Press and Cold War

This is a curiously dispassionate book, at least in tone. Given the author's connection to radical causes over the years and his persecution during the Mc Carthy period, he apparently harbors few grudges. It would seem that his regard for press freedom is stronger than any commitment to radical doctrine, there being precious little of that anywhere in the book. This, of course, is contrary to usual stereotype of the radical journalist as propagated in the popular media. Still, I'm not sure whether his detached style helps or hinders the book's message; nevertheless, it contrasts unexpectedly with the more impassioned and ironical style of Chomsky and Herman, two academics who cover much of the same ground.Most of the text retraces familiar material concerning Cold War journalism. Perhaps the best chapter is the one characterizing the liberal mentality that reported from Vietnam, paticularly during the early years. Skeptical of official versions and wary of top military brass, reporters such as David Halberstam and Neil Sheehan were raised to near heroic dimensions by liberal critics of the war. And while their skepticism toward Pentagon duplicity and a corrupt client government in Saigon never wavered, not once did these fabled journalists question the basic moral correctness of America's involvement. In short, when push came to shove, they refused to follow the logic of their own facts to the appropriate conclusion. No doubt consistency in this regard would have cost them their jobs and maybe careers. Even so, Aronson's account makes clear just how opaque the enemy and their cause was to these quondam rebels and how wedded Halbertam and company were to official illusion. Far from being heroes, their real function, as Aronson emphasizes, was to project the illusions of nation-building into yet further spheres of foreign intervention. A second point of interest comes at the book's conclusion. According to pollsters, reporters and media generally are held in low popular esteem; the reason, Aronson observes, is not because of the supposed power of the media, as the political right-wing prefers. Rather it's because the public senses, correctly, that this power is not being exercised in their behalf. Indeed. Marred only by an occasionally flat style, Aronson's is a revealing book by a journalist who demands no less of others in his profession than he does of himself.