But, says Pach, "I try to show that the reporting was much more accurate and informative than Johnson or other critics thought." Any media coverage has limitations, Pach says, but "what the reporting showed was that the U.S. was not making any kind of sustained progress in the war."
There are echoes of Vietnam in today's Iraq war coverage. Then, as now, complaints came that reporters focused too much on bad news. "But it turns out," says Pach, "that if you look at the coverage, there's variety. On the same evening, the same newscast, there's a report that talks about the heroism of Marines in Hue, but also someone saying that what the U.S. government tells us isn't working."
Even so, the media landscape has changed, notes Pach. "Forty years ago, there were three networks," he says. "There were no round-the-clock news channels. But also what's different are the rules of coverage. Vietnam was a dangerous war for many journalists. Quite a few died. But it was never as consistently dangerous as the current war has been for journalists."
Another difference in Iraq: strict guidelines govern the reporters embedded with units fighting in Iraq. "In Vietnam, it was open coverage," says Pach. "We saw a lot more."
Why has the belief persisted that TV coverage of Tet, specifically, turned Americans against the war? "It's very easy, when things go badly, to seek simple explanations and maybe even scapegoats," says Pach. "How was it possible that this undeveloped nation could somehow resist or defeat the strongest military power?"
But for proof of Pach's claim, just look at the calendar. "The war didn't end until five years later," he notes. "It's not as if Tet brought about some irresistible imperative to end the war. The last troops did not come home till '73, so it's hard to make the argument that, whatever people saw on TV in 1968, that they insisted, 'Get the war over with now.'"