a >> coming up next on american history tv, veteran journalists bob schieffer, peter arnett, and david hume kennerly speaking at the newseum, speaking at the exhibit "reporting vietnam." 03 traveled to vietnam during the war and reported on their experiences. during this discussion, they explore the role of the press during the 1960's, as well is the idea of government censorship. this program is about an hour and 20 minutes. ♪ [video clip] >> in 1965, the war was becoming the big story and i was determined that i was going to get there and cover it. so i became the first reporter from a texas newspaper to go to vietnam. >> when the action did begin i , was a veteran. i had been there four years and i was ready to roll. >> i was there because i wanted to be involved with the biggest american story of my generation. >> because i learned essentially how to control my fear. my choice was to get as close to the action in vietnam as i

possibly could. >> i was writing features about kids from fort worth. it is the single most rewarding thing i did in all my years in journalism because this would brighten their day that someone from their hometown would look them up. >> my best pictures were woven through it. the kind of pictures i took showed people waiting for something to happen. ♪ >> i basically tried to block out the emotional side of it in the early years because i really believe that the journalism of detachment was what war coverage was all about. >> i was very jingoistic when i got there. when i got back, i was convinced that war suddenly could not be -- simply could not be won. >> part of the reason i have always done it is a sense of wanting to be where the action is, in the bigger theater we cast a light in dark corners around the world that you would not see without photographers.

>> so, to come up with these dramatic, exclusive stories that riveted readers and editors was absolutely thrilling. and drove me to stay covering the conflict and others all my life. ♪ [applause] >> good evening, everyone. i am c.e.o. of the newseum. welcome to what i think will be a wonderful program. i want to give a special welcome tonight to our press pass members, friends of the first amendment society, and our corporate and individual donors who make programs like this possible. if you're not yet a member of

the newseum, consider becoming one. there is always a lot to do here, it is one of the best museum memberships in town. tomorrow, as you know, to mark the 50th anniversary of the vietnam war, the newseum will open a terrific exhibit that explores the often contentious relationship between the military and the press in america's first televised war. the exhibit explores how journalists brought news about the war to an increasingly divided nation. we hope these photos, videos and artifacts will help you better understand that difficult time, which and my view, was a toxic combination of a high casualty war, universal conscription, and widespread rebellion by american youth. tonight, we will hear from three people who covered the war from different perspectives. bob schieffer was a 28 year-old reporter who was sent to vietnam by the "fort worth

star-telegram" to get the local angle. he covered vietnam as a pentagon and white house correspondent. he has anchored cbs's "face the nation" for the past 24 years and his final program will air may 31. peter arnett reported from vietnam for the associated press from 1962 until the fall of saigon in 1975, longer than almost all reporters. his fearless reporting made him a target. he was beaten by the south vietnamese secret police in 1963. there is a photo of that in the exhibit. he won a pulitzer for his coverage in 1966 and had a long career at c.n.n. photographer david kennerly won the 1972 pulitzer for photography for his images of vietnam. he was one of the youngest winners, just 25, and he went on to be president for its personal -- president ford's personal

photographer. he has had a long and distinguished career. he was just named editor for politico and will cover the 2016 election in a series of photo essays. we are in good hands with our moderator margaret brennan. she serves as the state department correspondent and her foreign-policy reporting has taken her around the world. if i can add a personal note, 47 years ago on this date, in 1968, i was a young draftee, a specialist five, an intelligence clerk , so to speak although , i did not think we gathered much -- in the town in the makong delta, wondering whether i would make it alive to the end of my tour. while there, and for years afterwards, i read and studied much of the journalism about the war. a lot of it done by people in this room trying to figure out if we were doing the right thing. i know that like me there are many of you in the audience who have a personal connection to the war in vietnam.

we would like to take a moment to recognize you. first, are there any journalists who covered vietnam? would you please stand up? stand up. [applause] fantastic. are there any people who served in the military in vietnam? [applause] all right. are there any people who served in vietnam in some other capacity, for ngo's, for the state department, the cia, air america, some other agency? you may not want to reveal yourself to. there we go.

[laughs] fantastic. well, thank you. and we thank you all for your professionalism and your service and your sacrifice in whatever capacity it was in what was often quite an unpopular cause. tonight is just the first of many programs the newseum will host about vietnam. we will ask for women reporters -- over the next 16 months, we will cover how women reporters covered the war, photographers vivid images affected public opinion and how the war often , divided families and led to distrust in many institutions. now it is my privilege to introduce the very talented and competent president of cbs news who has brought news back to america's great network -- [applause] david: thank you for that introduction, peter.

for all your kindness tonight towards all of us from cbs. if you like margaret brennan tonight, by coincidence, she is cohosting our morning show tomorrow. so she can't linger with you after the program but you can see her at 7:00 a.m. on channel 9. or check your local listings. you know, the last time i was here at the newseum was in november when we marked 60 years of "face the nation." as you heard, bob has not anchored it for all 60 years but a lot of them. and he is handing over to john dickerson after this month. bob is our chief washington correspondent. and in that, he's a bit of a

keeper of our history. he always has noted to me how he's honored that he has eric severide's old office. but he also says he is worried that no one knows who eric severide was. [laughter] but the newseum can help make sure that people know. and i think it is instructive because, at a time now that we are endlessly told is the most divisive and most divided and most difficult in our nation's history, it is important to be reminded that it is not. that apart from the obvious history lessons we have about the 1860's, we have a lot to learn still from the 1960's. this exhibit does. if you think it was a challenge covering washington today, consider the example of those

who covered a war in southeast asia for a society that itself was almost at war back home. it has been observed in recent months that the irony of bob simon's death is that he survived so many near misses along route one in vietnam chronicling wartime, only to die along manhattan's west side highway in peacetime. bob's daughter tonya, a "60 minutes" producer, wanted very much to be here tonight but the good news is that tonya is very pregnant with who would have been bob's second grandchild. and she could not make the trip. but tonya and her mother have contributed some of his material to the newseum's permanent

collection as part of this exhibit. so, in tribute to bob, not just his family, but his colleagues have wanted most of all to memorialize the value that he came to represent over a career telling the world about events like those he saw in vietnam over 40 years ago. that's why the newseum approached john orlando about support for this exhibit, from our c.e.o., leslie moonves as, down through the whole management team, everyone thought it would be most appropriate to do so in honor of bob simon. and we are very grateful that the newseum has given us an opportunity to do that. so, thank you very much. [applause] >> you can tell that david is a new age person, because the text of his speech was on his iphone.

[laughter] i need to do that next time. we are very grateful for cbs'support. like david, we agree this is a fitting tribute to bob simon who was one of the world's great war reporters. now please welcome margaret brennan and our wonderful panel. [applause] >> hi, folks. margaret: thanks to all of you for coming out tonight. when i was asked to do this, i was intimidated by the names sitting next to me. if there is one thing journalists love it is a great , story. i had so much fun and enjoy the phone conversations i got. the great excuse i had to hear some of your stories. and i'm glad we can share some of them here tonight.

but one of the ideas that kept coming up on the telephone from many of you was this idea that people had raised to you almost an accusation, did the media lose the war in vietnam? was it a factor? in many ways that gives us the concept of media not being observers but somehow being actors in this particular conflict. i think that's an interesting idea. david, you said to me on the phone, "for many people television brought the war into their living rooms." but in your opinion, it was still photographer that really affected their hearts. your craft. i know you had images you wanted to share with us. what you thought hit people, impacted people to bring this war so far away into middle america. david: it's true. the room is filled with a number of still photographers, friends

of mine, they all agree with that statement by the way. [laughter] the gold standard photo for all of us was not a vietnam photo , but was joe rosenthal's picture of iwo jima. when you look at some of the other photos, this is the one that was heroic. marines raising the flag. this is a photo that is probably the most reproduced picture ever. and when you put that one up against one like this, and this is a 1963 photo by malcolm brown -- did not win the pulitzer prize. i believe malcolm one third next year -- i believe malcolm won the next year. but this suggested to president

kennedy that he should get involved with vietnam. it is hard to imagine that, but this was a very important photograph. then eddie adam's picture. this photo was so astonishing for every possible way. if you look at joe rosenthal's pictures compared with this. heroism, the red white and blue, the good old american way. and then the dark, underside of war. the picture of kim running down the road after being napalmed. these photographs tracking the end of america's love affair, such as it was, with the vietnam war. and then this one. this is a picture i did not really know -- but it was a pulitzer prize photo from 1977 a vietnam vet watching a veterans day parade with his little daughter. he lost both legs in vietnam. it's a book end to what i know about the photography of

vietnam. and i want to make -- there are so many -- there is somebody in the room who took one of the greatest pictures of vietnam that should've won the pulitzer prize. frank johnson took this picture. it was called "peace church." frank, stand up, please. [applause] the gentleman in the photograph is mike tripp, who is standing next to frank. [applause] this picture, and there have been so many great photos from the vietnam war, but that photo really sums it up. the whole point of showing these is that i i believe and i have been asked questions about it all the time, but the pictures really do go right to the heart and soul of your psyche.

it is because you can look at them, hold them. pictures are our history. it is a scrapbook of what we have gone through. and then this is a picture i took about three years ago on my iphone. but it's, i can't come to washington without going to the vietnam memorial. i have four of my classmates from westlin high school in oregon are on the wall. they got killed before i got over there. for that reason, and i set it in the video, but it was the biggest story of my lifetime. i was the class photographer for the 1965 graduating class. as the class photographer, i felt i had to go to vietnam to show what my class was going through. and that was my motivation. all of you are here on memorial day, any day, go to that wall. it is the most astonishing place on the face of the earth.

thank you. [applause] margaret: and i think so many of visit images people have a visceral reaction when they see them. i want to bring up another image that might surprise some of you. it did when i saw it. do you recognize the two men in that photo? and the one the gun is pointed at? military police pointing a gun at bob schieffer here. the other gentleman. what was happening? what did you do? bob: that was the president of cbs news at the time. [laughter] i was telling the mp, aim it at the other guy. [laughter] bob: that photo was taken by eddie adams.

we were in saigon. it was 1966. we had gone out to cover this riot. the buddhists were rioting and an american mp said we could not do it. we said of course we can, you can't stop us. the guy pulled out his weapon. and eddie adams camera went up "ok, buddy, use it." as i said later, "eddie, he's pointing it at me." eddie said, "i was pretty sure he was bluffing." [laughter] peter: eddie said, "shoot him. it will be a better picture." [laughter] true story. bob: i have that picture in my office, too. but -- peter: the american mp's did not have jurisdiction in saigon during the war.

that was the purview, the control of the south vietnamese. this mp appeared at a buddhist protest. we were just two of many journalists that were trying to get through to the protest. the next morning i followed it up -- eddie took the picture and we sent it off on a regular wire feed that night. the next morning i go to the czar of information in saigon at the time to complain because you know, i did not want to be faced with this kind of problem again. he said to me, well, we already had a wire from the state department and secretary dean rusk says he does not want to see a picture like that again in the newspapers. he says, "however, we are going to go ahead and try to anyway." i said, " charge me with what?" he says, "assault with a pencil and a pad." [laughter]

there were some who believe that the pencil and pads were more effective sometimes than guns. margaret: it's interesting as well. i think this is something very unique about the conflict in vietnam. that you all highlighted, which is that there is a very different sort of rules of the road for journalists who were covering the war. in particular, there was not media censorship instituted by the military like there have been in past conflicts. bob: it is one of the few wars in american history where there was no censorship. margaret: as an official policy. bob: as an official policy. as peter and david will tell you, the way they censored you was through transportation. they could sometimes stop you from going to an area -- they

censored you through transportation. after a while, you would figure out how to get there. peter: the reason there was no censorship was that president kennedy, president eisenhower -- kennedy and johnson and nixon did not want to reveal or could not reveal their real intentions about leading vietnam to some kind of positive resolution for the united states. they kept saying, we are helping out. we have advisors. we are in a limited war. margaret: instituting an official policy would be acknowledgment of actual war. peter: they were not willing to acknowledge that this was turning into a real war. they feared the political applications of that. secretary dean ross in an interview i had with him said they worried that if you had declared censorship, it would implicate a wider involvement of

the american public in the war. of course they did not want it. politically it was not acceptable. so, really, how it worked out was that the kennedy administration and johnson attempted to influence media coverage in two ways. one was working with management back in the united states, whether it was television management, news management, trying to impress upon them the national interest in having positive news out of vietnam. then they sent barry and many other hundreds of information officials to saigon to try and talk to us about re-thinking the war in more positive terms. but the reality was that our management, the associated press management, the president, he wanted the facts -- there was a competitive story. he did not want us in the field deciding not to cover an event

simply because it did not look good for the government. he insisted that we have accurate, true coverage, and he wanted to have the responsibility of deciding what would go out to ap members. i think the networks did the same thing. margaret: did you experience that, david? any editors being signed in -- being summoned in washington because of what you were sending back home? david: by the time i got over there, american involvement was winding down. i found the military to be really cooperative about taking me out and wherever you wanted to go, it just hopped on an elevator and go. i think one thing that gets overlooked, if you look at talking about the policymakers thinking the press lost the war. we did not start it. we didn't finish it. and the politicians did a real dandy job of botching it up.

but we were able to get out in the field. and the soldiers in the field loved having us show up, because we were a lifeline to the outside world. it is not like today if you can pick up a cell phone, if you've seen "american sniper" and call your wife under fire. that kind of thing happens. we were really isolated. those soldiers had letters and that was it. they were always happy to see us. wondered why anybody who did not have to be there would be there. truly astonished buyback. bob: that is a great point. if you were willing to go out in the field, they were glad to see you. because for one thing, they were kind of lonesome. i've always said that the time i spent there, it was the most rewarding experience of my journalistic career, because i

went, they had just had the big buildup at the end of the year in 1965. the "fort worth star-telegram" had not sent a reporter overseas since world war ii. i was the first one to go. my job was to go and find kids from fort worth, texas, and write stories about them. they told me, you leave the strategic stories to the wire services and big newspapers. peter: thank you. [laughter] bob: we did. i would line up these letters that parents would write. then i would bum a ride on a helicopter and go out and see these kids. and not only were they glad to see me, but i'll never forget walking up to a marine. he had on his helmet, his weapon and all of that in full battle

gear and i said, your mom asked me to come see how you were. he broke out bawling. he was so happy. david: he said, "i knew she'd find me." [laughter] bob: it happened over and over again. the military, the guys, they were glad to see you. peter: i would like to add to that. the ap and upi, we cater to the -- to america's newspapers. the ap had 2000. upi hundreds. the story of any hometown mention or any interesting war story would be in the newspapers front page. , parents, sisters, brothers would clip that out, send it back to the unit. two weeks turnaround time. we kept going back to these units. they knew exactly what we were writing. they saw it in the local

newspaper. they were able to judge our intent and our ability to better understand what they were doing. my experience was exactly like yours, bob. the average soldier, the g.i.'s were happy to see us, wondering at the time, general westmoreland after the crisis or action in which 300 americans were killed in a very difficult and brutal assault by the communists, after the major battle had ended, he complained to us that our interviews with the soldiers were unacceptable. he said, "what does the average g.i. know about what is going on in the war?" as far as i was concerned, the average g.i.'s view was as important as the general's. bob: he knew about getting shot. he knew about people aiming. that is what he knew about.

i think it is a very important question that you posed. did the press somehow lose the war? my answer is no. what happened was we got involved in something we, most people at that time did not even know where vietnam was. you had to look it up on the map. it was much like my arrival. i always remember my first day arriving in saigon. i got off the airplane. you could fly there on a commercial airliner. margaret: which is pretty extraordinary. bob: i had an 80-pound suitcase. before they had wheels. i arrived in a wool suit because it was winter in fort worth. only to discover it was that

the seasons were reversed and it must have been 110 degrees. i sweated so much that i'll looked at my shoes and i sweated through the top of my leather shoes. that's how it was. i said to the cab to saigon. i made my way. and they gave me a room for the night until i could get you know figure out what it was all about. and they were very, very nice to me. i always thought my arrival there was like the u.s. involvement there. we went some place we weren't quite sure where we were going and once we got there and figured out what was going on, it was too late to just pull up stakes and go back home.

>> we weren't involved in strategic technical decisions but what we did was simply able going and porting and visiting locals and we were able to record certain important aspects of the war that historically were significant. did neil make it tonight? can you stand up? bob: he stayed on saigon time after he came back. he wrote that book. [applause] he did. there he is. peter: love them. welcome. early january in 1963, neil and other reporters, nick turner covered a battle in a little village. i went down with david, and a

couple of other reporters to cover it here it margaret: what year was this? peter: 1963. beyond your imagination. margaret: i think you were the only one on the panel who was actually there at that time. you went in 71, and by the arrived -- bob arrived in 65. peter: i'm the old guy. after that point, the war had not attracted much attention. you had an action in which a formidable force of south vietnamese troops and gone to a location where they believed there was a sizable existence -- sizable force, enemy force of viet cong, and they were going to clean the clock with the vc to prove their ability.

they sat down -- shot 40-70 south vietnamese, and we went down and the american advisers were complaining. it was a big story. we had a situation where you could see the war in microscopic view, that it wasn't working. i think that had a very significant story. now we move on, to the mel brown picture of the burning bob -- muck. it was more than that that perforated -- persuaded president kennedy to pull the plug. up to that time, most of his ambassadors have complained about the inability of ziem about the inability to cooperate or coordinate the policy. of kennedy, galbraith, they told the president it's not working.

when kennedy saw that picture in the washington post and said to henry cabot, go out there and make sure this doesn't happen again, the picture sparked his decision. it wasn't the picture, really that made him do it. i can go through other photos that came at a critical time. bob: but just to underline that we didn't understand what was happening, we didn't know what was going on. it was 1963 that secretary of defense mcnamara went over there and he said we will have this done by 1965. i got there in 1965, at the beginning of the buildup, by the next year there were 400,000 troops. we simply did not understand what we had gotten ourselves involved in. it was at that time, there was only one legitimate scholar.

a vietnamese whose discipline was the vietnam. in the united states. just one. peter: bernard paul? or someone else? bob: yes, and he was pretty much it. we just didn't know anything about this. by the time we found out about it, we were 400,000 troops in. margaret: you arrived and 65 with you being in the very and advisory combat role. david, i want to talk to you about when you went, and the really moved into when you came back to washington. you were telling me an extraordinary story about when you became the white house photographer. and you do think that perhaps the media became a little bit of an actor, at least had some in ruins of the oval office. -- some influence on the oval office. david: for sure, but the time i

got there they knew it was a bad idea. as president ford's white house photographer, had been in vietnam for over two years here it in early march of 1975, the north vietnamese came across into a place which is in the central highlands. essentially we are cutting the country in half. the president withdrew its troops from there. it was a debacle. all of a sudden -- i had a top-secret clearance, i was at all the meetings. nobody knew or could figure out what to do about this. the bottom line is they turned it all over to the vietnamese. they were instantly losing the biggest battle of what turned out to be the end of vietnam. the president said to a general, he was the general in charge of

saigon area, to see if there's anything that could be done to secure saigon. i went along with him at the president's insistence, he wanted my view. i brought him back photos i had taken. i went up north to dinning -- denang, which had been falling. i took for -- photos of a ship they had commandeered of escaping south vietnamese troops. thousands of them on this vessel. then i went over to cambodia, and took pictures there right before it fell. i was given a top-secret briefing. the ambassador showed me this map. there were red arrows pointing everywhere. i thought, this is not going to last very long. one week and a half later, it

fell to the khmer rouge. you know what happened after that. but i went back and showed the pictures to the president, and made a case to him about -- i told him i thought vietnam had three or three and a half weeks left. he wrote this in his book. i never would have said anything about it if he had not written this. i'm quoting what he said, i said that if -- i told him i thought vietnam had three or four weeks left and anybody who told you differently was full of bull. three and a half weeks later it fell actually. you can see it all happening. but most important me, he was taken with what was going on with the vietnamese people, and left the door open for more vietnamese to get out on -- from

a lot of other people. the power of photography was someone coming in and showing the president of the united states and this is what is going on. it made a big impact on top of everything else. margaret: and you hung some of those in the hallway? peter: in the white house, for any of you who have been in the west wing, it usually a lot of cheery photos, and president that dances and whatever. i put up all those pictures from cambodia from people dying from refugees leaving, all through the west wing. the next morning, some staffer had taken them down. that president got so mad, he issued a directive that all the pictures be put back up. he said, you have to know what's going on over there. he was affected by the whole situation. it affected everybody. bob: peter, when did it come to

you that this war was not winnable? peter: it was very clear in 1965. that is when the south vietnamese lost the first war. after all of the coups, it wasn't the discussion of the south vietnamese army was continuing at a very rapid rate. even the optimistic general was saying, openly, if we don't somehow get our our act together, this country will fall to the communist in a few months. if it hadn't been for the insertion of half a million american troops, you would have seen the fall of saigon in 1965 or 66. i don't think there's any doubt about it. this was delayed 10 years because the american effort

lasted primarily, the three biggest years, resulted really in stalemate. the u.s. was unable to shift the north vietnamese from their determination to move into the south and when the war. -- win the war. it was the final 75 action, it came when the united states -- even though the president over there was under the impression that u.s. would come to their aid, the u.s. did not come in. that is when the second and final loss of south vietnam occurred in 75. it was tragic at many levels. it did occur for those reasons. bob: well, i was -- i came from texas. i was very hawkish. lyndon johnson was our president. by that time. we were all proud of him. i went taking this was

absolutely the right thing to do. -- thinking this was absolutely the right thing to do. but six weeks after i was there, i was with the marines. we were going across an open field. there was a tree line 300 yards away. we were told that the vietcong were over there. this was going to be a surprise deal. a broad -- they brought a company of south vietnamese soldiers to go across with us. we got ready to move out and they wouldn't go. they said no. we are not going to go. but we didn't understand then, is beef people had been fighting a war for 20 years. they had a very corrupt army, it was very poorly organized. maybe they had a good reason not to go. but for whatever the reason, they would not go. i remember saying to myself, we

can help here. but we can't do this for them. we've got to be the ones that help them do it. if they are not willing to go across the field, there's not much we can do. peter: and then general request marlon decided we could do it -- general westmoreland decided we could do it. because he committed troops in the mountains and that south vietnamese military were not invited in the mountain fighting. that is where it was fought tooth and nail. most of the 58,000 american troops -- david: but you know bob: but you know, i was 27 years old and i wasn't the smartest. it was hard to come to the conclusion, why did they not come to understand that back in washington? and they kept trying and trying different things, and different techniques. but it just wasn't to be. we could still be there if we wanted to be there. i don't know what it would prove, if we were. but it just never was going to work.

margaret: peter, i want to bring up a story share. in some ways we have been talking about puncturing the bubble in washington in terms of reality on the ground and what gets transmitted back to the decision-makers. you were telling me a story about, i believe it was some severe casualty sufferers and 65. you reported on a marine landing, it gets published. ap gets a call and they complain about your story. and then the general denied it happened at all. which was totally incorrect. peter: this wasn't so unusual. but this was an extraordinary case. it was an operation stalemate south of a developing american marine base. the marines came in at this area to sort of moved out the vc from along the coastal villages.

i just by sheer accident got there. because the marines in denning where most of the past had taken them, to just make sure they weren't around in this major operation, it was a deceptive move. i had heard about this operation in saigon, to get there and in a helicopter, with 10, about that same age. we were on the helicopter and it was loaded with gasoline. the pilot told us, he was looking to resupply whoever needs the gasoline. we noticed the low as, about eight or 10 amphibious armored vehicles in a paddy field. they were stationary, but some of them were smoking and burning. the pilot decided to go down. he says, they probably need resupply.

when we landed, out of the brush come these american marines carrying wounded. they put several in the helicopter. it took off and they welcomed page and i to join them. this is a unit of supply column that had come through the paddy fields and got bumped into a ditch. the vietcong attacked, knocked out 80% of the vehicles, the surviving marines concealed themselves. and one pulled the hatch down and our arrival persuaded them to get up and bring the wood into the helicopter. we photographed it, the marines in the water, lying beside vehicles. it was a tragic scene. later that day, i got a helicopter out and flew down to saigon, wrote the story, developed pictures, and i had eight or 10 really dramatic and cruel pictures.

the story got a lot of used in many newspapers. it was an early american example of what they were facing in vietnam in terms of the terrain, the ability of the other side to launch surprise attacks. in saigon, the marine briefer denied that it had taken place. that it was a figment of the imagination of the ap. margaret: but you have photos. peter: they said it didn't happen. general wallace called apn complained. and he said this is rubbish, what are your people doing out there? gallagher brush off because he could see clearly what was going on.

the accuracy of the reporting. he kept complaining, and they eventually invited him to new york to the ap headquarters, showed him the pictures and the story, and he conceded, " well, maybe something like that did happen." and it came to undermine what were really accurate accounts of what was happening. margaret: one of the things that is interesting to me, bob, you are in such a different role since you are there as a local reporter. you are telling the personal stories and getting those back home. the idea that you could just hit a ride to the front lines. and that you could just approach rank and file, it's pretty extraordinary in this day and age. when you look at war reporting now, whether it is combat zones people are deployed in, or just the pentagon having learned its lesson perhaps.

what do you think was so different then? was it just censorship? bob: part of it was we were just in a different age. there was no such thing as pr people at police departments, or public relations. i dealt with the cops. i was worrying snap brim hat so i would look like dick tracy. [laughter] people wanted to think i was a cop, i didn't tell the many different. you get really good quotes that way. this was also before tape recorders were widely used. but there was just a different relationship between the press and everybody in those days. when i first came to washington, in 1969, most members of congress did not even have a secretary's.

now even the lowliest subcommittee chairman has a media coach and all that kind of stuff. we didn't have all of that back in those days. i think that was just -- margaret: it was easier to get closer to the truth. bob: yes, because you are dealing directly with your sources. in vietnam, as i said, if you were willing to go out and share the war with these people, they took you write in and looked out for you. and were very very honest. in their dealings with you. i've met some great people. when those people all came home, they were spit on, they were abused, and they weren't welcome back. because by then most of the people had turned against the war. margaret: and that has changed too, no? bob: it has.

i think we thank people for their service and appreciate the soldiers, not the ones who make the policies. but we had the draft in those days. and now we don't. i think one of the bad things that has come out of vietnam in a funny way, is because now we are the all volunteer army. which is a great army. the militaries in this community and that civilian population is over here. many times now, a lot of people don't know a single person who's in the military. that wasn't the case in the early days of the draft. margaret: peter, you have been to war zones since vietnam. you have covered conflicts since them. what changed for you operationally? do you think it was a result of the media, and the coverage of vietnam? or was it just evolution. even the policeman did not have pr people back then. congressman didn't. peter: what is intriguing about seeing the vietnam exhibition

downstairs, it's a marvelous representation of what was going on at that point. not only the photographs that our colleagues were taking david, and eddie adams, but also the pictures of the journalists. we are all in that exhibition. bob, you with a helmet pulled over your eyes. that thing is, you will never see that again. you will never see that anywhere in the world today. journalists are not -- even when they are embedded with the military in iraq, which i was a few times, or in afghanistan they don't dress like the way we did in vietnam. they don't -- they are not encouraged to identify so totally with the soldiers. in fact, the embedding system,

there is a wall. the eight-page instruction sheet you have to sign requires that you have an officer always with you when you have any kind of interview that interviews with ordinary soldiers have to be approved. access to any action area is controlled by the military people themselves. you don't see any pictures of dead americans out of afghanistan or iraq. even wounded americans. any other war zone, unless there has been special availability or leaked information. or in the case of the ap, actually fighting for three months to publish a picture of a marine reportedly dying. it took a long time for the ap to finally make that decision. there were -- that was routine in vietnam. you are not going to get that.

does that coverage help win the war? the embedding in iraq, did that help us achieve? i don't think so. did the embedding in afghanistan help american military proceed with a winning policy? no. the one case i often give, as i said in the soviet union, in their war in afghanistan, there was total control of the media. everything was censored in the russian media. i was taken at least one trip, with cnn, to the battle zone with russian troops. we were closeted and fed champagne on a frequent basis to avoid seeing the reality. that total censorship, did it allow russia to win the war in afghanistan? of course not. it lost.

you would wonder if -- the kind of controls that the u.s. government has been opposing for years now, is really going to be beneficial to the military operation. i think contrary to that, the american public is led outside. they are confused, they are not clear with the militaries doing. you don't have person very -- personal stories. the things i was writing and bob was writing, the public is not deemed connected to what american troops are dying bravely for. that is a pity. margaret: i want to come to you on another question, but i want to tell all of you, if you do have questions for the panelists, there are two microphones. one here and one here at the side of the stage. if you want to start thinking, i will go to questions now. but let david rap us up here. i want a continuation of peter's thoughts. you said to me on the phone that

there is also something perhaps unique about the conflict now that is very different than what it was like in vietnam. you could have an apartment, be living in vietnam, and then go to the frontline and come back. david: that's a really good point. i had an apartment in saigon. when you get back to saigon, it was like getting back home. he had french restaurants, lots of liquor. it was a great time for a young correspondent photographer. peter: don't look at me, i was married at the time. david: i think it was adventure. a lot of times your colleagues did not come back. i had friends who were killed out there. but we were all doing it on our own. nobody was making us do it. it was like being a draftee.

you didn't want to be their guaranteed if you were in the army, unless you are a lighter and wanted to do it -- lifer and wanted to do it. one point about the difference, soldiers are afraid to talk to the press now. i have been in afghanistan and iraq. hanging out with soldiers, it's the same people. young men and women. but they are afraid of being perceived as talking to the press, as if they could get in trouble. it is really too bad. the press is definitely not their enemy. we want to tell the story. knowing what they are going through. art of telling the story with showing pictures of dead bodies, of their fighting and dying. when the people come back in boxes, how did they get that way? it wasn't a tidy affair. photographers have a responsibility to try to get those entries -- pictures, you have a responsibility to write the stories, and it has been really tough now.

-- by the government now. bob: let me just add onto that i have often thought of this. people saw "the longest day," the movie about the day. the people who saw "saving private ryan," which showed the war as it really was, they are not so sure they wanted to be a part of it. just what you are saying is exactly right. you have to show the bad side for people to understand how bad things really are. you can use, you know, we don't show beheadings on television, but you have to give people a sense of what it was really like them to understand the sacrifice that these people had. margaret: i have to get to these questions too, talking about responsibilities. david: i recognize two of those people there.

>> for the last five minutes you've been describing government censorship. it's clear modern journalist do not have the id. you had a couple decades ago. how much responsibility do news media commeck tiffs -- executives do they bare and not more aggressively pursuing the people's right to know? margaret: who wants to take that? david: i'm a freelancer. i don't have a boss. margaret: the context of a media environment has dramatically changed. bob: he raises a very good question. but you just have to keep at it. but you know, where we are now

the mainstream media sort of follows one set of standards but we are no bombarded with information from so many places. but it's hard to say -- the question you have to ask now is what is a journalist? when i was coming up, anybody who had a barrel of ink and a printing press, you are a publisher. now everybody's a public -- publisher. it goes beyond the people who run these big companies. are they pushing hard enough? it's almost more complicated than that right now. what i think you raise an excellent point. margaret: it's harder to be an advocate, do you think? bob: it's harder to lay out the rules of the road. what are the rules? there is some kid that lives in his mother's basement, who gets an idea that comes to him in the

night, and he sits down at his computer and he puts it out and suddenly, it's everywhere. does he have the same right as the folk sitting here, the people who represent news organizations? he certainly not going by the same rules that we follow. one of the rules in the mainstream media that we follow is we don't print or broadcast things unless we have made some effort to check it out and find out if it is the truth. the whole environment, the whole landscape is totally different. david: that's a great point. your colleague sums it up best he felt the same way about citizen journalists is the same way he felt about citizen surgeons. [laughter] i don't know how you can say it better than that. i've had so much discussion about it.

and his point, as long as you have the new york times, the washington post, cbs, all the responsible news organizations we have a certain ethical standard of professional level that we rise up to. photographers are not putting things into euros or taking them out. you get fired by any wire service or newspaper for manipulation, and in the day where you can do that -- i'm an old dog who has learned new digital trick. i can do that. but i don't do it. the integrity is what is important. it's the person behind the lens and the person writing the story. peter: one little point. you have this fast social -- you have this vast social network of information. i feel i'm an average start of guy. i'm in retirement in southern california and i get up in the morning at the same time. i look at the post, and the l.a. times, real newspaper.

and ink over my fingers, i love it. why go through social media and spent three hours looking at all this information? no, i don't. i just wonder what the american public is really tuned in to the chatter that is going on, or is it picked up -- the mainstream media i think has a responsibility. they have to try to check it out and be more responsible. -- for you know, polishing a lot of this stuff. but the mainstream media is going very significant element in public information. i think -- i hope it remains that way. margaret: absolutely. i think in the conflict you see now, particularly in places like syria and iraq where you don't often have journalists on the ground, social media outlets are often the source for people who are there to get information out. you have that interesting role

as a citizen journalist, sometimes being the only journalist in some of these places. it is a very unique thing. when you like to ask a question? >> i had a question. i'm glad to hear you say that you like having your fingers dirty on the ink. my parents had a printing business. i love holding a newspaper. thank you for spending time with our friend griffin in vietnam a couple of weeks ago. let me ask david a question. we talk about photography sometimes, and you have that iphone picture of the vietnam wall, which we have all visited. i agree with you we should go there often.

but you take that picture, you can have it distributed worldwide in a matter of seconds if you wanted. from your iphone. when you were there, you are shooting a film, 20 shots a role or 36 shots overall, and you had it send it somewhere else. i'm one who feels that the photograph, with all due respect to my friends who write long story, the photograph is what gets you the most. it's hard to remember what was written all about the hindenburg when it crashed, but everybody remembers the iconic autograph. who were the people who raised the flag in iwo jima? you don't know but you remember the photograph. what did you feel when you are there taking photographs, that you wouldn't be seeing for several days? how did you make this election?

-- selection? david: what thing was, i could never look at the back of my cameron's you what i shot. the way we did it was we would ship the film down. reporters would carry the film. photographers had to be there. the best reporters i worked with were out there with me in the field. the greatest combination was peter arnett, eddie adams, people like that. the film would get developed in saigon and it may take a day or two to get to europe or the dnc somewhere. and then to get stuff out quickly, there were two times a day you could radio a photo out of saigon. three or four or five pictures. you had a day or two lines. a lot of times, the film would

just the underdog and sent to tokyo. but that's just the way it was. i didn't make a phone call out of vietnam for a year. >> the reason i ask, you had to figure out what was worthwhile. bob schieffer, who i assume he works hard on his commentaries, but you might spend a day or two. [laughter] so pat worked very hard, but during that time when you're writing it, it's breaking news, breaking news. somebody heard something and you have to get it on the news immediately. but it may be wrong. and nobody is taking allowed to do it. but photographs may influence a great deal. they may be two days later. where we better off than?

david: i think so. i mean the fact is you will not see them until you see them. a lot of people seem to remember that they were watching stuff on television, right when it happened. but that is not the case. it took longer to get the film processed and sent up to tokyo and sent out of there. i really miss the days where you can get on an airplane and spend 12 hours going to hong kong and have nobody get a hold of you. now that is going away. >> i wish we had that in the senate. thank you. margaret: this side of the room. >> how did the news that was coming back to the united states about the progress -- protest of pentagon papers, lbj not running for reelection -- how did that affect the troops on the ground and you guys? bob: it had really started when i was there.

but peter can talk about that and stated can. -- david can. how did the news of the protests and demonstrations back home, how did that affect the troops? >> plus the pentagon papers, lbj not running for reelection. peter: the pentagon papers that were brought to life, that was made in the game. at that point, many american troops were on the way home. those that remained were anxious to get home. the earlier protests, i am not in a position to really evaluate it. i was out often with the soldiers, and their primary interest was recently surviving the day. are getting through with the mission. -- or getting through with the mission. i get the feeling that letters from home did not dwell on the protests too much. the folks at home and those

close to them, they wanted to be supportive. and certainly armed forces media did not talk about protests to any great degree. as far as the newspaper, think there was a degree of a concern, not about the more i love soldiers, but there was not that much interest because their main preoccupation was getting through the day and trying to win this war. david: and i think, because i was in washington --bob: i think, because i was in washington, i think it was when they came home. the shock they felt when it was not appreciated. that was the really tragic part of it. peter: 51969 -- by 1969, the picture was changing in the united states, because the

withdrawal was being done, and the soldiers being brought in were saying, why am i here? am i going to be the last person to die? we had a unit that refused to fright -- fight. there were the officers who were deemed too aggressive. more i'll began to collapse pretty quickly. -- morale began to collapse pretty quickly. that was some degree that protests were common. bob: and you are also beginning to see the increased use of drugs by the troops. when i was there, among the troops it was almost nonexistent. peter: actually the first two years, i remember sitting down with 25 soldiers with the first division. i think of was december 1965.

i did a round-robin conversation. every one of them was a committed professional, they believed in the cause, they griped about minor things like there's not enough ice cream flavors. which was a genuine complaint by many troops. it was basically -- the morale started to decline as the professionals were phasing out and the professional leadership was being killed. whole class is from west point were dying. margaret: i want to get another question from this side. >> this is a question going back to the idea of a turning point. i'm the principle historian of the vietnam war for the army and i'm writing a book about combat operations in 68. that is my specialty.

i get this question a lot, did the media lose the war are did we turn our backs because of the reporting? but in particular, one thing comes up in my conversations with people. it is walter cronkite. when he made his famous declaration, after having gone and seeing the devastation, and coming back and saying, i'm just not sure that this is a war we can win. i had many people in my facebook group and other places say, that was for them the turning point. i'm wondering if you have thoughts or comments on walter cronkite's. bob: i know little something about that. it certainly was a turning point for lyndon johnson. johnson did not, contrary to what a lot of historians have written, johnson did not see

that documentary were walter made the statement. but his press secretary did. and he came in the next morning and briefed johnson on what walker had said. johnson said, if i have what -- lost walter cronkite, i've lost the american people. he had a complete change of mind. he was being pressed for more troops, he decided, he finally concluded it was not going to work. i talked to george christian about it. i knew him well, and when i wrote a book, i interviewed him for it. he said it had a tremendous impact on johnson. margaret: and that was 1968. bob: yes. and the military claimed they had one. margaret: you are being photographed at the moment. bob: is that right?

[laughter] it was such a surprise to the american people that all of a sudden, they were everywhere. they climbed the wall of the american embassy there. it really did take them by surprise. peter: there was a famous quote from colonel summers, out of hanoi, he said to a vietnamese colonel, he said, you have to understand we believe we have won every battle we thought -- pot. and the vietnamese said maybe, but it's irrelevant. it was a political war from the

beginning. and it ended as a political war. even though it was a violent ending and a brutal ending. but it was a political environment, the whole situation. margaret: i wanted at least one more question in. >> thank you. i was just curious, how did vietnam in your coverage there how did that impact your journalism subsequent to vietnam? were you more discerning, how do you deal with sources? how did that whole experience in effect tailor your couriers post vietnam -- careers post vietnam? david: when i got back from vietnam, watergate had just started. it was ongoing. to me, as a journalist and photographer, the end of vietnam was coming along in terms of my interest in it and everything

was ramping up in the united states. i'm one of the really lucky people who put vietnam in the rearview mirror. i was there for a little over two years. and being the only source of my thoughts over the years, i have friends that had a really hard time getting out of there mentally. for me, it just made me a better journalist. i was more sympathetic to people. but the one thing for sure, i never lost track of why i went over there. and what i did when i came back as a professional photographer. i was brought up -- next year will be my 50th year as a professional photographer. i know i don't look like it. peter: you're just a baby. since i was 18, in the old-fashioned days when bob and peter started out, it was

drummed into me about being objective and telling a story to be honest and accurate. i never lost any of that. so vietnam changed me to the degree that i grew up a little bit. anybody who knows me knows, not entirely. but i think i became more serious about what was happening to people in the world. and i'm really glad i do what i do. i think it enhanced that to a degree. peter: i would like to give a quick two-part answer. first of all news management at that time, they were really irresponsible. and not acknowledging the fact that journalists were being sent to vietnam in large numbers were facing a version of post-traumatic stress. no consideration at all. not in the associated press, not the united. press .

i know a few cases that journalists that have lead to depression. what we saw in vietnam, the brutality, and the movement we had to go around to be in villages were overwhelming. to some degree, the fact that we could write about them or photograph them was sort of a justified way of being there. but it was only in the later years like in the 80's, that cnn and abc started -- bbc started considering the mental health of journalists they were sending into the middle east and elsewhere. so to that degree, i think it took a long time for the news management to look at us as some kind of superman and women whereas the soldiers of the veteran administration were administrating to their needs justifiably.

the other part, vietnam gave earth to a new generation of journalists. bob schieffer here, david kennelly, and so many others here that i can't see. a new generation of journalists, and a new attitude about the believe in open society and the value of actually risking your life to find the truth, and to get to the essence of the story, to challenge government at any level. we believed it was important for our public to see it. that was a great plus. for 30 years, the generation of at least, 30 years, the generation of journalists and all the great television personalities, rather and in addition to bob and all the others, a big influence on american life. i think that has been great for journalism.

bob: you know, i -- the war had a prow found impact on my life and my thoughts about war. number one, being you really need to be sure of what you are doing before you send young men out to risk their lives. while the historians have the luxury of debating for years and politicians have the luxury of debating whether it was right or wrong, those who died remain dead. and those who lost limbs, the limbs don't grow back. i always think about when we talk about becoming involved in any kind of armed conflict, which obviously is going to be necessary sometimes, but we have to be very careful to understand what it is we are sending these young people to do. before we send them. [applause]

margaret: i think all of you have given us a lot to think about. there are more questions that i know all of you want to see what we have all been talking about up here. and to see the exhibit. i want to thank everyone for coming, and the three of you for sharing your stories. thank you. bob: thank you all. peter: thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> to join the conversation like us on facebook at c-spanhistory. all weekend long, american history tv is joining our time warner cable partners to showcase t