PBS America

Just finished the PBS series on the Vietnam war by Ken Burns on Netflix. Thoroughly enjoyable, not least for the honking tunes of the era (admittedly a bit of a cliche when it comes to Vietnam documentaries).

It tried scrupulously to be fair but the bias was still apparent, whereby Kennedy and Johnson, who got the US into the war with all their misinformation and chicanery, are treated as decent human beings just trying to their best, whereas Nixon, the guy who actually got the US out and brought the boys home is depicted as intrinsically malevolent and a war monger.

That mild quibble aside it was a great show.
F f s, did you miss the bit where Johnson was trying to negotiate a settlement, and Nixon sent a message to the N Vietnamese via Madame Chenault to hang on, as when President he would give them a better deal - and prolonged it for another 5 years (to mention nothing of the - secret - bombing of Cambodia !)
 
Yup, it's great. Recently found too.

Smithsonian is good as well.
Just watching the Pacific War in Color on Smithsonian at the moment: an excellent start with quite a bit of footage I hadn’t seen before.

The Pacific War was surprisingly well documented in colour, as it was apparently USMC policy to send out Combat Cameramen with colour film to record their major operations. As far as I know, the Army didn’t follow the same policy, which is why there is only limited colour footage of the ground war in Europe.

Some of the USMC footage is pretty grim stuff, which led to much of it only being declassified in (I think) the 1980s...
 

Mike Barton

War Hero
F f s, did you miss the bit where Johnson was trying to negotiate a settlement, and Nixon sent a message to the N Vietnamese via Madame Chenault to hang on, as when President he would give them a better deal - and prolonged it for another 5 years (to mention nothing of the - secret - bombing of Cambodia !)
I don't wish to imply that Nixon was not a problematic president, that would be ridiculous, what I am contrasting is the different approaches taken by the producers to Nixon and to his predecessors. The two conniving, unscrupulous, scheming, devious charlatans Kennedy and Johnson are treated sympathetically, honest decent men driven by circumstances beyond their control, whereas Nixon is presented in a totally negative light, entirely without any redeeming qualities.

It feeds through into the coverage of Nixon before he has any hand, act or part in Vietnam. The documentary shows us the police riot in Chicago and then tells us that most Americans backed the cops and, shock, they even came out in their tens of thousands to cheer Nixon when he visited Chicago a few weeks later.

Why wouldn't they? Nixon had nothing to do with Chicago, it was a 110% Democrat fustercluck from start to finish, Democrat-voting students fighting with Democrat-voting cops sent in by a Democrat mayor to stop protests against a Democrat-run war outside the Democrat convention. Why wouldn't people welcome a fresh new candidate like Nixon who was utterly blameless for the shambles? It was the somehow implied sinister suggestiveness that grated with me.

But like I say it was a minor enough quibble.
 
Anyone know if PBS is available online anywhere? I tried a while ago and got hit with "not available in your area".

Even a VPN couldn't crack it. (Although admittedly, that could have been down to me).
VPN then try USTV24, it carries about 200 live channels, or try 123TV.
 
This is their main web site:
Public Broadcasting System

You may need to set up a VPN account if you are not in the US.

Mostly quality stuff but there are one or two programs that lean on the bleeding heart side.

View attachment 405811
I just tried that, VPN'd to New Jersey PBS.org picked up Channel 13 PBS I scrolled to shows picked a random one and voila it played. I then cancelled the VPN and just did the same from Canada and the program still played*, so it may be worth a try from the UK anyway.

* The PBS Station from Buffalo New York is affiliated with Toronto so that may be the reason it worked without a VPN link though.
 
I don't wish to imply that Nixon was not a problematic president, that would be ridiculous, what I am contrasting is the different approaches taken by the producers to Nixon and to his predecessors. The two conniving, unscrupulous, scheming, devious charlatans Kennedy and Johnson are treated sympathetically, honest decent men driven by circumstances beyond their control, whereas Nixon is presented in a totally negative light, entirely without any redeeming qualities.

It feeds through into the coverage of Nixon before he has any hand, act or part in Vietnam. The documentary shows us the police riot in Chicago and then tells us that most Americans backed the cops and, shock, they even came out in their tens of thousands to cheer Nixon when he visited Chicago a few weeks later.

Why wouldn't they? Nixon had nothing to do with Chicago, it was a 110% Democrat fustercluck from start to finish, Democrat-voting students fighting with Democrat-voting cops sent in by a Democrat mayor to stop protests against a Democrat-run war outside the Democrat convention. Why wouldn't people welcome a fresh new candidate like Nixon who was utterly blameless for the shambles? It was the somehow implied sinister suggestiveness that grated with me.

But like I say it was a minor enough quibble.
It sounds as if you must be as old as me to remember that time so clearly. The 1968 Democratic Convention and the riot (in Grant Park?) was solely a Democratic bit of theatre. That was all their fcuk up. In later years I have even read that there was a desperate notion on the part of LBJ to renounce his stated intention of March 31, 1968 to not run again for president, and take over the convention (by coup?) and offer himself to the people as an alternative to candidate Humphrey. That would have been a pretty wild and desperate act for sure if taken, and would have ensured a bigger landslide for Mr. Nixon than the one he got in 1972.

I wasn't old enough yet to vote in the election of 1968 (you had to be 21 in those days) but I was a conservative even in those days and worked for the Nixon campaign at a local level. I even wore campaign buttons on campus (Ohio State) which said (unironcally) "Nixon's the One!" Try wearing a button or a hat on any campus that doesn't spout the Democratic/wacko party line these days and you risk a confrontation from the Hitler Youth who are spoon fed that crap (Democrat=Good, Republican=Bad) from an early age.

Yes, I voted for Mr. Nixon in 1972 when I was old enough, and I'm not sorry. I have voted conservative in every election cycle since.

Nixon Presidential portrait.PNG
Nixon at the 1968 Convention.PNG
 
It sounds as if you must be as old as me to remember that time so clearly. The 1968 Democratic Convention and the riot (in Grant Park?) was solely a Democratic bit of theatre. That was all their fcuk up. In later years I have even read that there was a desperate notion on the part of LBJ to renounce his stated intention of March 31, 1968 to not run again for president, and take over the convention (by coup?) and offer himself to the people as an alternative to candidate Humphrey. That would have been a pretty wild and desperate act for sure if taken, and would have ensured a bigger landslide for Mr. Nixon than the one he got in 1972.

I wasn't old enough yet to vote in the election of 1968 (you had to be 21 in those days) but I was a conservative even in those days and worked for the Nixon campaign at a local level. I even wore campaign buttons on campus (Ohio State) which said (unironcally) "Nixon's the One!" Try wearing a button or a hat on any campus that doesn't spout the Democratic/wacko party line these days and you risk a confrontation from the Hitler Youth who are spoon fed that crap (Democrat=Good, Republican=Bad) from an early age.

Yes, I voted for Mr. Nixon in 1972 when I was old enough, and I'm not sorry. I have voted conservative in every election cycle since.

View attachment 410397View attachment 410398
Would you have bought a second hand car from that man ?
 
I don't wish to imply that Nixon was not a problematic president, that would be ridiculous, what I am contrasting is the different approaches taken by the producers to Nixon and to his predecessors. The two conniving, unscrupulous, scheming, devious charlatans Kennedy and Johnson are treated sympathetically, honest decent men driven by circumstances beyond their control, whereas Nixon is presented in a totally negative light, entirely without any redeeming qualities.

It feeds through into the coverage of Nixon before he has any hand, act or part in Vietnam. The documentary shows us the police riot in Chicago and then tells us that most Americans backed the cops and, shock, they even came out in their tens of thousands to cheer Nixon when he visited Chicago a few weeks later.

Why wouldn't they? Nixon had nothing to do with Chicago, it was a 110% Democrat fustercluck from start to finish, Democrat-voting students fighting with Democrat-voting cops sent in by a Democrat mayor to stop protests against a Democrat-run war outside the Democrat convention. Why wouldn't people welcome a fresh new candidate like Nixon who was utterly blameless for the shambles? It was the somehow implied sinister suggestiveness that grated with me.

But like I say it was a minor enough quibble.
It could be argued that Nixon started in China what Trump is trying to straighten out.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
It was the only channel TV or radio we could listen to in Puerto Rico that was at least measured and in English
 

Latest Threads

Top