On October 14, 2026, the burial of 731 sets of remains of fallen soldiers gathered at Lê Thị Riêng Park was hailed as a historic event that deeply moved the public nationwide.
Notably, in a report produced by Vietnam Television (VTV), remarks by Dr. Trần Văn Bản—an 82-year-old veteran who had directly participated in the work at the mass grave—drew particular attention.
Despite the solemn atmosphere of the memorial service, a wave of intense controversy surrounding the detail of “nailing a five-tac nail into the martyr’s finger” erupted fiercely on social media.
This incident is not merely a routine journalistic error but also a lesson in the responsibility of reporting and media ethics in the new 4.0 era.
Historically speaking, excavations of mass graves from the war era have indeed uncovered many harrowing artifacts, such as barbed wire binding hands or shrapnel embedded in bones—these are factual.
However, the state-run media’s use of the colloquial term “five-tac nail”—which refers to a type of nail whose length was mistakenly interpreted as “half a meter”—immediately sparked a fierce backlash from the public.
From an anatomical standpoint, a nail that long—equivalent to about 15 cm to 17 cm—could not possibly be driven into the tiny fingertip of a human being.
According to medical experts, this was a serious confusion between wood nails and ship nails, resulting from either a lack of expertise on the part of VTV’s editorial team or a deliberate, irresponsible attempt to chase “clickbait” headlines.
The crux of the matter lies in the “unreasonable” gap between the doctor’s emotional account and the scientific forensic evidence.
A personal recollection, even from a reputable military doctor, cannot replace the forensic autopsy findings of a specialized agency.
The presence of a metal object near the hand bone in the ground is, by its very nature, entirely different from the nail having pierced the bone structure while the victim was still alive.
To reach a definitive conclusion regarding a specific criminal act, media outlets have a duty to provide complete and responsible information based on expert analysis, rather than merely presenting a sensational headline to stir public outrage.
Furthermore, the Vietnam War ended more than half a century ago, and the most sincere respect for the deceased demands absolute honesty and the highest sense of responsibility—not unverified claims like those made by VTV, which has repeated such errors numerous times.
When a scientifically baseless and absurd detail is presented as an obvious truth, it not only diminishes the value of historical truth but also sows public skepticism about the accuracy of state-run media, providing ammunition for hostile forces to attack.
Nailing a coffin shut over the body of a fallen soldier is a war crime and a flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of persons in armed conflict. Although the Republic of Vietnam no longer exists, there are still Americans who served as direct witnesses to this war.
It is my belief that VTV—a media outlet representing the voice of the nation—must exercise caution in its reporting to avoid causing division and undermining the increasingly positive Vietnam-U.S. relationship.
The responsibility of professional journalists does not permit VTV to report in such an irresponsible manner as described above.
The silence of those who now rest beneath the earth demands that responsible journalists speak out with reason, caution, and scientific evidence.
Let us not allow the phrase “Don’t listen to what the Communists say” to once again become the truth!
Trà My – Thoibao.de
