After reading both the New York Times account and the NBC News coverage of the five years of fighting and insurgency in Cambodia, I was struck by the difference in approach between the two news sources. The New York Times did not focus nearly as much on the actual political and logistical happenings in the city of Phnom Penh and Cambodia as a whole as NBC News did. Instead, the New York Times detailed many anecdotal accounts and stories about the social unrest and decay of the city. The newspaper seemed to have the goal in mind of appealing to the pathos of the reader, and it did a very effective job. Specifically, the New York Times made a point to demonstrate the death of children and general malnutrition that ran rampant in the country in order to force the American public to see the horrors that were occurring beyond the actual fighting. It is logical to think that the paper’s goal in utilizing this tactic was to create a notion amongst Americans that something needs to be done in Cambodia to help these people. The New York Times details that the United States is airlifting ammunition, but not yet food in February of 1975. This could be seen as a criticism of the government for ignoring the social issues facing the country.
The most common theme I found throughout my reading of the New York Times was that of hopelessness amongst the people of Cambodia and Phnom Penh. It was very interesting to see how much the Cambodian people were looking up to the United States for help and aid of any kind. They felt completely useless as the insurgents continued to surround and choke off the city. This sentiment, coupled with the growing attitude amongst US officials that they did not want to ruin their reputations by becoming more involved in this situation than they already were, led to a bad situation where everyone seemed to be looking to the person next to them to take the first action. While this was happening, the rebels were simply pushing closer and closer to the capital of Cambodia, Phnom Penh.
On the other hand, NBC News delivered an account of the fighting that centered much more on politics and US government controversy. The evening news provided commentary on Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon’s decision to enter the war in Cambodia without telling anyone in the State Department or Congress in 1970. This is an extraordinary move by Nixon, considering the fact that there was such great sentiment against his move once it was made public. Many wanted soldiers to be leaving Vietnam, not entering.
The Nightly News by NBC also discussed the disclosed information about the Secret Bombings in 1973. I don’t know if we simply did not read any articles concerning this in the New York Times, but I was very surprised to not read anything about this in the newspaper. I would have been interested to see the spin that the Times put on the whole situation. NBC definitely portrayed President Nixon in a bad light as it detailed the circumstances under which the information was withheld from the American people and government for fourteen months.
I thought that the NBC Evening News did a fine job of reporting the facts as they discovered them with regard to the US government’s “falsifying” of information to the American public, but found myself very surprised at the lack of emotion and response that surrounded the topic. Personally, I find it to be a huge deal that the president hid bombings of a country from both those closest to him in his government and Congress as well as the millions of people of the United States for 14 months. That is an extraordinarily long time, and I believe that a bigger deal should have been made of his explanation – that the falsified records were accidentally submitted instead of the real ones. Why were there falsified records even existing in the first place? This subject bothered me, as I am sure it did many Americans in 1973, and I would have liked to see a bit more response by the newscasters and through interviews in the NBC news coverage, as well as commentary by the New York Times.
One of the implications of this is that the fighting in Cambodia between the South Vietnamese/Americans and the North Vietnamese elucidated evidence of political instability not only in Asia but also in the United States. The President, as elected by the American people, should not be able to hide such a large military undertaking (3,630 raids) from the members of his country and those that he hires in his government to help him. The fact that this was possible demonstrates a severe disconnect between the different parties (not political parties, but groups of people) in the United States political system.
I think your opening paragraph is really strong. You do a good job of broaching what you will talk about while tying both sources together. I agree with you about the Times. There is so much I wanted to see covered that simply was not there. I also talked about pathos in my own post, and found this to be a successful attempt to bring the reader in. Do you think the newspaper articles should have been more specific about what America should have done, or was their call for help enough? In the second paragraph, I appreciate what you are saying, but also wonder about your opinions here. Do you think the US should have been more involved? Were their reasons for staying out justified? Also, are there specific examples you could cite to reiterate your claims? In the next paragraph, you do a good job of summarizing what the news did, an important part of understanding their aims. I am also wondering here what your reaction was to people speaking out about Nixon's behavior. This struck me a lot, as it seemed people in Rodney King's news coverage were too scared to do the same. Next, I agree with what you said in paragraph four about looking for more information. I referred to this in my own post as a surface level examination that needed to delve deeper. I also commented in my own post about the lack of emotion and think that in my desire for more details, found the reports to be hiding something from the reader. I wonder what else, if anything, you wish there were more details about. Lastly, you make interesting conclusions that do a good job of tying everything together. Does your comment about the US political system go hand-in-hand with the desire to not further destroy the American reputation, or does this stem from something else?
ReplyDelete