The Credibility gap during the Vietnam War between the US Media and the US Government

One heavily used buzzword (buzzphrase) during the Vietnam Era was the “Credibility Gap”. It was a phrase coined by the media to draw attention to the gap between what the government was telling the reporters and what they believed to be true.

The Myth: The media was credible and the government was not.

In this next series of blogs I will put the Credibility Gap idea under a microscope.

Who’s Credible?

The US press appeared willing to take the word of the communists at face value.  Yet spokespersons of the US Government were treated as if they were not only lying, but as if they were the only liars in the world.

The attitude seemed to be that if the communists are caught lying, “It’s ok, they’re communists what do you expect.” But if a US government official lies then the world is broken. Catch one in a lie & they must all be lying. Everything they say is a lie.

There was an attitude that if the communists commit major atrocities, “It’s ok, they’re communists what do you expect.” But if a US or ARVN soldier commits an atrocity, then the world is broken. They must all be baby killers & every US & ARVN soldier must be committing atrocities.

Coverage of the Hue massacres vs. coverage of the My Lai massacre discussed in an earlier post on this blog is an example of this.

Let’s look at an example taking the communists at face value:

Arnaud de Borchgrave

Arnaud de Borchgrave interviewed Pham Van Dong in Newsweek about the ’72 Spring Offensive, Arnaud asks, “On March 30 (when the offensive began) you set out to prove that Vietnamization was a failure. Do you think that you have succeeded?”[1]

Pham’s answer sidesteps the question, “The US press has said itself it was a total failure”[2]. He refers to the US press reports rather than providing any actual evidence that Vietnamization is not working,

Pham Van Dong

De Borchgrave did not pin Pham down by asking for some solid evidence, or for any evidence at all for that matter. Journalistic integrity required him to get a better answer, but he took the Communist’s response at face value.

Why? Was it because the liked the answer he got? Was it already anti-Vietnam War enough for him?

Fact is, if Pham had any actual evidence, his own track record shows he would have presented that evidence. He had no evidence because his army was getting its tail kicked and he knew it. So his options were to cite the US press or admit Vietnamization was working well enough to defeat his own army in the 72 Spring Offensive.

-->

So the selective reporting of evasive answers perpetuated the myth that “Vietnamization was not working”.

Part 2 explains why the credibility gap worked both ways.

Picture credits, click on the picture or link to navigate to the source website in a new tab: Nixon = http://io9.com/the-technological-decision-that-doomed-richard-nixon-1619596034 ; De Borchgrave = http://www.babelio.com/auteur/Arnaud-De-Borchgrave/162779 ; Pham Van Dong = http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ph%E1%BA%A1m_V%C4%83n_%C4%90%E1%BB%93ng

---

[1] De Borchgrave, A. (October 30, 1972). Exclusive from Hanoi. Newsweek, p. 26.

[2] Ibid, p. 26.