First Person Account: WKC at the JFK Library - A Day in Three Acts
Act II: From the Headlines - The Press
by Donna Z
March 11, 2006
Dan Rather needs no introduction. He started by making some striking comparisons to today’s coverage which because of the nature of available technology meant that Vietnam gave us “bottom up” reporting with correspondents in the field. Today’s reporter cannot move because they are expected to report in from a stationary point on the hour. Thus, they are unable to see the field or hear from the fighters leaving them at the mercy of the lying machine. Vietnam is not monolithic, rather is is broken in various stages with changes in both the conflict and the army. Rather feels that the army from 55-66 was “1’st Rate,” but as wars do, in was ground down over the years. The people went for love of country and because we sent them. He called talking to Johnson: a dialogue with the deaf. Rather maintains that today’s army is superb, and really want Iraq to have a civil society.
Frances Fitzgerald is widely touted as having the best understanding of Vietnam given her experience traveling among Vietnam’s wide variety of people. She refuted Haig’s and Kissinger’s assumption that the war could have been won. Her assertion was that we never understood Vietnam’s history or culture. She also said that the US antiwar movement while understandable in their outrage, didn’t help because it only succeeded in putting people’s backs up. If my notes make sense, she also quoted someone as saying that: “The truth is rarely pure and never simple.” All of the reporters spoke about the official daily briefings that came to be known as the “5 o’clock follies.” Fitzgerald said that editors make decisions and that whatever the WHouse says has to be repeated somewhere. Since the reporters in Vietnam had much more freedom, they eventually quite attending the 5 o’clock follies.
Steve Bell of ABC News, spoke at length about the logistics of reporting. All of the reporters agreed with Bell that what turned the country against the war had less to do with the pictures of flag-drapped caskets and more to do with the stories from the returning troops.
A special guest: John Burns
Several times during the day people mentioned the “elephant in the room,” Iraq. John Burns of the NYT, who had just returned from Iraq was invited onto the stage to speak. He called it a “nasty place” where hopes have turned to disappointment with odds against a satisfactory outcome. He also said that people in the theater are more skeptical than the WHouse lets on. He did include the possible things that could happen to soften this outcome, but he was clear on the percentage of hazards. It should be remembered that John Burns was originally for the war.
