Eddie Adams: First cause no harm.

I came across another blog struggling to come to some sense of understanding of actions, words, and pictures that are juxtaposed against a universal understanding of virtue.

How exactly is it ok to photograph and publish the shooting of any human being yet it isn't ok to even take a photograph of a soldier who is scared? I don't get Adams reasoning. To me being held prisoner and shot point blank in the head, in a public street is more demeaning and demoralizing that a photo showing fear in a fearful situation.   I am not saying Adams was right or wrong in either situation, what I am saying is that he confuses me with his reasoning. Either you preserve some dignity for the subjects you photograph or you don't. 

The harm the photograph of General Loan shooting Nguyen Van Lem on February 1st, 1968 caused the General weighed heavily on Eddie Adams:

He never blamed me for the picture. he used a cliché that we here all the time.  'Eddie, you were doing your job, and I was doing mine'.  I guess the picture...I'm told it did good things...but I don't want to hurt people either...I really don't..  It really bothers me.  thats not my intention in other words, being a photographer, thats not what I want to do. (1)

 As a journalist, Adams place in the world was an observer.  The event that took place Feb 1, 1968 was taking place with or without him.  He took a series of photos that captured a moment in time.  What happened afterwards, was out of his control, and if you think about it logically, had he not taken the photo, the event would have still taken place.

The issue of Adams feeling bad about the hurt he caused General Loan is a complex one that I hope to provide a decent enough explanation for in a later post.  I am still trying to get my thoughts wrapped around it.  I think I am close, and I think I will be pretty accurate in my analysis.  What I lack is a soldier's perspective, especially one that has seen war. So speaking about how someone might be feeling about a situation I never experienced could be seen as pretentious on my part.  But I have been cursed with an overwhelming abundance of empathy. So as long as I get my facts correct, I should at least make a plausible argument for my position.  So the following speaks for Mr. Adams with that in mind.

When Adams decided not to take the photo of the young Marine who was scared, he did so for a completely human reason that trumped everything else that made him who he was.  He was not a photographer, or a journalist, or a Marine, or a vet separate and distinct from the person he was and wanted to be.  He knew the difference between what should be photographed and what should not:

You know,quite often there are photographers, and we'll not name any names,who used to make close-ups of bodies, dead Marines, dead soldiers,this is a lot of bullshit, you know, I mean, that's wrong, I mean they're very gruesome, you know, if you're going to bodies to show numbers of casulaties, if they're in body bags and they're stacked up they become just a body or a symbol, that's alright, I don't see,anything wrong with that. When you start making close-ups of a person's head half blown off or his arm's ripped off, you know, that'sa lot of crap. There were photographers like that, most of those people were the people that went over to make a quick name for them-selves and have since disappeared into the woodwork. (2)

So there was a line whereby one should not cross.  And in the taking of thousands of pictures over his lifetime, especially in times of war and during combat, it is likely that he stepped over this line from time to time.  But given a choice, a choice he could freely make, he would knowingly and purposely not cross that line:

It was outside with a company of Marines, and we had close to fifty percent casualties, and the first time that I actually seen Viet Cong running all around with their guns around us, and we're on top of the hill and we're being rocketed, and there are dead Marines which are dug into holes,and so I'm lying on the ground with my head sideways, you become closer to the ground this way than if your head is up this way for shrapnel so as I'm lying there there was a Marine about eighteen years old, blonde hair, blue eyes, facing me,just about five feet away, so my head was this way and he was looking right at me this way and all the time all the operations I'd been in in Vietnam I'd never seen fear on a person's face like I did on his face. 

I had, like with a 35 mm lens on my side and I slide it off in front of me and I couldn't push the button and so I brought it back again and swung up the second time because this kid, he was almost frozen with this expression. And I tried for three times and I couldn't push the button. And I was thinking, you know, I knew exactly what was going through my mind at that time; I knew that at that time my face looked exactly like his, and I didn't want anybody taking a picture of me. This kid, he left and it was only a few minutes that we were pinned down like that, but I could, that was the only time I've ever seen him, but I could identify him walking on the street today, like that. You know, it just left this mark, but I could see that picture, page one, cover, you name it, I mean I could see it in print everywhere and the impact it would've had but, you know, and I think, this is something else that I think we should talk about for a minute is I think there's a line what you photograph and what you don't photograph. (2)

But he is a photographer and shoots more through instinct and muscle memory than by conscious choice. He tried three times to take that photo, a photo he knew should be taken from a photographer's perspective, but should not be taken from the perspective of who he is - his humanity - his sense of caring and connection to his fellow man. especially to this particular fellow Marine.

Now you can argue that he cared more about his people than others, but you need to look at his whole body of work and listen to what he says if you want to make that call.  I have, and I can't.  I think he was only human and if he stepped over that line it was more unintentional or in hindsight, than it was self-serving.

So to try and answer the question "How exactly is it ok to photograph and publish the shooting of any human being yet it isn't ok to even take a photograph of a soldier who is scared?" All I can offer is; it's complicated.  Did we need to see General Loan shoot Nguyễn Văn Lém?  How much time for a debate do you have?  Like I said earlier, that photo happened at the same time the event took place.  The photo that would have been taken of the young Marine would have done nothing but be just a great photo.  But what about - like General Loan - the aftermath?  Would it do harm to the person captured in the photo or would it bring about good?

That's the perplexing thing about the Loan photo.  It hurt General Loan for the rest of his life, which bothered Adams immensely.  But it is quite possible that that single photo brought about needed and necessary changes, so that the benefit to the all outweighed the harm to the one.  And the Loan photo had something that was newsworthy about it - and upon seeing it - one could draw different conclusions about issues bigger than just the man named Loan in the photo.  But the photo of the young Marine would not have that type of impact as Adams saw it:

People would read it wrong and they would call him a coward.  He wasn't a coward.  Everyone was frightened there.  I knew that was going to screw up his life. (3)

So that's my take on this.  It's as complicated as the physician's mandate to first do no harm.  Only a physician can really know where that line is, and between physicians that line can move back and forth considerably.  I think Adams knew where the line was implicitly that day in the foxhole with that young Marine.


Next post: Eddie Adams: Historians have failed you. Part 1 of how many?

.

What did General Nguyen Ngoc Loan really say on February 1, 1968?

It started with a letter to the editor I read in the San Antonio Express News whereby a reader felt that what  columnist, Patrick Brady, had wrote "is indistinguishable from the viral e-mails on the Internet that don't have to adhere to professional or ethical standards."

Now Patric Brady is no ordinary columnist, he is a retired two star General, a Medal of Honor winner, and a Vietnam vet.  So two days later, I read a different column written by the General called "Despite reports of the day, Tet battle was American victory" which has in it a statement of first-hand knowledge that just did not look factual to me.

Gen. William Westmoreland asked me to go to Vietnam and meet with Giap to arrange a documentary wherein Giap agreed to declare Tet the communist calamity it was. I met with Giap, but we never got the film done.

Now like I said in my post written about this, I don't know really anything about Tet other than it was in Vietnam and happened during the war.  So I went looking for an answer to my question: did General Giap really say that?

I went looking because General Brady had two days prior been called out for presenting "demonstrably false information to the public."  Could this also be another case of false information passed of as factual?  Surely not from a two star General, twice in a span of two weeks, and in a major newspaper to boot.

The internet is an interesting place.  It is filled with information, most of it a regurgitation of someone else's work, or heavily skewed to present a particular point of view.  But in and amongst all this bad stuff, if you look hard enough, you will find enough information to lead you to a clearer picture of an event.

I learned a lot about Tet.  I also came away understanding that it was not a victory for the communists, in fact, what they wanted to happen, a mass uprising of the people, did not take place.  I also came away convinced that Walter Cronkite did not lose the war for us, and, as Oliver North said in his show, Vietnam was "a very uncivil, civil war."  I also came across a website that made me suspect that, like in General Brady's previous column, his comments about General Giap were indistinguishable from the viral e-mail shown on the site.

And in the course of looking at one website after another on Tet and General Giap, one particular event kept getting mentioned over and over again as well.  That was the photo by Eddie Adams.

And when I began to read about it, I came across a number of statements attributed to Eddie Adams that just did not ring authentic.  In particular:

He was a good guy.  He was fighting for America with America.  I think he was a goddamn hero.

Really?  A hero?  Well I found out through researching Adams that this was indeed a true statement regarding Nguyen Ngoc Loan, who was chief of South Vietnam’s national police and is the one seen pulling out the pistol and shooting the man.  I also found something else out; context matters.

I have spent the last couple of days learning as much as I could about Eddie Adams' photograph that first day of February, 1968.  When you read all the things written about what took place, and you see the subtle changes to the story, when you see quoted statements attributed to Adams that do not convey what he was trying to get across, and then you hear the man yourself - in his own words - well it's a real disservice to the man.  One I hope to correct some of this with my next post.

The journey down this road continues....

Wikipedia got me started on this, they cited the New York Times, and just to show you I am serious about getting my facts correct, I went to the library and got a copy of that particular front page of February 2nd, 1968:

So here is what I can confirm in the Wikipedia article on Eddie Adams so far:  The statement: "John G. Morris recalls that; (Theodore M. Bernstein), "determined that the brutality manifested by America's ally be put into perspective, agreed to run the Adams picture large, but offset with a picture of a child slain by Vietcong, which conveniently came through from AP at about the same time". Nonetheless, it is Adams's photograph that is remembered while the other far less dramatic image was overlooked and soon forgotten" appears to be a true accounting.

During this journey I also began to notice a difference in what General Loan is quoted as saying after he shot Nguyen Van Lam that day.  So I went out looking.  So what exactly did Loan tell Adams immediately following the execution?  Here is what I have been able to uncover:

• "They killed many Americans and many of our people" (New York Times, Feb 2, 1968)
• "'They killed many of your people and many of my men." (Adams heard on one NPR story)
• "They killed many Americans and many of my people." (Peter Arnett from his book)
• "He killed many of my men and many of your people. ( "War Stories with Oliver North)
• "They killed many of my men and many of your people." (An Unlikely Weapon)
• "They killed many of our people and many of yours." (NPR story quoting Adams)
• "They killed many of my people, and yours, too." (Horst Faas, Adams' Editor)
• "These guys kill a lot of our people, and I think Buddha will forgive me." (Vo Suu, the NBC cameraman with Adams that day)
•  They killed many Americans and many of my men.  Buddha will understand.  Do you? (Paper soldiers: the American press and the Vietnam War)
• Many Americans have died recently.  So have many of my best friends.  Buddha will understand.  Do you? (Life Magazine, March 1, 1968)
• Many Americans have been killed these last few days and many of my best Vietnamise friends.  Now do you understand?  Buddha will understand. (The American culture of war: the history of U.S. military force from World)
• "Many Americans have died recently, So have many of my best friends. Buddha will understand—do you? (Time, Feb 23, 1968)
• “These guys kill a lot of our people, and I think Buddha will forgive me.” (NBC Cameraman Vo Suu - The New York Times article on Loan's death - July 16, 1998)

The quote "Many Americans have been killed these last few days and many of my best Vietnamese friends.  Now do you understand?  Buddha will understand." is often cited from a transcript that appears in George A. Bailey and Lawrence W. Lichty, Rough Justice on a Saigon Street: A Gatekeeper Study on NBC's Tet Execution Film," Journalism Quarterly 49:2 (Summer 1972)

David D. Perlmutter an associate professor at the Manship School of Mass Communication, Louisiana State University, and a senior fellow at the Reilly Center for Media and Public Affairs states:

General Loan's own words are variously quoted, but in the most accepted version, he commented to the journalists, “Many Americans have been killed these last few days and many of my best Vietnamese friends. Now do you understand? Buddha will understand.” from Photojournalism and Foreign Affairs, David D. Perlmutter, Orbis Volume 49, Issue 1, Winter 2005, Pages 109-122 

Why do we accept that version and not the one in the New York Times or the one used fairly consistently by Eddie Adams, who was there?  What I find odd is that for such an iconic photo that has been discussed over and over, Dr. Perlmutter has been the only one I have found so far to acknowledge that there are different versions of what Loan said that day.  And what he said exactly is important, getting it right is important.

Why do I write this blog that no one reads, because the search is fun.  Here is a prefect example of what is assumed to be the truth may not be.  General Loan said something, but he did not say it in more than one way.  One of those comments attributed to him is correct, or none of them are, but what is now clear to me, is that at some point, words were added or deleted between Feb 2 and Feb 23.  I find this fascinating.

Today I just sent an email to Dr. Perlmutter

Hello


I was wondering if you might provide some insight on this.


The Feb 2, 1968 New York Times on page 12 under the photo titled "DEATH" has General Loan saying "They killed many of Americans and many of our people."  Your 2004 tribute to Adams has the General saying ""Many Americans have been killed these last few days and many of my best Vietnamese friends. Now do you understand? Buddha will understand." 


Adams, in every interview I have listened to, states it as the former.  The version you use is in your 2004 article called "The Myth Behind the Famous Eddie Adams 'Execution' Photo" is attributed to George A. Bailey and Lawrence W. Lichty, Rough Justice on a Saigon Street: A Gatekeeper Study on NBC's Tet Execution Film," Journalism Quarterly 49:2 (Summer 1972).


The version you use is consistent with what the Times article "World: By Book & Bullet" Friday, Feb. 23, 1968  (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,837937,00.html) which has General Loan saying ""Many Americans have died recently. So have many of my best friends. Buddha will understand—do you?"


Was General Loan's comment captured on tape or film, or was this recollection of what he said - regarding Buddha understanding - something that was document sometime after the event but prior to the Times Feb 23, 1968 article?


What do you make of these inconsistencies in what was said by General Loan?  I understand that they basically say the same thing, but they are very different in terms of the wording used and the comment about Buddha in one and not in the other.


Thank you,

Next post: Eddie Adams: First cause no harm.


.

There is war, and there is everything else

I am starting to get a clearer picture of the dynamics in play regarding how military folks, like General Brady, see the world after combat.  So here is my thesis:

There is war, and there is everything else.

General Brady is a man of war, he is also a man of everything else.  I am a man of only everything else.  I have developed this thesis in two days from looking at a whole slew of information regarding Tet, General Giap, and the events surrounding Eddie Adam's picture.  Two days does not a historian make, which is why I call this a thesis.

It was not until I read Eddie Adam's Eulogy for General Loan in Time, that a clearer picture of what transpires during war came into focus.  What he says makes sense in terms of a reality - war.  Then, after watching Fox New's  War Stories With Oliver North on Tet, General Brady's concluding statement and the 'why' behind his need to manipulate history, became apparent.

The Vietnam soldier was not afforded the same degree of worth for their effort as other soldier's who fought in wars that we 'won'.  We did not 'win' the war in Vietnam, not because of the effort on the part of the soldier, but because the war was deemed to no longer be worth the price being paid.  Now think about this from a soldier's perspective.  I did this...I participated in this...I worked as hard as any other soldier throughout history. I sacrificed my humanity...my buddies...my youth...my morality for something that is now deemed unworthy of that continued sacrifice.

Ending the Vietnam war before we had vanquished our enemy made everything that makes a soldier a soldier, moot.  And this is why my thesis: there is war and there is everything else, seems to make sense to me.  Without the 'win' it seems pointless to have done all that, a that that only manifests itself in a war.

So we the American people, took away their win as some see it.  Not only that, we incorrectly discounted their effort as a way to distance ourselves from what we had allowed our government to require them to perform.  This is the dynamic in play.  Those who create the war, create the warrior.  Take away the war, and you still have the warrior.  But now that warrior has seen and done things that are no longer acceptable outside of that war.  They must live with that, so when General Brady concludes:

A dishonest media opened a gash in the psyche of that veteran and rubbed salt in it. It is time for the great warriors of Tet 1968 take their place in the hierarchy of American heroes.

He is speaking about a reality that he understands is present.  Unfortunately, he is blaming others for imposing their reality on his need for a check mark in the win column.  His participation in the war and the psyche of the warrior is one reality.  The reality posed by Walter Cronkite, is another equally relevant one as well:

To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion.

Cronkite's reality is equally valid and is also in play with the one General Brady understands to be valid as well.  However, only one premise can be true at any one time.  This is a strange paradigm.

Lets look at this from an American point of view.  Do we, as Americans, hold our Constitution to be the foundation for how our society should live, its basic tenants?  Do we, as Americans, who are primarily Christian and Jewish, hold our Bible as the foundation for our morality?  If you answer "yes" then you will also need to answer the next two questions:

1. Does the US Constitution state that no person shale "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law?"
2. Does the Bible state "thou shall not kill?"

Now let's not go into exceptions and what not.  Heck, even the 5th amendment gives an 'out' stating "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger."  My point is...that we hold these two premises to be sacrosanct, do we not?  If they are not important tenants, than why put them there?  Why would God give it as one of his ten commandments if it was not something he felt, you know, important to uphold?

So if they are that important at that high of a level, how do we rectify those two sacrosanct premises with this statement:

"As we were walking...we see the South Vietnamese police pull this guy out the door that they just grabbed from the second story he was snipping.  And we start following him and walking up the street.  We get near the corner and out of, to my left, I see this guy walk in.  Soon as he got close to him, I see him go for his pistol.  And as he raises the pistol, I raised my camera and took the picture."

I wrote that down while watching Fox New's War Stories With Oliver North.  That was what Eddie Adams, the photographer, had to say about taking that picture.  And this is how Eddie Adams saw the situation after he got back to his post.  Again, in his own words:

"I thought nothing of it, it's somebody shooting somebody.  It's war.  It happens everyday."

There is context needed here, but really, there is no context that can ever rectify the two premises we hold sacrosanct with what fate had allowed to transpire that day.  We are forced by these tenants to choose one category for each participant - good guy or bad guy, hero or villain.

When in a war, the soldier in that place - at that time - cannot choose one or the other.  They effectively have no choice but to accept the reality as it is and rectify it at a later date.  Eddie Adams was a soldier and a photographer, which is why he could accept this as just a normal part of what was taking place around him.

But accepting it does not rectify it with what we know to be sacrosanct.  Under normal circumstances, Loan - the man in the picture shooting the other man - would have never done that.  And, under normal circumstances, Eddie Adams, had he witnessed the same situation on a street in America, would have never said "I thought nothing of it, it's somebody shooting somebody."

We have placed these guys we call soldiers in a situation whereby they are forced to accept what is not acceptable as acceptable.  And to do this, they make statements that allow them to acknowledge their tacit acceptance without having to grapple with the only conclusion that can be made about it; that it was wrong based on the tenants they hold as sacrosanct.

"He killed many of my men and many of your people." Loan said

Does that fact even matter?  Or does it serve only to allow a behavior known to those who witnessed it as being wrong to be overlooked...ignored?  This is the paradox these guys fall into.  It must be classified as wrong or the two sacrosanct premises - depriving someone of life - killing - are irrelevant.  And if they are trivial, then the Constitution and Bible are not valid documents of authority. And if it is wrong, then how can they continue to witness and participate in it without attempting to stop it?  As I see it, the only way to rectify this is to basically form two parallel worlds.

The "other" Spock

There is war, and there is everything else.

It is not very difficult to accept that if someone is trying to kill you, you can defend yourself and kill them.  The sniper can and should be neutralized.  That's fair, that's reasonable, that's acceptable (unless you are a pacifist).  But Loan did not neutralize the sniper, he punished him.  And in that situation, like similar situations unique only to war, it can not be right and also be wrong.  It must be one or the other.  And yet in war it can never be one or the other, or those participating will then need to be categorized as either good or bad.  General Brady wants to categorize the Vietnam vet as hero.  This I contend, only perpetuates the paradox.

So when Eddie Adams says about Loan:

He was a good guy.  He was fighting for America with Americans.  I think he was a goddamn hero.

I understand why Adams needs to say it like that.  I also understand why General Brady desperately needs General Giap to declare Tet "the communist calamity it was."  I also understand how critical the press, public, and professors are in keeping the pressure on their government to not be so caviler about placing some of their citizens in a situation where they will be seen both as a good guy and a bad guy by their fellow countrymen.  Even Adams is aware of the odd dynamic in play because of war:

"America condemned him [Loan].  They said he had shot someone in cold blood.  Two lives were destroyed in that photograph.  The person who was shot and the person who pulled the trigger."

There is war and there is everything else.  And that seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion.



.

Stop the Press! (unless you are spinning it my way)

So one thing always begets another.  Which if you like eclectic stuff, is fun to dive into.  My last post was about General Patrick Brady's assertion that he was going to film a documentary whereby Gen. Vo Nguyan Giap, supreme communist commander during the Vietnam war "agreed to declare Tet the communist calamity it was."

Now that did not sound anything near what a General would ever say, so I went looking and found nothing to support that declaration except an urban myth exuding the same thing.  But a two star General, Vietnam vet, medal of valor winner was stating this as true!  And then I thought, you mean the same one who, just a couple of days ago, had been called out in the San Antonio Express News for giving "demonstrably false information to the public?"  Yeah, that same one.  What to think...what to think.

So in the process of trying to figure out what to accept as a truth, I come across a lot of really poor information.  But in and amongst the dung are some diamonds.

Now one site I stumbled upon takes the position that the Vietnam war was lost due to antiwar sentiment brought about, provided, and perpetuated by the news media.  This is a common explanation of why were not outrightly victorious in Vietnam used by those who consider themselves hawks or believe in the United State as a military superpower and hegemon.

And within this explanation - the press lost it for us - one must ask, is that so?  Had we been kept in the dark, would the war have proceeded differently?  Yes.  Would we have been victorious in all our effort?  Maybe.  Could it have been much worse for us had we not known what was going on?  Maybe as well.

So my question is this: Does our government have the right to keep from us all information that might sway our opinion on a topic that directly affects us?  Looking at it another way, does an 18 year old male have a right to know what is happening in a foreign land where he will be sent and possibly killed?  Do the parents and wives and children need to be told the good, bad, and ugly so that they can decide if it is worth their blood and treasure that someone else has decided they are willing to expend?

So when Steven F. Hayward, the F.K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and an adjunct fellow of the Ashbrook Center, writes:

The Cronkite broadcast opened the floodgates for the media to offer their judgments, as opposed to their reporting, about the war.

 I am left to ponder, what good is reporting something if the context is left out?  Or how it is interconnected with something else is not described?  How am I to draw a conclusion on just looking at a raw fact?

For example, lets say I live near a large vacant lot and the newspaper reports that a new business is being built on that lot and it will employee 100 people.  As the building is going up the newspaper reports the number of walls, the number of nails, the cubic yards of concrete poured, but it never tells me the purpose of the building until it is built.  And because I am downwind from it, I get to endure the smell of fish, that had I been told at the very beginning was the purpose of the building, I may have been able to stop it from being built.

In a round about way, that is what is being offered as acceptable, especially in times of war.  If you just let us do what it takes to win, we will win.  Lets look at another example of how Hayward sees the dangers posed by guys like Walter Cronkite sticking their two-cents in.  Here is what Hayward says in his piece:

On the morning of January 31, the first full day of the Tet attack, Associated Press photographer Eddie Adams and a Vietnamese TV cameraman employed by NBC were wandering around Saigon getting photos and footage of the battle damage when they noticed a small contingent of South Vietnamese troops with a captive dressed in a checked shirt. From the other direction came Gen. Nguyen Ngoc Loan, chief of South Vietnam’s national police. As Adams and the NBC cameraman aimed their cameras, Loan calmly raised his sidearm and shot the prisoner—a Viet Cong officer—in the head.

Now without any context other than the facts presented in the above description and the fact you can visually see in the photo, should comment be offered, or should only the photo be displayed with just the facts?  Some folks would argue that the photo should never have been shown, that war is ugly and that's just what happens.

Hayward writes:

Most news accounts of the photo ignored this context; the drama of the picture was just too irresistible for most news organizations to try to put it in any kind of balanced context.

In other words, had you known the context - the connectivness to something else - the judgement as to the what and why he was being shot - you would look at this picture differently.  Hayward offers:

Loan walked over to Adams and said in English: "They killed many Americans and many of my men." (It was not reported at the time that the prisoner had also taunted his captors, saying "Now you must treat me as a prisoner of war," and had been identified as the assassin of a South Vietnamese army officer’s entire family.)

So when does offering context cross the line into judgement?  My answer is when you don't like what the judgment is.  The fact that Hayward may find the assassination of a prisoner in handcuffs acceptable based on his value system, others (including myself) may not.  And in a democracy, if more of us disagree with one model we have the right to say change it.

You can blame Cronkite for loosing the Vietnam war, but all he did was point out the context that we were being manipulated by our government and General Westmoreland into thinking all was good, the end was nigh!  Tet may have been mis-characterized as a communist victory by the media, but it was correctly analyzed - in my opinion - by Walter Cronkite on February 27, 1968: (see note)

We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right, that Hanoi's winter-spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations. It would improve their position, and it would also require our realization, that we should have had all along, that any negotiations must be that -- negotiations, not the dictation of peace terms. For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate.

What did Cronkite base this on?  Context.  Look at what Westmoreland said to the National Press Club on November 21, 1967:

[t]he communists were "unable to mount a major offensive...I am absolutely certain that whereas in 1965 the enemy was winning, today he is certainly losing...We have reached an important point when the end begins to come into view."

Two months later, Tet.  Now the argument is made by some, such as General Brady, that with reference to what happened after Tet:

Unbelievably, there was no military follow-up. Gen. Vo Nguyan Giap, supreme communist commander, would marvel at the mess we made of our victory. His force was devastated. Yet our dishonest media had presented Tet to the American politicians and people as a great communist victory and many people still believe that.

Brady's contention is, that because we were victorious at Tet and had we pushed, we would have won the war decisively and no peace talks or withdraw in 1972 would have tarnished our military reputation and the men & woman who participated.  Maybe.  Or maybe we would still be there like in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting an enemy we do not respect for their resolve.  The fact of the matter is, we do not know what turn the war would have taken had the American people been kept in the dark and men like General Brady given carte blanch to just "get er' done,"





Note: Walter Cronkite also said in that same piece: "[t]he use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster." Nukes and cosmic disaster did not manifest itself.