The Paradox of Respectability: The Limits of Indexing and Harrison Salisbury’s Coverage of the Vietnam War

Abstract

In December 1966 through January 1967, Harrison Salisbury of the New York Times wrote dispatches based on a visit to Hanoi that disputed the administration’s claims that its highly accurate bombing did not hit civilian targets in North Vietnam. Administration officials, other journalists, and even his own paper challenged his reporting. Deemed unpatriotic, Salisbury was denied a Pulitzer Prize. This case study employs documents from the files of the New York Times , the CIA, and the Harrison Salisbury Papers at Columbia University, as well as content analysis of his coverage of Vietnam compared with other reporting by him that won a Pulitzer. The study shows how editorial standards of news sourcing become higher when correspondents challenge the official line. While illustrating factors that lead newspapers and reporters to index foreign news to the prevailing political consensus, it also demonstrates the limits of indexing and the conditions under which journalists may effectively challenge the official line.