Cambodia: News Clips and Articles

It was really interesting to watch these news clips and compare them to the ones we saw from the Rodney King period.  The first clip provides a very straightforward telling, and while the portrayal is different, we can still draw links to Rodney King.  First, someone labels individuals involved as hoodlums and shady characters, something that was highly prevalent in Los Angeles in the 90’s.  Also, like the King incident, the leader of Cambodia was away when the problems escalated.  By the time the second clip begins, American soldiers have entered the war in Cambodia.  Unlike later news, people here are incredibly willing to share their opinions.  Why was the nature of the media so different in this time period than later times?  We see various political individuals saying they disapprove of what Nixon has done, a stark contrast to the LAPD and their attempts to present a united front.

         Also, at the beginning, few details are made available regarding the extent of U.S. involvement.  Again, we can wonder why the nature of the incident is so secretive.  The most notable difference is the tone of voice of the newscasters. They speak in overwhelmingly monotonous voices and do not hint at the nature of their feelings.  What are the implications of this, meaning how do we react to this telling in comparison to the Rodney King reports? 

         Next we look at three years later, and the fighting has continued and escalated.  There is an overwhelming lack of concern for human life, and the bombing is referred to as a holding action.  It is interesting that there is a call for considerably more American assistance.  I am intrigued that this call was made for, as America is a place so removed from the realities of Cambodia that I wonder how much they could really help.  This is more of a call for money than real and involved assistance.  People also begin to question what is really advisable from the standpoint of the national interest.  Is there anything America could really do that would be beneficial for all parties involved?  I am also interested in further discussing why Slesinger does not face the camera during the news conference.

         The most shocking thing to me is how long the American bombing went on without anyone knowing about it.  The feelings of deception and outrage here are very palpable and understandable.  Here we must consider the role of hypothetical questions in an attempt to understand what has happened and will happen.  We come to learn that the bombing went on for 9 years before being discovered.  I was also overwhelmed by how long it took for the news to appropriately depict real pictures of the destruction.  This incredibly sad and tragic reality could benefit from a more emotional and honest telling.  One of the only instances of true emotion we see is in the American soldiers who had hope they were going home, but were told that this would not be happening.  This is accompanied by the imagery of unloading the bombs.  The overwhelming message is that in trying to present an unbiased and unemotional story, the news does quite the opposite.  Americans and those involved are depicted as emotionless and unaffected by the tragedies of this situation.  The story then becomes just as biased and reflective as those we saw previously.

         In terms of the newspaper articles, early ones demonstrate a lack of anger towards Americans as well as how corrupt the government there really was.  Later, we see the beginning of very surface level reporting.  The only instance where people delve deeper seems to be in reporting about the tragedies.  Families are separated and people are dying, which contributes to playing on the reader’s emotions.  These articles were largely reliant on pathos as a means of affecting the reader, something that I found quite effective.  We learn that some people are profiting quite well from the war, while others cannot even afford to eat.  The imagery here was also really powerful, as we read about specific instances of people breathing their last breath before dying.  We are inserted into the situation here, as we become bystanders.  There is also a reliance on a now versus then mentality, as we read about how dire the situation is now compared to a few years ago. 

         One article in particular made me contemplate a couple things.  This article talks about coming to a place of peace, something of the utmost importance.  Why is Kissinger so unwilling to discuss a topic that could potentially benefit people all over the world?  Here there is a lack of detail, making the report come across as unreliable and even somewhat shady.  Something surprising were the little glimmers of hope and ambition that came across, even when the situation was incredibly dire.  Why would people who are directly immersed in the horrors be more optimistic than those across the globe?  Perhaps this is a commentary on the nature of Americans and their leaders to go to the worst place possible quite quickly. 

         Overall, I still feel confused about the situation.  It is hard to completely grasp what is going on, particularly when the reporting comes across as incomplete.  I feel as if something is being hidden from the reader.  Perhaps this is because there was a lack of understanding regarding U.S. involvement and activity.  I hope that it will be cleared up as we continue to examine the issue.  Mostly I am wondering how Cambodians will continue to handle and react to a situation that largely destroyed them.  In contrast, will America ever present a united front regarding their involvement or perhaps accept that they may not have done the right thing?