It’s easy to argue that Joel Achenbach is an experienced writer with a deep understanding of the English language and how to use it to his advantage. In his article “Did the news media, led by Walter Cronkite, lose the war in Vietnam?” he proficiently uses writing techniques to convey his message and to keep the reader engaged with his material. The article consists of five distinct parts, each taking the audience to a deeper level of understanding. Achenbach often employs a strategy of ‘non-linear narrative’, where the events of the story are presented out of chronological order (Kim et al., par.1). For example, the author uses this technique in the second part of the article, where he begins in the future by presenting the ‘Cronkite moment’ and briefly explains its importance to the history of journalism, then Achenbach moves to the past and he finishes in the present as it would relate to the context and the main point of the second part. Another interesting technique the author half-uses is foreshadowing. Even though this writing strategy is more often associated with more involved stories, there are lingering touches of this technique in part three of the article, when Achenbach talks about Cronkite’s stance on giving opinions. To elegantly guide readers to the conclusion, Achenbach delivers a strong argument in the last part of the article. However, to understand the mastership of Achenbach, the article ought to be analyzed in full, with each part serving as the aid to the one that came before and inseparable from each other.
Achenbach opens the article by stating that in 1968, Cronkite believed in the government’s argument regarding the Vietnam War. This is a great way to introduce the topic since it accomplishes two goals without unnecessary clutter and overcomplicated sentences that do nothing but bore the reader. Firstly, the statement is a great ‘hook’. It is commonly spread belief that Cronkite was opposed to the war in Vietnam, since his media story has, allegedly, caused the rise of public opposition to the war. When the reader sees the statement opposite to popular belief at the very beginning of the article curiosity gets the best of him. The reader wants to learn what caused Cronkite to change his views, or at least how it came to be that a patriotic journalist agreeing with the government became associated with the loss of the Vietnam War. The second goal Achenbach accomplishes with the opening statement is introducing Cronkite’s biography from an interesting and relative perspective. The author spends half of the introduction discussing Cronkite’s biography in relation to his role in the Vietnam War, which is a wise decision that shows Cronkite’s credibility and his importance to the public’s opinion of the war. The second part of the introduction is dedicated to contextualizing the media coverage of the war in 1968. Achenbach gives historical context to deepen the reader’s understanding of the topic. By describing the scene surrounding the main event, in this case, the ‘Cronkite’s Moment’, the author makes sure that his audience can see the whole picture surrounding the event.
Plato’s allegory of a cave (Plato and Lee, bk. VII) can be used to better understand the author’s motive for giving the historical context, at this point of the article and in the future. The reader with no understanding of the historical context is a prisoner chained in the cave, where all he can see is the shadows of the objects under the sun. This reader doesn’t understand the event since he can only see a distorted picture, an isolated event with nothing happening before and nothing happening after. The reader with the knowledge of historical context is a prisoner who was released from the cave, and can now look at objects directly. He understands the discussed event as part of the existing timeline that can’t exist separately from the past and the future. In this allegory, Achenbach acts as the key keeper whenever he introduces the historical context into the story.
The second part of the article is written in the style of a non-linear narrative. When analyzing this type of writing, it is important to establish which point is to be considered the ‘present time’. Since the article as a whole is written with linear narration, it can be done by considering the point in time presented at the beginning of the third part, which goes back to the convenient linear narration. Since the third part opens with Cronkite going to Vietnam, it is logical to assume that the ‘present time’ in part two is the point in time closest to this event, which happens to be in the last paragraph of part two.
Now that the ‘present time’ is established, it becomes obvious that the narration of part two begins in the future when Achenbach introduces the ‘Cronkite Moment’ and explains its importance to the history of journalism. The author introduces the central idea in the next three parts of the article, as a preview to the reader. He keeps the audience’s attention by demonstrating the importance of the event before actually introducing the event. Achenbach continues in the past with an introduction of the historical context to the present. He carefully explains all the events that led to Cronkite going to Vietnam, slowly, step by step guiding the reader out of the cave.
The sudden use of non-linear narration may seem unnecessary and confusing, however, in this case, it is appropriate. In literature, this type of narration is often used to give the reader a deeper understanding of the character and is often used to “mimic the human memory” (Stares, par.7). In this article, Achenbach uses non-linear narration to make Cronkite’s character more relatable and his decisions more understandable.
In part three of the article, Achenbach tells how Cronkite created his famous moment. At the beginning of this part, the author presents a seemingly unrelated thought of Cronkite being impartial and unbiased in his coverage of the Vietnam War, however, the purpose of this thought becomes clear in the closing paragraphs of this part. By introducing this idea at the beginning, Achenbach makes the end of the part clearer and more interesting. Also, the author ensures that the reason for the great impact of the ‘Cronkite Moment’ is memorable, since the reader must, in a way, decipher it himself.
The fourth part of the article discusses the immediate effects of the ‘Cronkite Moment’ on the political and social scene of the US. Achenbach successfully uses quotes and references when describing the political scene. As an experienced author, he understands the tiresome impact these types of descriptions might have on the reader, so he incorporates a light-hearted, half-formal tone in his delivery. This is seen particularly well when he says, “Kennedy then had an important lunch, with … wait for it … Walter Cronkite”, when describing the immediate outcome of the ‘Cronkite Moment’. Another example of the change of tone is describing political shifts and nuances in the US as, “Shenanigans, maneuverings”. By adopting this tone, Achenbach makes the narrative more entertaining and easy to read.
In the last part of the article, Achenbach connects all the parts of the article by bringing it to the conclusion that every part of history is controversial and debatable. The author has already mentioned this point in parts two, three, and four, however, he gave no arguments to support this statement. Although it is commonly believed that with every new argument, the evidence should be presented immediately, Achenbach shows why presenting the same argument throughout the longer piece and withholding the evidence to the end is a successful strategy as well.
By only mentioning his main thesis throughout the article, the author was able to maintain the reader’s interest without leaving him in the dark for the duration of the article. He gave the audience just enough information to fully develop the topic, and then explained, thoroughly and deeply, in the last part, why his thesis is true. By including all the evidence in the last part Achenbach ensured that the reader is convinced, and his message is clear.
Works Cited
Kim, Nam Wook, et al. “Visualizing Nonlinear Narratives With Story Curves.” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 24, no. 1, Aug. 2017, pp. 595–604. https://doi.org/10.1109/tvcg.2017.2744118.
Plato, and Henry Desmond Pritchard Lee. The Republic. Penguin, 2003.
Stares. “Non-Linear Storytelling | Definition, Benefits, and Tips.” Celtx Blog, 26 Apr. 2024, blog.celtx.com/non-linear storytelling/#:~:text=by%20Natasha%20Stares%20September%208,Let’s%20get%20started!
