That seems like a pretty vast oversimplification based on literally no presented evidence. The New York Times surely had thousands of articles covering Vietnam spanning 20 years, so I'd imagine you could pull one out of a hat to make basically any claim you want about how it covered Vietnam. But notably, even pre-Tet Offensive, the NYTwas known to controversially challenge official narratives (so much so that there was internal dispute), and in 1971, it broke the story about the Pentagon Papers.
It seems more complicated than you're suggesting.
Edit: Editorially, this thesis about 1950–1965 is what I could find (keep reading; it's mostly supportive upfront but becomes largely unsupportive):
During the Indochina War, both The New York Times and Time saw Ho Chi Minh's guerrillas as agents of a monolithic communist movement that was attempting world conquest. Both indulged in emotional cold war rhetoric. Both occasionally pointed out the strength of Vietnamese nationalism and the political weakness of the anti-communist forces. However, there were differences in the approaches each advocated. The Times, though it strongly supported American aid to the French, argued that in the long run the best hope of keeping Indochina non-communist lay in native nationalism, hatred of China, and fear of communism. It urged France to give Vietnam greater independence and said that French troops, necessary as they were, would not provide a long-range solution.
During the years of the Kennedy Administration, The New York Times argued that North Vietnam was waging a war of aggression against South Vietnam. This, of course, was the official American position. As political turmoil in South Vietnam increased, it condemned the practices of the Diem regime, but backed American support for the war against the Vietcong. The Times said that the greatest weakness of South Vietnam was not military, but political, and it urged the Administration to pressure Diem into making reforms.
After the coup that deposed Diem, The Times said that the United States might make aid to the new government contingent upon reforms, because such reforms were of at least equal importance to military strength in the guerrilla
war. It also suggested that the change of governments in Saigon might provide an opportune time to negotiate the end of the war.
Both Time and The New York Times fully supported American retaliatory air raids following the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incidents, but there was a difference in the tone of the writing. Time, as usual, was belligerent and advocated strong military response. The Times viewed the military response as necessary, but argued that it and the
Tonkin Gulf Resolution provided a position of strength from which to negotiate a peaceful settlement of the war.
After the United States began bombing North Vietnam regularly following the Vietcong attack on American barracks at Pleiku in February 1965, The Times began to press for negotiations. Though it said the attack on Pleiku merited American response, it emphasized that the United States should not expand the war. And it voiced a doubt about the whole war effort: it said many would wonder why the United States was fighting for "...a people whose sympathies toward
us are doubtful."
The next day The Times argued that the war was becoming increasingly perilous, that victory for either side was impossible, and that the only way out was diplomatic, not military.
The crisis worsened, and The Times asked, "... is this war necessary?" It argued that the United States was sinking into a morass, to the delight of Communist China, It criticized Americans who proposed further escalation. It was skeptical of the State Department White Paper on North Vietnamese "aggression."
On March 2, The Times proposed "neutralization" of Vietnam. It argued a few days later that the war was "a species of civil war," and that attacks against North Vietnam would be ineffective against guerrillas in the South.
As American troops poured into Vietnam during the summer of 1965, The Times said the United States should fight a holding action, and it pressed for a bombing halt to try to get Hanoi to negotiate. It said the Vietcong should be allowed to participate in the North Vietnamese delegation to any such talks. Though The Times believed that "wars of national liberation" were the major threat to American security, it argued that instead of intervening unilaterally to oppose leftist movements all over the world, the United States should "work to bring about conditions in each threatened country so that extremist revolutions are not only not possible, but are rejected by the people.
In a reversal of its 1956 stand. The Times noted on July 30 that the 1954 Geneva agreements had been violated by both sides, "with the United States encouraging Premier Ngo Dinh Diem in his refusal to hold elections.
The new york times was pretty pro vietnam war tho
That seems like a pretty vast oversimplification based on literally no presented evidence. The New York Times surely had thousands of articles covering Vietnam spanning 20 years, so I'd imagine you could pull one out of a hat to make basically any claim you want about how it covered Vietnam. But notably, even pre-Tet Offensive, the NYT was known to controversially challenge official narratives (so much so that there was internal dispute), and in 1971, it broke the story about the Pentagon Papers.
It seems more complicated than you're suggesting.
Edit: Editorially, this thesis about 1950–1965 is what I could find (keep reading; it's mostly supportive upfront but becomes largely unsupportive):
(Notably, this paper is from 1969.)
Exaclty!