history you're watching american history tv. all weekend, every weekend on c-span 3. >> coming up next on american history tv, veteran journalists bob schieffer, peter arnett, and david hume kennerly speaking at the museum for the opening of the exhibit "reporting vietnam." all three travel 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 as 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 in their for years and i was ready to roll. as a war correspondent. >> 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 ever did in all my years in journalism because this would brighten up their day that someone from their hometown would look them up. >> my best pictures were not on the periphery of the fighting but 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 in the beginning. when i got back, i was convinced the war, whatever our good intentions, 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 that conflict and others all my life. ♪ [applause] peter: good evening, everyone. i am peter prichard ceo 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 museum please consider becoming one. there's a lot to do here and 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 "reporting vietnam," -- the newseum will open "reporting vietnam," 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 in my view, was a toxic combination of a high casualty war universal construction -- construction, 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," the number one sunday rated show for the past 24 years and his final program will air on 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 covered in 1966 and later had a long career at cnn. photographer david hume 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 ford's personal photographer. conjure booting 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. market joined cbs in 2012 and served 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 drafty, a specialist five, an intelligence clerk, so to speak, although i did not think we gathered much -- in a town on them -- on the mekong 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 just take a moment to recognize you. first, are there any journalists in the room 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 yourselves. there we go. [laughter] [applause] fantastic.

well, thank you. and we thank you all for your professionalism and your service and your sacrifice in whatever your capacity was in what was often quite an unpopular cause. tonight is just the first of many programs the newseum will host about vietnam. over the next 16 months, we will explore how women reporters covered the war, how 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, david rhodes. [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. [laughter] 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 angered it for all of those 60 -- anchored it for all of those 60 years but a lot of them. and he is handing over to john dickerson after this month. bob is not just the face of "face the nation," he 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 or most divided or most difficult in our nations 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 for that reason. but tonya and her mother francoise 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 values that he came to represent over a career telling the world about events like those he saw in vietnam over 40 years ago. that is why when the newseum approached john orlando about support for this exhibit, from our ceo, leslie moonves, down through the whole management team, everyone thought it would be most appropriate to do so in honor of our late colleague, 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. but we are very grateful for cbs' support. like david, we agree this is a very 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 a bit intimidated by the names sitting next to me. if there is one thing journalists love it is a great story. i have to say i had so much fun and enjoyed 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 have raised to you. almost an accusation. did the media lose the war in vietnam? was it a factor? and in many ways, that gives us the concept of media not being observers but somehow being actors in this particular conflict. i think that is a really interesting idea. david you said to me on the phone, "for many people television brought the war into their living rooms." but it was, in your opinion, still photography that really affected their hearts. your craft. i know you had images you wanted to share with us. what really, 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] i -- 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. on iwo jima. this is a photograph everyone is seen. 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 he wanted 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 really for every possible way. , but 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. and this picture of kim phuc 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 is somebody in the room who took one of the greatest pictures of vietnam that should've won the pulitzer prize. if i were on the jury, i would have given it to him. frank johnson took this picture. it was called "peace church." frank, stand up, please. [applause] again, the gentleman in the photograph is mike tripp 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 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. the pictures are history. it is a historic 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 wall, 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 said it in the video, but it was the biggest story of my lifetime. i was the class photographer for 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 those images, people have a visceral reaction when they see them. i want to bring up another image here that might surprise some of you. it did when i saw it. do you recognize the two men in that photo? and the one that the gun is pointed out, came a point that out? you have servicemen military , police pointing a gun at bob schieffer here. in the other gentleman is peter arnett. tell me about this photo 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. bob: here is what happened.

that photo was taken by eddie adams, who took the great photo. we were in saigon and this was 1966. we had gone out to cover this riot. the buddhists were rioting and this american mp said we could not do it. we set of corsican, you cannot stop us from going. the guy then pulled out his weapon. and eddie adams' camera went up, "ok, buddy, you pull your weapon out, you use it." i said, "eddie, he's pointing it at me." eddie said, "i was pretty sure he was bluffing." [laughter] peter: and it was much more graphic than that. eddie said, "shoot him. it will be a better picture." true story. bob: i hope that picture in my office, too. but -- [laughter] peter: let me explain it a little. the american mp's did not have

jurisdiction in saigon during the war. that was the purview, the control of the south vietnamese. so 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 photo 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. secretary of state dean ruskin says he does not want to see a picture like that again in the newspapers. and he says, "however, we are going to go ahead and charge you 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 though 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.

after a while, you would figure out how to get there. david: most of the time we did. peter: the reason would there was no censorship it 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 here 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 invocations of that. secretary of state dean ruskin in an interview i had with him after the war, 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 or incident 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 kind of editors being summoned in washington because of what you were sending back home? david: by the time i got over there, american involvement was really winding down. i found the military to be really cooperative about taking me out and wherever you wanted to go. you just can't on a -- you just hop on a helicopter 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 kind of a lifeline to the outside world. it is not like today, where you can pick up a cell phone, if you've seen "american sniper," and call your wife while under fire. quite frankly, that sort of thing happened. we were really isolated. those soldiers, only a went in -- they just had letters. they were always happy to see us. wondered why anybody who did not have to be there would be there. 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 mean, 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 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 and all of that to the wire services and the big newspapers. peter: thank you. [laughter] bob: we did. i would just line up these letters that parents would write to me. 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 one you would walk up -- i'll never forget walking up to a marine. 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 just broke up 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 america's newspapers. the ap had 2000. upi hundreds. the story of any hometown mentioned or any interesting war story would be in the newspaper's 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. the first calvary division, the marines and others. they knew exactly what we were writing. they saw it in the local newspaper.

there 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 always 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 ordinary soldiers were unacceptable. he said, "what does the average g.i. know about what is going on in this war?" he does not understand the big picture. 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 pose in the beginning, margaret. did the press somehow lose the war? my answer is no. the press did not lose the war. what happened was we got involved in something we, most people at that time did not even know where vietnam was. you had to go 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 find their own commercial a commercial airline. margaret: which is pretty extraordinary. bob: so i got off. i had an 80 pound suitcase in the time before suitcases had wheels. it was winter in fort worth. so i arrived wearing a wool suit, only did discover the seasons are reversed and it must

have been 110 degrees. i looked at my shoes and i sweated through the top of my leather shoes. that's how it was. i said to the cabdriver take me , to saigon. to which he responded, "you're in saigon." i came all the way and i couldn't find the war. i did not know where it was. my arrival there, by nightfall i made my way to the ap office where peter was, and they gave me a room for the night until i could figure out what it was all about. they were very nice to me. i always thought my arrival there was very much like the u.s. involvement there. we went someplace, 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. peter: i would like to quickly address this idea that the press lost the war. the photographs of the stories we did not have any weapons, we did not have any troops.

we weren't involved in strategic tactical decisions. but what we did, simply by going out and reporting and visiting locales and talking to people, we were able to record important aspects of the war that historically were significant. is new out here, did he make it tonight? can you stand up? maybe he did not. bob: he stayed on saigon time after he came back. he wrote that book. [applause] >> there. >> there he is. [applause] peter: welcome, neil. welcome. early january in 1963, neil and some other reporters, nick turner, covered a battle in a

little village called ap bac. i went down with david, and a couple of other reporters to cover it. margaret: what year was this? peter: 1963. it seems beyond your imagination. [laughter] margaret: i think you were the only one on the panel who was actually there at that time. which is also why i point that out. i think he went in 1971, and bob, you arrived in -- bob: 1965. peter: i'm the old guy. at that point, the vietnam war had not attracted much attention. but 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 really clean the clock with the vc to prove their ability. they get to ap bac, a result in

half a dozen american chopper shot down 40 to 70 south vietnamese killed 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 of it, that it wasn't working. that was a very significant story, i think. we move on to mel brown's picture of the burning monk. it was more than the picture -- that picture that persuaded president kennedy to pull the plug. up to that time, most of his ambassadors of the inability of diem to cooperate or coordinate the policy. close friends of kennedy they

had been to vietnam, they went back and told the president it's not working. when kennedy saw that picture in the "washington post" and said to henry cabot lodge, just appointed ambassador, go out there and make sure this doesn't happen again, the picture sparked his decision. but it was not 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. we will have every american out of there. 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. there was, at that time, there was only one legitimate scholar.

a vietnamese whose discipline , his area, was vietnam in the united states. just one. peter: bernard paul? you talking about? 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 in 1965 with that search, the marines moving from an advisory role into a combat role. david, i want to talk to you about when you went in 1970 and the role you moved into when you came back to washington. you were telling me an extraordinary story about when you became the white house photographer. and that you do think, that perhaps the media became a little bit of an actor, at least had some some influence on the oval office. david: one thing was for sure,

by the time i got there they , knew it was a bad idea. [laughter] 1971. as president ford's white house photographer i had been in the amount for over two years. in early march of 1975, the north vietnamese came across into a place which is in the central highlands. essentially, they were 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. president ford said say -- sent

to general y and, who he you knew back to saigon. 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 -- he wanted my view of it. i brought him back photos i have taken. i want up north in da trang trying to get to da nang, which had by then fallen. i took photos of a sugar have been commandeered by 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 where i walked into the tech center. and visual nevus map. phnom penh was there and had red arrows point to every part of it. i thought, this is not going to last very long. one week and a half later, it

fell to the khmer rouge. if you saw the killing fields, 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 said -- i am quoting what he said, i said. i said that it is -- i told him i thought vietnam had three or four weeks left and anybody who told you differently was full of bull. -- bullshitting you. three and a half weeks later it fell, actually. you can see it all happening. but most importantly he was , taken with what was going on with the vietnamese people, and really left the door open for morbidities to get out there and government officials wanted.

they wanted americans to get out. the power of photography was someone coming in and showing the president of the united states this is what is going on. it made a big impact, on top of everything else he was hearing. margaret: and you hung some of those in the hallway? david: in the white house, for energy weapon in the west wing it is usually a lot of cheery photos and presidential 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. the president got so mad, he issued a directive that all the pictures be put back up. and said you have to know what is going on over there. he was affected by the whole situation. it affected everybody. in this room, really ultimately. bob: peter, when did you -- when

did 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 the ngo dinh diem coos, it was the destruction of the south vietnamese army was continuing at a very rapid rate. even optimistic general william c west wireline -- c. westmoreland was saying, openly, if we don't somehow get our our act together, this country will fall to the communistsin 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 1966. 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 win the war. it was the final 1975 action came when the united states -- even though the president and other government officials were under the impression that the 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 1975. it was tragic at many levels. it did occur for those reasons. bob: well, i was -- i came from texas. i was very hawkish. i was very jingoistic about this. lyndon johnson was our president. by that time. we were all out of him in texas. i went thinking this was

absolutely the right thing to do. but six weeks after i was there, i was out on an operation with the marines and we were going to cross this open field. there was a tree line 300 yards away. we were told their vietcong or whatever they were were over there in the tree line and this was going to be a surprise deal. 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. what we did not understand then if these people had been fighting a war for what, 20 years, here. 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 that field there's not , much we can do. peter: then general westmoreland decided we could do it. he committed troops to go against the nva in the mountains and the 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 -- bob: but you know, i was 27 years old by that time, and i was not the smartest person in the world, but it was pretty hard not to come to the conclusion that i did then. why never understood is why did they not come to understand that back in washington? 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, that we would still be there. but it just never was going to work.

margaret: peter, i want to bring up a story you share. in some ways, we have been talking about puncturing the bubble in washington in terms of reality on the ground and what actually gets transmitted back to the decision-makers. you were telling me a story about, i believe it was some severe casualty sufferers. in 1965, your reported on marines in an amphibious landing. against published in washington. ap gets a call and they complain about your story. and i believe the generals that it did not happen at all. that it was totally incorrect. peter: this wasn't so unusual. but this was an extraordinary case. it was called operation starlite south of a developing american marine base in the middle of august, 1965. the marines came in and in this area to sort of mood out the vc

from a long these coastal villages. i just, by sheer accident, got there. marines in da nang were most of the press had been taken -- they were taken to hue it was a deceptive move. i had heard about this operation in saigon. i decided to get there with helicopter. we were on the helicopter and it was loaded with gasoline drums. the pilot told us, he was looking to resupply whoever needs the gasoline. we noticed a little us about eight or 10 amphibious armored vehicles in a paddy field. they were stationary, but some of them were smoking and burning. so 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. put several in the helicopter. the helicopter took off and they welcomed paige and i to join them. this is a unit, a supply column, that had come through the paddy fields and got bogged down in a ditch. the vietcong attacked, knocked out 80% of the vehicles, the surviving marines concealed themselves. one pulled a hatch down and our arrival persuaded them to get up and bring the wounded 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, flew down to saigon, wrote the story, developed the pictures -- my colleagues said eight or 10 --

really dramatic and cruel pictures. the story got a lot of use 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 associated press. i went in the following day -- margaret: you have donors. peter: they said it didn't happen. general was green, the commander at that point, called the ap and complained. and he said this is rubbish, what are your people doing out there? gallagher brushed off because he could see clearly what was going on. the accuracy of the reporting. green cap complaining to

visiting newspaper people. 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." something similar did. not only in our stories the other stores in the course of the war and it came to undermine what were really accurate accounts of what was happening. margaret: one of the things that is interesting to me is 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 hitch a ride to the front lines. and that you could just approach rank and file, it's pretty extraordinary in this day and age. if you look at war reporting now , whether it is a combat zone people are deployed in, or just the pentagon having learned its lesson, perhaps, of having

photos unfavorably published. what do you think was so different then? was it just censorship? was it just people, because they were? bob: part of it was we were just in a different age. i have been a police reporter at the newspaper, there was no such thing as pr people at police departments, or public relations. i dealt with the cops. i always wore a 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 -- them any different. you get really good quotes that way, i would add. 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 press secretary.

now, 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 -- right in, looked out for you, and were very, very honest in their dealings with you. i've met some great people. the sad thing about all that -- peter: sorry, trying to interrupt the anchor. [laughter] bob: gosh, 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 do thank people for their service and appreciate the soldiers, not the ones who make the policies. but you know, we had a draft in those days. and now we don't. i think kind of one of the bad things that has, out of vietnam in a funny way, is because now we have an all volunteer army, which is a great army, the military 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 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? as bob said, 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 the exhibition. bob, you with a helmet pulled over your eyes. the thing is you will never see , that again. or you will never see that anywhere in the world today. because journalists are not -- even when they are embedded with the military in iraq, which i was a few times in the mid to thousands, 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 that you have to sign when your embedded 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. that 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. out of afghanistan or iraq. or any other war zone where they are 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 purportedly dying. it took a long time for the ap to finally make that decision. they were routine in vietnam. you are not going to get that. does that coverage help win the

war? the embedding in iraq, did that help america achieve its goals in iraq? 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 the late 1980's, in their war in afghanistan, there was total control of the media. everything was censored in the russian media. i was taken, on 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. date -- did that total censorship 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 left outside. they are confused, they are not clear what the military is doing. you don't have personal stories. the ball was writing, i was writing, the fordo crack -- that bob was writing, i was writing the photographs bought this david was taking. the public is not deemed connected to what american troops are bravely fighting 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. if you want to start thinking, i will go to questions now. but let david just wrap 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 zones 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. french restaurants, lots of liquor -- you probably have non-that. [laughter] it was a great time for a young correspondent photographer. peter: don't look at me, i was married at the time. [laughter] david: i was not. i think it was adventure. a lot of times, your colleagues did not come back. i had people, friends who were killed out there. but we were all doing it on our own. nobody was making us do it. it was not like being a draftee.

where you're going up the hill. you did not want to be there guaranteed, if you were in the army, unless you are a 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, it is like 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. part of telling the story was showing pictures of dead bodies, of their fighting and dying. what the hell? when these people come back in boxes, how did they get that way? photographers have a responsibility to try to get those pictures, you have a responsibility to write the stories, and it has been really

tough by the government now. bob: let me just add onto that i have often thought of this. the people that saw "the longest day," the movie about d-day. everyone and thus everyone saw that and said i would like to be part of that. 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 that. i think just what you are saying is exactly right david. 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 the beheadings on television and some of that, but you have to give people a sense of what it was really like them to understand the sacrifice that these people are making. 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 have been describing government censorship. it is clear that modern day journalists do not have the freedom you guys had a couple decades ago. my question is how much responsibility to news media executives of newspapers, television networks, radio networks, wire services, how much responsibility do they bear in not more aggressively pursuing the people's right to know? margaret: who wants to take that? [laughter] the context of -- david: i'm a freelancer. [laughter] margaret: the context of a media environment has dramatically changed, right? 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 now bombarded with information from so many places. that it is hard to say -- the question now you have to ask 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 is a publisher. it goes beyond are they pushing hard enough? it's almost more complicated than that right now. 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? does 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 rights as the folks 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 would get fired. by any 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. peter: one little point. you have this fast social network of information. i feel i'm an average sort 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, i don't know what the percentage of 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. the mainstream media is going very significant element in public information. 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. would 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 a roll, 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 selection? david: one thing was, i could never look at the back of my camera and see what i shot. [laughter] 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 lag.

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 then? 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. [laughter] now that is going away. >> i wish we had that in the senate. thank you. [laughter] margaret: this side of the room. >> how did the news that was coming back to the united states about the protest, the 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 late 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. 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 moral of 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 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: 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 guy to die? we had a unit that refused to fight. there were the officers who were deemed too aggressive. 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 it 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 classes 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 particularly 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 a 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 where 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 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 won. margaret: you are being photographed at the moment. [laughter] 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 fought. 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, next year will be my 50th year -- i know i don't look like it. [laughter] 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. 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 belief 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 great television personalities a big influence on american life. i think that has been great for journalism.

bob: the war had a profound 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] [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. [applause] bob: thank you all. peter: thank you very much. [applause] >> with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span2 here on c-span3 we complement that by showing the most relevant congressional hearing and public affairs. on weekends, c-span3 is the home

to american history tv that have programs that show our stories. including the civil war's 160th anniversary. american artifacts, touring museums and historic sites to discover what the artifacts reveal. history bookshelf, with best-known american history writers. the presidency, looking at the policies and legacies of presidents. lectures and histories with college professors. and our new theories, real america, featuring educational films from the 1930's through the 1970's. c-span3, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> my name is jaclyn. i'm the curator at the smithsonian histor