Vietnam War Protests In America On May 4, 1970, the Ohio National Guard fired into a crowd of Vietnam War protesters at Kent State University, killing four and wounding nine other unarmed Kent State students. The conflicting press accounts of the massacre provide a way to understand the broader pro and anti war movements that clashed during the Vietnam War. For many Americans, their understanding of the events relied heavily upon the coverage by the American media. This reality reinforces the importance of the powerful role played by the press.
The duality of the media accounts covering this one event, the Kent State massacre, reflected how fragmented the country became in reaction to this war. I will employ a synchronic approach to this complicated era by analyzing two specific, conflicting reports of this one controversial event to convey the way that press coverage of an incident reflects the bias or agenda of a witness or reporter which, in turn, can be indicative of society’s views.
Specifically, The New York Times published two articles portraying two very different perceptions of the events of May 4, 1970 at Kent State University.
In this paper, we will explore the question of how two conflicting accounts of the Kent State incident published by the same newspaper demonstrate that the way one event is portrayed by the press can reflect the political, social, and individual divisions present in our country during the time period.
Rather than examining trends or conducting a survey of multiple events, my paper will focus on this single event and two primary sources covering it. Many scholars have explored the role of the media during the Vietnam War, however, most have examined this from a diachronic perspective. Scholars, such as Michael Carpini in his chapter “Vietnam and the Press,” discussed how the media was a tool of influence employed both by those who opposed the war and those who supported it. In his chapter, he explored the question, “Was the press an independent voice or a mouthpiece for the White House, radical students, or Hanoi?” He suggested that the bias in the press lead to conflicting accounts of the war.
The American society was deeply divided into pro and anti war factions. Duren, in his dissertation, examined the role of media culture in shaping the historical understanding of the Kent State shootings of 1970. The dissertation included an overview of written and eyewitness accounts of the circumstances surrounding the tragedy. The study used news coverage from the time of the incident and from the following years. The study investigated four documentary films made about Kent State between 1970 and 2000, incorporating historical and film language analysis to explore both the continuity and change of the Kent State incident within historical memory.
We will contribute to the scholarly conversation by employing a synchronic approach to the media coverage during the Kent State massacre.
Both Carpini and Duren provided an overview of the impact of media during the war without giving specific textual examples. My textual analysis of these two contemporaneous but conflicting accounts of one event will add to the prior analyses of other scholars by showing how media coverage of the Kent State massacre reflected conflicting public opinion at the time.
The New York Times published an article entitled The View from Kent State on May 11, 1970, seven days after the shooting occurred. The intended audience of the article was the general public. The article consisted almost exclusively of excerpts from interviews of 11 observers of the Kent State shootings and included no express interpretation from the authors. This firsthand view of the event relied solely upon the opinions of people most directly affected by the massacre, and the diversity of the group, suggested a holistic view from all the observers affected. In addition, by relying upon the experiences of actual witnesses, the article personalized the account and invited empathy from the reader.
This document allows me to examine the perceptions of the anti war side of the divided American population. And it provides a prime example of media coverage sympathizing with this view. The limitations of this article are synonymous with its strengths. The 11 observers interviewed, and whose opinions comprise the entire article, felt strongly about the event that threatened their lives. Therefore, their opinions were more likely in greater objection to the event than those of the general public.
It is important to note that the 11 students who were interviewed identified themselves as “moderate and uninvolved politically before the shootings.” This is significant because it provides perspective on their political views prior to the incident and demonstrates how impactful this experience was for them. All of the students expressed how this event sparked interest in each of them to become more politically active. It is also important to note that two of them were veterans.
Ron, one of the veterans, described how the event caused him to become more political and start to directly oppose the war. Ron mentioned, “Then came Nixon’s speech on Cambodia and I thought, well, for crying out loud, I voted for this guy because I wanted to get it over and then he turns around and makes it bigger.” Ron continued to explain that this very fact, coupled with the incident at Kent State, persuaded him to become politically active moving forward. His shift was impactful, and I am sure that many like him who read his section began to question the war as well. This article provides particularly relevant insight to the use of media as it pertains to the anti war movement from a political point of view.
People could draw a parallel between the senseless violence in Vietnam and the senseless violence that had now occurred on the campus of Kent State. Americans realized that it was not just hippies and free love supporters protesting the violence, but it was the educated middle and upper class college students who were fighting for the end of the war. A student named Ellen expressed her anger with the president’s reaction to the event, “If any more moderate man were in the White House, he would not condone such an act.”
Here, Ellen expressed a sentiment shared by many like her. This feeling led to even more political unrest as many began to question our leaders and the choices they were making for our country. Through the lens of this document and the individuals’ stories shared, it becomes apparent how the war to end the war gained momentum with the increase in political interest. Not only was the media reporting what was happening on the battlefront thousands of miles away in Southeast Asia, they were simultaneously engaged in providing coverage of the resulting political war raging on the American home front.
Education – Rebellion Research
A second, contemporaneous New York Times article titled, Nixon Says Violence Invites Tragedy, painted a very different picture of the political state of the country after the Kent State shootings. The coverage of this perception of the event by the New York Times, the same newspaper that published my earlier source, demonstrates the duality of the time. The article analyzes Vice President Agnew’s discussion of what Mr. Lindsay, New York’s mayor, had to say. Lindsay is quoted having criticized the government who cannot “respect dissent,” or “cope with turmoil,” and “who believe that the people of America are ready to support repression as long as it is done with a quiet voice and a business suit.” This quote from New York’s mayor captures the essence of the political conflict during the Vietnam War.
As seen in the Views from Kent State article, there were a lot of negative feelings towards the war and also extreme political unrest. This was true before Kent State and was only furthered by the event. To these assertions, Agnew responded, “We have seen all too clearly that there are men – now in power in this country – who do not represent authority, who cannot cope with tradition, and who believed that the people of America are ready to support revolution as long as it is done with a cultured voice and a handsome profile.”
In this excerpt, Mr. Agnew is attacking Mayor Lindsay for sharing a political stance that differs from his own. Agnew questions Lindsay’s authority and beliefs because Lindsay brought up concepts that threatened his political power. It is clear that Angnew is trying to discredit Lindsay and use his own political pull to cheapen the statements and continue to do as he wishes. Lindsay’s criticism of the government mirrored how many of the students from Kent State felt. However, it is clear that the high-ranking politicians had no regard for the views of Lindsey or the war protesters and disregarded the questions they were raising about the merits of the war.
In my first article, Views from Kent State, the tone employed to describe these violent events shocks the reader. Ellen Glass described how the chanting started out very weakly, and it was not until the guard tried to assert their power that things escalated. Ellen explained, “I think they wanted to show what kind of power they had.” This captures a reader’s attention. The peaceful protest quickly escalated when the guard flexed their muscles and began to use tear gas. Students reacted out of fear not hate. I was struck by how the guards’ unnecessary violence paralleled the exact thing that those protesters were against, senseless violence.
Yvonne Mitchell explained how the group that was affected was diverse. There were students actively protesting, but there were also those who were just drawn to the commotion or simply walking by on their way to class. Despite this, everyone was equally affected regardless of their reason for being there. Yvonne explains, “if you were in the way, you just got run down.” This description, I feel, was very powerful in motivating more people to realize the importance of the cause. I think that this idea was instrumental in inspiring further protesting, as people were now beginning to see that they could be at risk even if they did not actively participate in the protest.
The idea that our own national guard would gun down innocent civilians was terrifying. When Yvonne explained, “I felt like I was in Vietnam or some warzone,” he painted this image of the two warfronts for this Vietnam War: one right here on the home front and one far away in Southeast Asia.
The article also brought up this notion of what we are fighting for. For many, the idea of the war was to eliminate communism. A student named Buzz made the point that we were trying to make Vietnam exactly like America. However, in his eyes, our country is not something that should be replicated. Buzz questioned, “We want to set them up so they can pollute their streams and their air and fight among themselves the way we fight among ourselves.” He clearly felt that America was trying to impose its ways on other countries despite being riddled with flaws.
Buzz made a very interesting point because it was assumed that everyone agreed that what we were fighting for in Vietnam was something all Americans supported. In this manner, the media was used as a vehicle for spreading information about public opinion. This allowed for individual Americans to have their voices heard rather than muted by those in power. In this way, the media was an extremely powerful weapon for the anti war movement as it gave those of less influence the ability to reveal disturbing realities of the war, inspiring dissent.
On the other hand, in Nixon Says Violence Invites Tragedy, the newspaper article shares statements made by President Nixon and other high-ranking public officials placing blame on the protestors for the violent outcome. The way in which the article attacked the war protesters at Kent State, suggesting that their actions warranted shots being fired, highlights how those in power used the media to support the war movement and counter the anti war movement. The article used quotes from the President and Vice President as well as other high administration officials. It conveyed their thoughts with no interpretation or comments from the author.
When the president said, this “Should remind us all once again that when dissent turns to violence it invites tragedy,” he immediately placed the blame on the students at Kent State. Vice President Agnew remarked that this event was “predictable and avoidable.” Both of these politicians saw nothing wrong with what the guard did and placed full responsibility on the students protesting the war they were trying to continue. In relation to the other New York Times article this is jarring. The President accuses the students of starting the violence. From the other article, we were told that the only violence committed by students was that one threw a rock and this was met by gun shots. It is unclear exactly what happened on that fateful day, but the coverage told two very different stories.
In the article The View from Kent State, the raw horror of the scene described on that fateful day at once repulses and captivates a reader.
A student named Lucia Perry shared the disturbing realities she witnessed during the massacre, recalling “I saw everything. I saw the men firing, and I saw the kids fall… there were people carrying people with blood all over them down the hill.” This hate, this massacre, was all inspired by a kid throwing a rock at a member of the guard. When she said, “I know this sounds ridiculous to anyone who’s been to war, but I was just literally scared to death” I was struck. Here, this college student is almost apologetic for her fear after coming face to face with live ammunition. I think that this speaks to the climate or culture of fear at the time. People were afraid, and they wanted the war to be over.
Despite not being able to actually hear her voice, one can imagine the tangible fear and anger in her tone. When describing the student’s reaction, she said, “I have never seen people so mad and so horrified,” she then went on to explain that “there’s no way to describe the pain that I saw in people’s faces or in their voices.”
Her inability to express in words the anguish is understandable given the context, but this inability is also captivating to the reader. It pulls the audience in and I am sure, at the time it was disseminated to the general public, they were mesmerized. Lucia’s story is a personalized account of a tragic event.
This manner of reporting an event is more intriguing than some general synopsis made by a reporter who more than likely was not even there for the actual event. Lucia is almost a symbol, she represents your average college student, and this wields the power to scare those who read it. They began to worry. Lucia was not the only personal story that the paper shared, but her voice was particularly captivating. I found that the fact it was placed at the top of the article added to this effect. Perhaps the editor also found Lucia’s story particularly engaging and wanted it to be the focus by granting it a prime location in the newspaper article.
In Nixon Says Violence Invites Tragedy, we are given the view from high ranking government officials who were not present at the event. This lens through which the article was crafted is an incredibly important part to understand when analyzing the document. Vice President Agnew described the protests of the war as “calculated, consistent and well publicized barrage of cynicism against the principles of this nation.” This description suggested that the protesters at Kent State were against what the nation stands for. In this statement, we see how those in power can often neglect the opinions of others.
When Agnew said that the protesters were against what the nation stands for, he neglected to see the opinion of people like Buzz who did not agree with the war that the nation supposedly stood for. He also neglected to realize that the reason for this dissent is rooted in the fact that the nation was clearly divided. He, as an individual in power, wanted to continue the war and to stop the dissent.
Vice President Agnew was also quoted saying, “Pander to the ignorance and the fears of those who are all too willing to believe that the criminal who throws a bomb at a bank is a hero and the policeman who gets killed trying to stop him is a pig.”
This quote from the Vice President is in shocking contrast to the accounts of the event shared by the students. Essentially, he compares the protesters to criminals. He went on to say that the guards were the policemen who were killed trying to stop them. This took the coverage of the event in a new direction on account of his claiming that the injury to the guard was more significant than the deaths suffered by the protestors. When comparing these two articles, one is struck by the way that they reported the event in completely contradictory manners, reflecting two opposing points of view of the war held by individuals who also had different levels of influence.
Viewing the events at Kent State through the lens of the media coverage, one sees how the press can become an index of the division in public opinion. The comparison of media coverage of the same event told from the point of view of those in power and those who are not in power highlights the political, social and personal divisions prevailing in our country during the Kent State incident and the entire Vietnam War era. By using a synchronic approach to the media coverage and comparing two contemporaneous articles about a single event, it becomes clear that the media’s representation of the Kent State massacre reflected the two sides of a divided country. It is particularly important to keep in mind the positions of the people interviewed in each of the articles.
From this perspective, it becomes evident that those in power wanted the war to continue and for the anti war movement to be squashed. Those not in power were opposed to the war movement and against the way in which the government was handling the situation. The media covered these two sides of the discussion, but there was a third perspective left out. We have accounts from the people doing the bombing, the people against the booming, but nothing from the people being bombed. I think that the sentiment behind Churchill’s famous quote “History is written by the victors” applies to this situation. I would suggest a slight modification to say that history is written by those in power. In this way, media coverage becomes the history as it is what will be saved and remembered.
I was struck that with all of my research I did not find a single piece of media providing an account from the perspective of the Vietnamese. This means that the reality of their war experiences were completely left out of our analysis. This is important to me because I traveled to Vietnam where I witnessed firsthand the many ways that the war continues to impact the Vietnamese people to this day.
In conclusion, their people suffer from the lasting effects of the war including toxic chemicals that still cause horrific physical deformities and landmines that continue to explode daily. Despite these major, long term and extremely impactful consequences, we hardly ever consider the Vietnamese perspective of the war. The examination of the press coverage of historic events is an important key to discovering the social, political and individual views represented in public opinion at the time, but we must keep in mind that such coverage by mainstream media sources often does not represent the voices of those who lack meaningful representation in a society.
Vietnam War Protests In America Written by Peter Lena
