Media Coverage after the “Tet Offensive” of the Vietnam War

Paper Topic： "To what extent did the U.S. TV media coverage after the “Tet Offensive” of the Vietnam War arouse anti-war public opinion?"
This is a two-part assessment, the first part is called identification and evaluation of sources and the second part is called reflection. Each part has a clear word limit, the first part should be around 500 words. The second part is about 400 words.
Working Step:
Reading my investigation part (The main essay). I will attach the file.
Reading the rubric and specific breakdown for each criterion.
Reading the sample that I provided to you.
Then start your work on the identification and evaluation of sources & reflections part.
Rubric for Part I:
An appropriate question for investigation has been clearly stated.
The student has identified and selected appropriate and relevant sources, and there is a clear explanation of the relevance of the sources to the investigation.
There is a detailed analysis and evaluation of two sources with explicit discussion of the value and limitations of two of the sources for the investigation, with reference to the origins, purpose, and content of the two sources.
Choose two sources to identify and evaluate first (in my investigation part, which is my main essay)!!!
​Breakdown of the key components of the assessment criteria
"Clear statement of an appropriate question for the investigation"
You must ensure that the question you have generated is clear, concise, and is contestable
In the first paragraph of Section 1, you need to provide the context of your investigation, and then directly state your research question, in its full form, and make it stand out.
I already provided the species research question: "To what extent did the U.S. TV media coverage after the “Tet Offensive” of the Vietnam War arouse anti-war public opinion?"
"Identification of sources, and explanation of the relevance of the sources to the investigation."
From the sources you are using for your investigation, you will need to select two to evaluate.
When making this selection, it is advisable that you ensure at least one point of difference between the selected sources. For example, you would not select two photos to evaluate, as their limitations and uses may be similar. Likewise, choosing to evaluate two Marxist historical perspectives would not be as effective as one Marxist and one Revisionist viewpoint, or a contemporary source and a cross-referenced source written some years after the event. Selection of the appropriate sources is critical to scoring well against this criterion. See the advice below for further guidance.
You will also need to ensure that you are providing, in 1 or 2 sentences only, an explanation of the relevance of each chosen source to your investigation. For example, if you select a piece of propaganda as one of your sources, you MUST explain how that source plays a part in your investigation. What does it provide that adds to your argument?
"Analysis and evaluation of two sources with discussion of the value and limitations of them, with reference to the origins, purpose and content."
The expectation is that, for each source, you provide a distinct, clearly identified paragraph, that identifies the origin, purpose, value and limitations of that particular document, while making references to the content or message of the source.
Each source will need to be addressed separately, and identifying it specifically as a subheading or italicising it is recommended.
You will need to clearly and specifically identify the origin of the documents. State the name of the author(s), and also it is recommended that you outline the provenance, by exploring the context within which the source was created and looking at the background and expertise or involvement of the author. Be specific, and try to use the word ‘origin’ clearly - you may wish to make it bold print.
Another requirement is that you explore the purpose of the sources.
Why was it created? What is it designed to do? So, for example, a newspaper article is written for the general public, and its purpose is to provide a perspective regarding an event or set of events. A table of statistics is designed to present a set of data regarding a certain topic. Be specific, and try to use the word ‘purpose’ clearly - you may wish to make it bold print.
It is important that you address the content of the source. So, you will need to provide an overview or summary of the message of the source. Be specific, and try to use the word ‘content’ clearly - you may wish to make it bold print.
You wil also need to discuss the value of your selected sources. In other words, you will need to clearly and explicitly evaluate the usefulness of the selected document for historians in general. For example, a newspaper article has the value of providing the perspective of either the reporter or the paper they were writing for. This would give some insight into how sections of society viewed the events being described. A table of statistics provides specific data that may provide an insight into the aspect the data reflects. Be specific, and ensure you use the word ‘value’ clearly - you may wish to make it bold print.
The final expectation for Section 1 is to evaluate the limitations of your chosen documents. So, you must clearly and specifically outline the issues about these sources that weaken their ability to provide credible support for the debate being presented. If you look at the example of a newspaper again, they are likely to reflect an editorial bias, and, as newspapers are designed to be sold to readers, there is an economic imperative that may influence its value. Likewise, statistical data can be politically motivated, which influences its usefulness, and also can be manipulated - a political poll taken in a working-class area is more likely to reflect support for parties that champion their rights, and may not be representative of the entire population.
Rubric for Part II:
The reflection is clearly focused on what the investigation highlighted to the student about the methods used by the historian
The reflection demonstrates clear awareness of the challenges facing the historian and/or limitations of the methods used by the historian.
There is a clear and explicit connection between the reflection and the rest of the investigation.
This part requires you to think and work like a historian. In this section, you reflect on the methods used by, and the challenges faced by, you as the historian. Relate this reflection specifically to your particular investigation and your experiences as a historian.
The following are questions and examples of discussion questions that may help your reflection:
What methods used by historians did you use in your investigation?
What did your investigation highlight to you about the limitations of those methods?
What are the challenges facing the historian? How do they differ from the challenges facing a scientist or a mathematician?
What challenges, in particular, does archive-based history present?
How can the reliability of sources be evaluated?
What is the difference between bias and selection?
What constitutes a historical event?
Who decides which events are historically significant?
Is it possible to describe historical events in an unbiased way?
What is the role of the historian?
Should terms such as “atrocity” be used when writing about history, or should value judgments be avoided?
If it is difficult to establish proof in history, does that mean that all versions are equally acceptable?