to curb a political-military disasternlargely of our own making. “Perhapsnif many of us in Saigon,” he replied,n”had had that same vision of the futurenas you, things might have turned out anlot different than they did.”nWicker writes of Halberstam andnSheehan as colleagues with clean hearts,nhands and consciences when it comes tona war which is the basis of his perceptionnthroughout his work. This is lessnreprehensible than his refusal to facenthe part that the U.S. media played inncrippling the conduct of the war byngiving full play to the U.S. procommunistncircles which manipulated and orchestratednthe escalating domestic antiwarnmovement after Lyndon Johnsonnbecame President in a landslide againstnGoldwater.nIf one believes Wicker, the U.S.nnews media from 1965 on was embarkednon a moral crusade to preventntheir own government from pursuingnthe results of its folly in Vietnam.nEvaded, of course, is the critical partnthe press played in providing a propagandanforum to the antiwar feelingsnand how it became an integral part ofnthe Viet Cong, Chinese and Russiannwar strategies. This, of course, was notnbecause the news media in Americanwas committed to communist victory innVietnam, rather it was committed tonthe political defeat of both LyndonnJohnson and Richard Nixon at home,nat any cost. It never occurs to Wickernthat whatever his good intentions,nthese two goals served the same end.nThe most compelling evidence thatnTom Wicker is proud of his contrivednignorance is his regurgitating the mythnthat the 1968 “Tet” offensive by thenViet Cong was the event that “shatterednofficial pretensions to inevitable victory”nand forced Lyndon Johnson innthe Spring of 1968 not to seek reelection.nThe U.S. military had alwaysnmaintained that the Viet Cong “Tet”noffensive was a shattering defeat fornHanoi. The news media reported it asna defeat for the United States and itnwas that perception that both prevailednand shaped events in this country andnaround the world. The WashingtonnPost Saigon Bureau Chief at the timenof the 1968 “Tet” offensive was PeternBraestrup, now editor in Washingtonnof the Wilson Quarterly. Wicker knowsnhim well, referring to him in his booknas joining the Washington Bureau ofnthe New York Times at the same timenhe did, in I960. Ten years later, however,nBraestrup shocked his Washingtonnjournalistic colleagues with a booknthat demonstrated with exhaustivendocumentation that, indeed, “Tet” wasna crushing defeat for the Viet Congnand that the press played a major rolenin misleading Americans and worldnpublic opinion about the true nature ofnthe offensive. The fact that the VietnCong were able to conceal, with thenhelp of the Tom Wickers of the worldnpress, that it suffered a humiliating defeatnproved enormously helpful in thenall-important propaganda war that wasnpart of the conflict in Southeast Asia.n”The only way,” observed MargueritenHiggins in 1965, “that the communistsncould make the United States welsh onnits commitment to Vietnam is if AmericannpubUc opinion in the 1960’s werento become as demoralized as Frenchnpublic opinion in the 1950’s. This isnsomething that communists are workingnvery hard to accomplish, and therenare a great many Americans unwittinglynserving the Viet Cong objective of underminingnthe nation’s will and stamina.”nThe full intellectual treason of thenAmerican news media in the Vietnamnconflict remains to be written. TomnWicker and the New York Timesnplayed an important role, posturing andnpontificating to the public that whatnthey did was an act of morality. Yetnthat same Wicker and that same newspapernfind it hard to apply that samenmoralizing self-righteousness to the regimesnin Southeast Asia that have nownslaughtered hundreds of thousands innCambodia and made concentrationncamp countries of Vietnam and Laos.nnnThe Times demands full disclosurenfrom the U.S. government, but deniesnthat it should comply with the samenstandard when its reporters are summonednbefore criminal grand juries.nThis hypocritical double standard isnone of the numerous reasons why thenAmerican news media is regarded withnsuch sullen hatred and resentment bynmillions of Americans whose basicnsense of fairness is offended over andnover again. Having promoted the ideanthat unions should be granted a virtualnstate monopoly, the Times and thenWashington Post are horrified whennunion power is used against them. Butnwhen the private sector business communitynopposes union power and governmentnpower these papers adopt theirndouble standard of supporting thenunions and big government.nWicker’s work is fundamentally intendednto justify to readers a defensenof monopoly press political power andnits alliance with the political leadersnwho benefit from its benediction. Thencolumnist-critic Michael Novak callsnWicker a “representative of the lunaticnleft,” and justly so. Asserting that thenpress “mirrors the character of thenAmerican community,” Wicker is unablento explain how the nonstop campaignnof savaging each and everynAmerican institution, custom and conventionnthat offends the media’s antimiddle-classnconsciousness, is expressingnthe soul of America.nL he best chapters of this book, tonaccord Wicker the fairness that he refusesnto give to others, is his runningnreport on his own involvement in thencoverage of the Kennedy assassinationnin Dallas and his jaundiced view ofnthe White House and the Presidentsnwho have sought to manipulate andnuse him. But he does not care to realizenthat he, himself, is the manipulator ofnvalues and viewpoints. One such valuenthat Wicker clearly does not believe innis individual liberty, the only thing thatnMencken ever thought he or any othernnewspaperman should believe in.n17nChronicles of Culturen