Andere Kunden interessierten sich auch für
![Female Génocidaires: What was the Nature and Motivations for Hutu Female Involvement in Genocidal Violence Towards Tutsi Women During the Rwandan Genocide?]( "Female Génocidaires: What was the Nature and Motivations for Hutu Female Involvement in Genocidal Violence Towards Tutsi Women During the Rwandan Genocide?")
Female Génocidaires: What was the Nature and Motivations for Hutu Female Involvement in Genocidal Violence Towards Tutsi Women During the Rwandan Genocide?34,99 €![Aborigines. Media Coverage of Aboriginal Affairs in Australia]( "Aborigines. Media Coverage of Aboriginal Affairs in Australia")
Aborigines. Media Coverage of Aboriginal Affairs in Australia17,95 €![Point of No Return. The Inevitability of the American War in Vietnam]( "Point of No Return. The Inevitability of the American War in Vietnam")
Point of No Return. The Inevitability of the American War in Vietnam15,95 €![Propaganda and censorship in Gulf War I]( "Propaganda and censorship in Gulf War I")
Propaganda and censorship in Gulf War I17,95 €![British Attitudes Towards India, 1784-1858.]( "British Attitudes Towards India, 1784-1858.")
British Attitudes Towards India, 1784-1858.124,99 €![The frontier hero in Vietnam - Reconstruction of a myth]( "The frontier hero in Vietnam - Reconstruction of a myth")
The frontier hero in Vietnam - Reconstruction of a myth16,95 €![Why did the US find it so Difficult to Disengage from the Vietnam War before 1975?]( "Why did the US find it so Difficult to Disengage from the Vietnam War before 1975?")
Why did the US find it so Difficult to Disengage from the Vietnam War before 1975?15,95 €
Essay from the year 2012 in the subject History - America, grade: 1:1 (First Class), , language: English, abstract: Of the surplus of myths which burgeoned from the carnage of Vietnam, perhaps none is more deceptive than the legend of an audacious, antagonistic mainstream media turning Americans against the war. In brief, two main factors characterise this debate. The first asserts that America lost the war due to damaging media coverage, particularly on television, which undermined political and military endeavours. The second affirms that the majority of journalists and reporters opposed the war, and their subsequent opinions polluted popular support for Vietnam. These suppositions have been reinforced by former correspondents like Robert Elegant, who, in 1981, argued that the outcome of war was "determined not on the battlefield but on the printed page and, above all, on the television screen." Neither of these widely accepted lines, however, can be convincingly verified. Many scholars now argue that the media in fact did not guide public opinion, but merely shadowed the ebb and flow of fluctuating social and political sentiment. Although there was some unfavourable press representation, which gained momentum as war raged on, it was inspired by a lack of perceptible confidence concerning Vietnam policy on the part of the administration and bolstered by a social view that Vietnam was an enduring conflict which had taken its toll on American lives and finances. The press, the most visible exponent of a society which appeared to have turned against Vietnam, became scapegoat, providing a convenient explanation for anti-war sentiment.