Because the GIs were sent massively to South Vietnam, maybe it's a good idea to have a broadcast for them.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It wasn't a new idea. During the war against the French we had this kind of broadcast for the French soldiers.
Well, we think the broadcasts did have some effect, because we see the antiwar movement in the U.S. building up, growing and so we think that our broadcast is a support to this antiwar movement.
Wars tend to be very public things, they are visible. There are correspondents traveling with the troops and you get daily dispatches.
I was for many years myself a journalist and it is not appropriate to say a programme should not be broadcast.
By the end of the summer of 1973 I thought it was virtually impossible for South Vietnam to survive. How in the heck could they?
After four or five different wars, I grew weary of that work, partly because in an open war, open to coverage, as Vietnam was, it's not that difficult, really.
One thing that I can tell you that we have not done very well is to build in broadcast capability into the network, and we don't take advantage of broadcast radio.
War coverage should be more than a parade of retired generals and retired government flacks posing as reporters.
Had there been a reporter along with Lieutenant Calley when he massacred those people in Vietnam, I think that probably wouldn't have happened.
The whole idea that the rescue was staged or the soldiers were shooting blanks, that's just obvious stuff. Why would you do that in the middle of a war? It's just crazy.
No opposing quotes found.