In this case I'm referring failing and succeeding as one had huge social pressure for ending the War while the other seemed to have little opposition to it. I’m not trying to argue that the public control in the US lost/won the war or anything, just to clarify.
The Korean War was one of the main factors for the Second Red Scare (product from Arthur McCarthy and his heavy anti-communist policy) and very anti-communist media (movies, books, articles, etc) were created though those years. And anything that was seen as slightly anti-American was seen as procommunist and deemed as a crime (For example, the director of the film The Steel Helmet was arrested for alleged pro-communist propaganda)
Meanwhile, one important factor for the US to pull out of Vietnam was the very anti-war sentiment the public had. This time, the media was able to cover this War like never before; the Vietnam War being the first televised war where journalist were sent to Vietnam to report whatever was happening. Eventually, the crude reality of the War was able to come out, the major example being the Execution Of Nguyễn Văn, a photograph that was able to scare the American public into going out for protest to end the war.
However according to this well written source
Vietnam war was the most covered topic in the US than any other issue. Yet that coverage was extremely one-sided. For example, just 3% of coverage was on “enemy” viewpoint.
and
Media Beat in 1994 explains that the heavy reliance on U.S. government officials as sources of information and reluctance to question official statements on national security issues led to a lot of inaccurate media reporting, such as that on the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
So in both wars the Government held tightly the control over what was being reported, however in Vietnam it somehow slipped and what was happening in Asia was reported all over the world, causing controversies that eventually became the very well-known anti-war sentiment.
So why? Why did the US government slaked off, and the picture of Nguyễn Văn was allowed to circulate while everything that happened in Korean remained almost a secret?
I know this is oddly specific but this is for my IB EE (also: this is not actually my question, is on both media and propaganda, propaganda being censorship while in media I’ll write about TV and radio) and while I am not asking for someone to write the 3,500+ words essay for me I'm in need of historiography, in opinions of whether what I ask is true or false, why and why not.
Every answer/view is welcome! Thanks for reading my small essay.
Not really sure where to start here...
OK. First, I'd like to point out that the censorship issue is way more complicated, almost paradox than it might seem at first.
When the war in Korea started, the tradition of the press coverage of the world war was still very strong. The journalists who covered the war were, pretty much without exception, convinced that the fight was right and they saw themselves as part of the effort. Thus General MacArthur „did not desire to re-establish wartime censorship“, but expected „that the press will ensure the security of operations and the safety of personnel by preventing detrimental information being made available to hostile forces. A true and democratic press [...] will accept this challenge and demonstrate that it can be a responsible press.“ [Press Release by MacArthur, quoted in: New York Times, 3 June 1950, p. 4] That means that MacArthur expected that the press would cooperate with the armed forces and regulated itself. He demanded of the press, „to take upon itself the task of censoring the war news and leave the Army free to fight. [...] In the Korean operations, it has been my purpose to leave this responsibility where it rightfully belongs, in the hands of the correspondents, editors and publishers concerned.“ [Quoted in: M'Arthur to Bar Army Censorship, New York Times, 18 June 1950, p. 5]
And that worked rather well in Korea. Not perfect, but almost. As good as it could work in a chaotic war like Korea. There were no "uncensored" news from the front because the (few) journalists who covered the fights never, ever dreamed about doing something that would undermine the war effort. The interest of the press and government were pretty much in tune, and when not, it was the press that was way more militaristic and belligerent than the Truman government.
Now, on to Vietnam.
Vietnam is tricky because you can't really compare what happened after Tet, after the Cambodian bombings became news, after the Pentagon Papers got released with the Kennedy and early LBJ years. In the early days, covering the war was much like it had been in Korea. Neil Sheehan, who later became a vocal critic of the war and was an important force in publishing the Pentagon Papers, said that the small press corps in the early days was completely convinced that the war was necessary and just and that the reporters had to offer their share of work to claim victory.
But now something strange happened. The war didn't go well, every expectation of an easy and fast victory was disappointed, things got rough. On top of it, the US government tried to minimize the appearance of its involvement in the war, which made it look like it didn't really bother. There was a completely corrupt, dictatorial government in Saigon under President Diem that spouted nothing but absurd propaganda and with that, the trust and loyalty of the young reporters vanished. Guys like Neil Sheehan, David Halberstam and Homer Bigart have all written about that experience. They all echo their disappointment and later disillusionment with the American war effort, which seemed so completely unlike what they had seen as kids when the Marines were kicking Jap butt.
This meant that the cooperation between the press and the government broke down. That's not the same as censorship, not by a long-shot. It was way more devastating, because after certain events in 1963/64, you had a bunch of experienced, well connected people in Vietnam who knew the country way better than the ever changing staff of the American embassy or the MACV. There was really nothing they could do about the coverage. Cable 1006 from the State Department to the Embassy in Saigon said in 1962 that only minimal help should be offered to the journalists. Well, two years later they reached the point where the reporters didn't want and didn't need that assistance anymore, because they were now doing there job without cooperating with the government. That was a way bigger problem for the Gov than the other way 'round.
I'm not sure what you are planing for your essay, but instead of focussing on the Execution during the Tet Offensive, I'd look at the Buddhist Uprisings in 1963 and the burning monk. It's probably an even more iconic photo, and the comparison between the 1950s and 1963 is easier. But... your choice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c
There's way more on this question one could write here, but I guess it's a start. I'm not sure how much reading material you need, but some books and articles I think are really, really important here:
Korea:
Get the memoires of Marguerite Higgins. She illustrates how expected and close the cooperation between the Forces and the reporters were. Furthermore:
Daniel Fazio: Censorship in the Korean War. Press--Military Relations, June 1950--January 1951, in: Australasian Journal of American Studies, 26/2, Dec, 2007, p. 1--19
Steven Casey: Selling the Korean War. Propaganda, Politics and Public Opinion in the United States, 1950--1953. Oxford 2010
Vietnam:
Way, way, WAY too much stuff to cover here. I'm not sure if you're looking for examples... if so, research the reaction to the Battle of Ap Bac and then:
Neil Sheehan: A Bright Shinning Lie. John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam. NY 1988. David Halberstam: The Powers that be. New York 1979.
Most important literature about the press, censorship and the war:
Daniel Hallin: The Uncensored War. The Media in Vietnam. Berkeley 1986 (A bit older, but I guess you really want this one)
Clarence R. Wyatt: Paper Soldiers. The American Press and the Vietnam War. Chicago 1995
William Hammond: Reporting Vietnam. Media and Military at War. Lawrence 1998.
In the source OP posted it says the Ho Chi Minh sent 6 letters to US government saying he would mold Vietnam's constitution after the American one. Has one anyone seen those actually those letters? Or could someone post more information about them please? I'm curious.
Ho Chi Minh seems to be more of a Communist than a ''liberal democract''.
Ho Chi Minh was one of the founders of the French Communist party. And The Vietnamese one.