, the media included only print and some radio broadcasters reporting from locations away from the front lines. In Korea, that practice remained the same. At home, coverage of foreign policy decisions was confined to being managed by the presidential administration. However, during the Vietnam era, journalists found themselves embedded with military units in-country and domestic coverage went beyond regurgitation of government messages as journalists exerted more freedom from political elites.
Despite the increased involvement of the press in coverage of on-ground actions in Vietnam and policy coverage in Washington, D.C., the shaping of American foreign policy during the conflict was limited in more of a mirror of political elites and their growing distaste for American involvement in Southeast Asia. The question this study will address is just how did media shape the foreign policy decisions made during the Vietnam War?
This study will begin with a review of relevant literature pertaining to the media and its role in shaping public opinion. From there will be an examination of the American foreign policy doctrine under the presidential administrations of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon as it pertains to involvement in Vietnam. Following that examination, the actions of the press and its coverage of troop actions in Vietnam and foreign policy decisions made by presidential administrations and Congress will be documented. This will culminate in the thesis that the American media did very little to shape the foreign policy decisions made by leaders of the time. It is, in fact, the leaders themselves who caused public upheaval and their decisions forced a deviation in foreign policy from modernization and stopping the spread of communism to a “peace with honor” strategy that led to the end of American involvement in Vietnam.