Alyssa Rosenlicht
Professor Hausman
December 4, 2007
Wartime Censorship
In the past, wartime censorship has posed a considerable threat to the basic
freedoms of American citizens. More often than not, war leaves the public and
newsmakers at the mercy of the government. For American journalists, the degree to
which information was censored made a crucial impact on the way journalists gathered
and reported news. The journalistic practices during World War II, The Vietnam War,
and The Gulf War are prime examples of the effects of the varying degrees of censorship
during wartime. With history as our teacher, censorship enacted by President Roosevelt
at the beginning of World War II would come to define wartime reporting for decades to
come.
Due to legislation passed in 1938, President Roosevelt had the power to regulate
the kind of information the media had access to. This legislation allowed the President to
deem certain photographs, sketches, or maps of military bases as security risks, in
addition to providing the President with “the authority to define which types of military
information needed security protection” (Sweeney). Citing this provision, Roosevelt
created the Office of Censorship on December 19, 1941 with Executive Order 8985.
Associated Press news editor Bryon Price was appointed as the director of the
department. With his position, Roosevelt granted Price “the power to censor international
communications in his absolute discretion” (Fiset).
Information transmitted via the broadcasting system, cable, mail, and the press
was subjected to the possibility of government-regulated censorship. However, under
Price’s leadership, censorship remained voluntary for newsmakers. Broadcasters and
news editors were encouraged to practice self-censorship. Stricter regulations, however,
Alyssa Rosenlicht
Professor Hausman
December 4, 2007
were imposed upon cable and postal communications. “Every letter that crossed
international or U.S. territorial borders from December 1941 to August 1945 was subject
to being opened and scoured for details” (Fiset). On January 15, 1942 the Office of
Censorship issued its first Voluntary Censorship Code. The code, aimed at journalists,
encouraged the press to enact restraint when reporting wartime information. “Least said,
soonest mended,” Price said (Sweeney).
Voluntary censorship proved to be successful, building a healthy relationship
between the Censorship Office and reporters and editors. But the relationship between the
American media and the American public wasn’t as healthy or honest. “Even as
governmental and private organizations provided the public with the massive amounts of
information necessary for productive involvement in the war effort, they withheld
information deemed detrimental to that effort” (Roeder). Various outlets of the news
media responded to the government’s request for “restraint” in numerous ways.
Those involved with the visual mediums of the 1940’s and 1950’s understood the
effects visual content had on audiences. Life Magazine and “other illustrated publications,
newsreels and films” (Roeder) played an important role in how the public learned about
wartime activities. Thus, Hollywood studios, broadcast Networks, and newspaper and
magazine editors made selective decisions about what the public should and should not
see. All photographs taken at war zones were screened by the military and deemed either
fit or unfit for public consumption. Images were screened for two primary reasons;
“Operational security” (Roeder) and the possibility that some images may cause public
unrest. Home front stability depended on a constant flow of positive news and
Alyssa Rosenlicht
Professor Hausman
December 4, 2007
information from the war abroad. Photographs or moving images suggesting the United
States was somehow losing control or otherwise struggling were immediately censored.
In 2001, the National Archives released thousands of previously classified World
War II photographs. The images reveal some of the fundamental ways in which censors
maintained home front opinion and moral during the war. In particular, the Office of
Information spent a great deal of effort creating the “impression that American bombs,
bullets, and artillery shells killed only enemy soldiers” (Roeder). Images of dead or
injured American soldiers were never published, as it would have been an obvious
hindrance to war recruitment practices. In addition, the likelihood of “collateral damage”
never arose either; the deaths of women, children, and other innocent bystanders were
impossible as far as the home front was concerned.
Print and news media followed similar patterns. Journalists withheld information
about failed operations, American war atrocities, and deplorable wartime conditions. The
main focus of the Office of Censorship was to encourage home front moral and support
for the war. Print or broadcast stories “voluntarily” offered the public a slew of
information and news that highlighted positive American progress in the war. As a result,
“battlefront reportage…ran heavily to human-interest stories” (The Perilous Fight). The
where, why, and how of stories were largely omitted, leaving only tales of American
heroism.
The containment of information was vital to the health of the nation. Letters from
soldiers over seas were intercepted and searched. By 1942, more than “10,000 civil
servants were reading and censoring a million pieces of mail weekly” (The Perilous
Fight). Paul Gentile, a World War II veteran, commented that even his home movies and
Alyssa Rosenlicht
Professor Hausman
December 4, 2007
pictures from civilian camps were inspected. “I couldn’t send a letter or picture to my
girlfriend or family at home without clearing it first with an officer.” But despite the
irregularity, he appeared to appreciate the politics. “I just did what I had to do for the
sake of my country. That’s all that mattered.”
Journalists often had access to important information and secrets, but failed to
reveal them in order to abide by the Office’s voluntary codes. Reporters knew about the
existence of the atomic bomb two years before it was deployed. The state of Roosevelt’s
failing health was another bit of information journalists also had in possession, but
withheld for the health of the home front. But the principals of “voluntary censorship”
would not hold. In the next thirty years, journalists and newsmakers would use every
resource available to report as much news as possible. The Vietnam War would change
the way in which the media reported war and would alter the relationship between
newsmakers and the government
Public opinion about the Vietnam War drew largely from newsmakers and
journalists of the 1960s. Without government regulation, the public was flooded with
uncensored photographs, moving images, and reports from the battlefronts. As opposed
to World War II and the Gulf War, the United States Government and the media were in
constant opposition with one another. During his presidency, Lyndon Johnson believed
that news organizations purposefully “delivered biased, negative coverage, showing ‘bad
things’ from the war zone designed to make readers and viewers ‘hate us (the
government)’ ” (Huebner).
The evolution of technology played a pivotal role in how the American home
front consumed wartime information. Broadcast news and journalists benefited greatly
Alyssa Rosenlicht
Professor Hausman
December 4, 2007
from the popularity of television during the Vietnam War. For the first time in history,
Americans could witness the atrocities of war from within the confines of their living
rooms. "War has always been beastly, but the Vietnam War was the first war exposed to
television cameras and seen in practically every home, often in living color" (Huebner).
Political scientist Guenter Lewy chastised the broadcast news media in 1978, claiming
only biased, negative, and slanted information was offered. (Huebner)
And although some contend that the news media went too far in depicting the
war, purposely pushing a negative agenda, others believe that journalists did not show
and tell enough. In effect, journalists and newsmakers willingly censored themselves.
Mark Barker, author of the book, Nam: The Vietnam War in the Words of the Men and
Women Who Fought There, believes that journalists of the era sanitized news with
“romantic adventure” (Huebner). Journalists reciting “the day's body count like a grim
blessing over our suppers had little to do with gagging on the stench of a burning man”
(Huebner). Some scholars have even suggested that journalists were widely supportive of
the war effort and the presidency before 1968. The journalistic turning point, however,
came after the Tet offensive in January of the same year, when it became clear that
victory was unlikely.
Despite the polarization of critics over wartime coverage, journalists of the
Vietnam era were allowed privileges unheard of during World War II. Television
broadcasts streamed videos of the misery and carnage, all of which would have been
censored by the Office of Censorship during WWII. Reporters, such as New York Times
writer David Halberstam, were largely critical of the government. In many of
Halberstam’s articles, he questioned American officials who appeared to neither grasp
Alyssa Rosenlicht
Professor Hausman
December 4, 2007
“the political nature of the war nor the unsuitability of massive military power to such a
conflict” (Huebner). And while the Office of Censorship viewed criticism of the
government as “un-American” during the 1940s and 1950’s, many journalists conveyed
doubt in the successful American conquest of Vietnam.
Prominent photographers captured the war in photos, giving Life, Newsweek, and
Time Magazine an uncensored spread of life in war-torn Vietnam. By 1965, all major
broadcast Networks and wire services had correspondents actively gathering and
reporting information from abroad. The flow of information was three fold: images, film,
and text. Often daunting, the uncensored content was nothing the American public had
been exposed to before. And without government censorship, which existed during
WWII through the Korean War, “there was considerable--and unprecedented--room for
dissent among the press corps” (Landers).
The Vietnam War and World War II represent two extremes in wartime censorship.
At one end of the spectrum, the amount of information obtainable depended on what the
government made available or what journalists felt was safe for the “well being” of the
nation. The other end of the spectrum represented a complete about-face, reporters were
interested in every bit of detail that could be gathered and reported. The journalistic
melee that occurred during the Vietnam War came to a rapid halt during the Persian Gulf
War. The privileges granted to journalists and newsmakers during the 1960s and 1970s
were stripped, as a form of government regulated censorship took hold of the media once
again. “For the first time in American history, reporters were essentially barred from
accompanying the nation's troops into combat” (8). Even during World War II, news
journalists had some access to battlefronts. Edward R. Morrow’s famous “rooftop
Alyssa Rosenlicht
Professor Hausman
December 4, 2007
reports” from London entered American households through radio broadcasts. Journalists
reporting from abroad transmitted information about the war in Vietnam to all major
American news Networks.
Public unrest during the Vietnam War was rampant, a fact that may be attributed to
the media’s uncensored account of wartime activities. Consequentially, the news media’s
virtual carte blanche during the Vietnam War may have deterred the government’s faith
in “voluntary censorship” by newsmakers. Thus, by the 1990s, journalists found
themselves blocked from obtaining and reporting some information due governmentregulated censorship. Interviews by journalists with military officials involved in the Gulf
War were conducted under the watch of public information officers. And before any
article or interview could be published, it went through a screening process to determine
whether or not it was fit for public consumption. In addition, most wartime news was
brought directly to journalists through internationally broadcasted press conferences.
There were very few, if any, live news broadcasts available to the public.
Many journalists, and their supporters, believed the government and the military
had the desire to “get even with the press for besmerching the military's reputation in
Vietnam” (Blanchard). Furthermore, many newsmakers claimed that the government was
limiting information so the American public became “unable to make informed decisions
about whether the nation should be involved in the war in the first place” (Blanchard).
Lack of information can lead to lack of opinion, and the less opinion, the less opposition.
Nearly 50 years after the Second World War, the American public became the victims of
wartime censorship.
Just as it was done during World War II, the government pre-packaged information
Alyssa Rosenlicht
Professor Hausman
December 4, 2007
for the American public, essentially blocking journalists from reporting or revealing news
that may hinder support for the war. During the Vietnam War, journalists could go where
they pleased and report what they considered newsworthy, but when it came to reporting
the Gulf War, journalists were limited in resources. The perceived precedent of
journalistic activity set during Vietnam was shattered. It had become clear to the
government and the news media that journalism could either be a friend or a foe to the
government during time of war.
The media coverage of the Vietnam War gave the public a first hand account of
war. Instead of pre-packaged, public friendly information, the nation had the opportunity
develop impartial opinions about the war. Whether the news was biased or slanted, as
some critics may argue, the images cannot be falsified. What the American public viewed
in Life Magazine, on NBC Nightly News, or in their local newspapers were actual
photographs and accounts from the war zones.
Gaining support for war through positive spinning via censorship is one thing, but
actually waging war is an entirely different feat. As the issue of wartime censorship
continues to arise in contemporary history, it becomes clear that objective opinions about
war cannot be made through censorship, as only subjectivity exists. War is evil, no matter
how it may be interpreted. But the level of information available shouldn’t be based on
what the government chooses to make public. War often means the restriction of basic
American freedoms. The draft, food rationing, and “Big Brother” have all compromised
the way in which Americans lived during the time of war. And if those freedoms are
willingly or unwillingly compromised, the public has the right to know why. If history
has taught journalists anything, it is that censorship doesn’t help the public, but it doesn’t
Alyssa Rosenlicht
Professor Hausman
December 4, 2007
hurt the government.