http://www.pstripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=50575

“In 2002, there were widespread protests against the U.S. military presence in South Korea after two 13-year-old girls were crushed to death by a U.S. armored tank on a narrow road in Uijeongbu.”

I remember the uproar at the Korean press’ misidentification of a AVLB as a “tank”. At least S&S called it an “armored tank” as opposed to the unarmored type made of balsa wood and paper-mâché.

Awww… I’m joking. Actually the article was informative and answered a lot of questions…

…much in contrast to other issues which STILL have not been resolved. Anybody wonder what happened to Ving Her? No primary-source confirmation but it seems the truth is so terrible that USFK will do anything to have it all be forgotten.

I still believe the S&S has improved greatly compared to prior years where most GI incidents you never even heard about. Now they are beginning to run more controversial articles such as the one about the gate guard controversy.

Maybe the S&S will run an updated article on the SPC Herr case and hope they do because this story shouldn’t just die and go away.

Awful quiet in the peanut gallery…

…and with that, this story died…

…or, well, would have… if I was not on it.

Nothing personal, guys… but it would be kinda hypocritical to insist on others following through on a story if I just let this slide and didn’t expect honest answers to sincere questions… that really do deserve answers.

If given the choice of looking a bit stupid… or letting y’all look that way… well… there is no choice, really.

GI…

I’m disappointed at your complete silence over some of the issues I brought up… more so, knowing that you recognize them as valid and having a greater effect on you, your military and your country, than, say, clown school…

…although, of course, it is your blog… but, to some, your silence indicates your true values, reflects a deeper character and affects your credibility to an extent.

I would hope that you cared enough to bring a little attention to some of these issues… especially after fawning a bit over Erik and erroneously considering “perceptions” about Stars & Stripes to be “dispelled”.

Certainly, you run little risk of bad politics to point out fraud, waste and abuse… in the Air Force. Heh.

Erik…

I realize there are no easy answers for a number of reasons. I suppose the questions say much of what needs to be said… especially coupled with the lack of comment… which becomes a telling part of the story in this case.

The same would apply if I was writing about USFK as a reporter in Korea. I would ask the difficult questions and print the answers… and let the public use their collective BS filters… which are pretty good, actually, when given the rare chance by a press which is more concerned about easy “access” than painting an accurate picture of reality.

In your case, I was hoping, at the least, for some insight as to why S&S continued to report USFK’s incorrect Korean drinking age for a year. I cannot think of any reason except cooperation with USFK to hide the truth.

It is through this lens that I have critically viewed all of S&S reporting in Korea ever since… and will probably continue to do so, perhaps increasingly vocally, as long as I see a similar pattern of reporting.

Everyone…

Lest we confuse all of S&S reporting with S&S reporting in Korea, let’s point out that S&S is capable of excellent reporting… and here is a perfect example. I urge you to read this when setting your standards for reporting.

http://www.pstripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=49044

In some ways, it parallels the Spc. Her case… but the reporting of it is done correctly.

This is a follow-up story 2 months after a mysterious death in Mannheim, Germany. It reports what is actually happening in a story that is “nothing new and no comment” on the surface.

Importantly, it keeps the story in the public conscience and sends a clear message to leadership that this situation will not be forgotten until it is truly resolved.

Instead of relying on a single statement or a brief, “no comment” or “nothing to see here”, there were detailed statements from 3 involved parties (garrison, battalion, CID). While these statements didn’t give much insight into the real situation, they convinced me it was reasonable to wait for further investigation… and, more importantly, they indicated to me that the investigators were doing their job thoroughly and not trying to conceal anything at this time.

On top of that, an outside expert was interviewed to give detailed information about the possible situation… and I actually learned interesting information about what investigators look for in this kind of death. I also learned what would be a reasonable time-frame for this type of investigation… and why. I will be looking for another follow-up in a month or two.

This article not only informed the public but it did a great service to leadership in demonstrating their thoroughness and prudence. Once the final story is printed on the resolution of this incident, there will be a greater degree of trust in leadership… and, in a wonderful catch-22, this trust will be enforced by aggressive reporting.

If their investigation is not on-the-level, repeated follow-ups will insure the public is aware.

J!

Still, the S&S in Europe was reined in from time to time by various commanders, Patton being the most notorious. See Bill Mauldin’s “The Brass Ring” for his account of being called in on the carpet by Patton for cartoons he didn’t like.

In the China-Burma-India theater, there was a rag called the “CBI Roundup”. At its inception, Stilwell told the staff “If you can prove it, print it”, and left them with a free rein to report as they saw fit. If you can find copies of this paper, the tone is immediately evident as being freer and snappier than the S&S…

I think the driving idea was that the Army then was largely just coming in from civilian life, the war they were fighting was for democracy and freedom, and that nothing would guarantee a loss of readership faster than printing ‘puff pieces’.

“raises some valid points especially about the segways”

Sheesh, GI… don’t you think that’s a bit insincere?

“Gosh, some valid points that we never even considered were just raised to our attention and they might be something worth thinking about.”

No. No points were raised in a blinding epiphany… you already knew. Everybody already knows… which is why nobody has told me I’m full of shait… including Mr. Slavin.

So, GI, where are your comments on these “valid points”? Where is your detailed opinion on the Segways, and similar fraud, waste and abuse, that you see on a daily basis? Where is your single word of support indicating that you would like to see S&S be part of the solution instead of avoiding, or even covering up, the problems?

Where is your demand that leadership lead with openness, honesty and integrity… and money is spent correctly… especially as these two issues affect you directly…

…and, most probably, unnecessary “budget woes” have resulted in the injury or death of good people you know… people who were fighting for their country yet were failed by every institution from wasteful leadership to an inattentive press.

Where is your outrage? Nowhere. Silence. Instead, any talk of “valid points” was quickly negated by…

“However in regards to some of the major issues Chickenhead brings up the Stars and Stripes cannot simply report rumors and innuendo”

What? Where did this come from? This was a wild shift of focus away from the real issue and an attempt to support weak reporting… especially considering that nothing was ever said about printing rumors or innuendo.

Every example specifically demonstrated how to report facts… the facts that are not being pursued… or, on occasion, being ignored even when they are in open view.

Seeking out the people involved in an incident, asking insightful questions and printing the answers is not rumor or innuendo… it’s one of the fundamental techniques of journalism.

And then you follow it up with this…

“Erik points out he has interviewed people in regards to the SPC Herr incident so I think we can’t just conclude they haven’t tried to interview people in regards to the corruption cases”

Is that so?

Erik interviewed Spc. Herr’s relatives yet DIDN’T write a story. What they have to say, while unfavorable to USFK, is NOT rumor or innuendo… and it’s certainly newsworthy.

It could equally be stated, with your logic, that Erik also interviewed people in the corruption cases but didn’t print the results as they were unfavorable to USFK.

If interviews were tried, it’s not unreasonable to expect the results to be communicated in the article… “refused to comment” or “wouldn’t return calls” are not rumor or innuendo… but they are part of the story.

Either they weren’t interviewed or the results weren’t printed. Either way, GI, there isn’t much you can defend there.

So… while we may not be able to conclude that interviews weren’t tried in the corruption cases, there was was NO mention of it in the articles. If interviews are denied, statements are avoided or key players are perpetually unavailable for comment, it becomes part of the story… as it can greatly affect public understanding and perception of the incident.

(It must be more painful and attention-getting to brush off the media than to just come clean… especially when they ARE clean. This makes openness the normal response and brings further attention to those who are hiding something.)

So, GI… I guess I’m just disappointed in you. I know you are capable of recognizing good and bad reporting (as you are quick to point out in the Korean press) and you are capable of actually doing it (such as foreigner/local crime statistics)… but here, you are kinda, sorta defending it… as well as the system it perpetuates.

Remember… good reporting can make sure USFK leadership does the Right Thing… and not just the right thing for themselves. This does NOT weaken America or it’s military.

As a professional soldier, and a smart one, you recognize this… and your actions should reflect it.

J!

Maybe the Stars & Stripes can start a weekly Chickenhead column.

Erik,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I understand and sympathize with many of your points… more than you realize.

The article on malaria-protection, by the way, was exactly the type of work Stars & Stripes should be doing to take care of servicemembers and insure accountability in leadership. It is my mistake for not pointing out these types of stories in my writing on the subject.

I did find it interesting that it was not credited to any reporter. Unless this is an unusual oversight, this reinforces my belief that S&S reporters are aware that USFK will retaliate personally against journalists engaged in this type of reporting.

So. On to the point… here is what I said…

“…Stars & Stripes reporters in Korea lazily echoing whatever information USFK releases, failing to follow up on unresolved incidents, avoiding difficult question that might embarrass USFK, ignoring newsworthy situations that require a minimum of investigative journalism and passively resigning themselves to USFK’s policy of releasing as little information as possible…”

I was thinking of specific examples when I wrote that. In some cases, MANY specific examples. Let’s look.

—– lazily echoing whatever information USFK releases

“Sure, sometimes we run stories pitched through command, because they’re news too.”

Yes. When GI Joe saves the day, he needs public recognition, a chance to inspire others and a proud clipping for his scrap book. There are many Command-pitched stories in many categories that need to be written. There is a lot of good done in USFK by a lot of good people and that needs to be brought to everyone’s attention.

The problem here is when Command pitches an easy fluff story, S&S laps it all up like antifreeze in a petting zoo… and never looks for the REAL story… and won’t report it even when it’s obvious.

Sure, if S&S abuses the easy, spoon-fed stories, they won’t get them anymore… so I understand. But it’s still a lazy way to do business… especially when claiming not to be a mouthpiece for Command.

Let’s take a look at a recent example…

“Segways a hit at Osan - 10 new vehicles make travel a breeze ”

Command, through S&S, painted a picture of happy-go-lucky maintenance boys zipping their way to increased productivity in a 21st century Air Force! Vrooom!

But that’s not the real story, is it? The real story is who the hell, in today’s increasingly fitness-conscious Air Force, approved TEN $5000 Segways (as opposed to, say, $50 bicycles) so non-PT’n’ airmen could cart their lard-asses around the flight line? Especially when “budget woes” are being blamed for everything from under-armored Humvees to Walter Reed… or, locally, Osan is on track for a multi-million dollar budget shortfall this year and Airman Wingnut has to wash his clothes in cold water.

That’s the story I want to hear the official excuse for. Maybe others do, too… maybe the ones who can’t get office supplies… maybe the ones who can’t get fighting supplies.

Erik, Stars & Stripes is one of the few potential watchdogs around USFK. When this type of action is glorified in a feel-good, command-encouraged article, this type of fraud, waste and abuse is encouraged… and those who perpetuate it are rewarded by good publicity and gold stars… that can even lead to promotions where real damage can be done. Great. Thanks.

Further, with this continued apathy, the upper limits of public toleration, largely influenced by media attitude, are constantly pushed and probed to insure larger yearly budgets and a larger capacity to waste… and this only stops when the money runs out or the public starts yelling. And the public usually doesn’t start yelling until the media leads them by the hand to whatever they are supposed to be angry about. S&S frequently leads them AWAY from what they should be angry about.

This is why I am complaining. There are MANY examples where the REAL story was ignored at the expense of servicemembers and the benefit of leadership.

—– failing to follow up on unresolved incidents

“Typically, we don’t run “nothing new and no comment in this case” stories because, well, nothing happening isn’t really news.”

Well put… funny and true. But this is the apathetic attitude they are counting on to keep attention away from things that need attention.

When information is suppressed, official statements are delayed and key players are “unavailable for comment”, it is hard to generate easy news… but that doesn’t mean nothing is happening. It just isn’t apparent to the guy on the street… which, incidentally, is what reporters are for… as they have the skills, the training, the resources and the platform to put public pressure on institutions which generally loathe publicity for their own good reasons.

“No comment” doesn’t make good news… but, after a while, with repeated incidents, it IS the news.

“Questions Remain in Death of Naked Soldier”, “Grieving Family Seeks Answers Over Soldier’s Mysterious Death”, “USFK’s Wall of Silence Conceals Details in Soldier’s Suspicious Death”, “Tillman-style Cover-up Suspected in USFK Soldier’s Bazaar Death”… take your pick… every month.

So far, USFK has been let off the hook on this one… completely. Even more so if you have contacted family members yet haven’t informed your readers that USFK won’t tell them how their relative died four and a half months ago.

Not too long from now, few on the ROK will have any connection to, or interest in, the original incident… as it has not been kept current by follow-up articles. USFK is counting on old news to not be news… and it will all just quietly slip away… while forming a blueprint for all future action when things need to just quietly slip away.

There are MANY examples of this lack of follow-up. The lawsuit over back pay for the failed civilian curfew come to mind (in which something newsworthy comes about every month or so). This becomes especially important to keep in the public eye as it appears things are quietly being positioned to try it again.

—– avoiding difficult question that might embarrass USFK

“As for avoiding asking tough questions to USFK, I find that contention surprising – as would Gen. Bell and the rest of the USFK command.”

I don’t think so. There are some stories which expose low-level problems. Excellent. There are never stories which challenge obvious, large-scale flaws in USFK actions or policy.

Here is an example… and it is one that, to this day, has destroyed my faith in Stars & Stripes.

For a long time, USFK stated the Korean drinking age was 20. Stars & Stripes echoed this without fact-checking. Fine. Who would think USFK would be wrong? This is a mistake I can understand.

On August 18, 2005, after reading yet another S&S article parroting the age of 20, I e-mailed the reporter and included digital pictures of various Korean alcohol bottles… the ones with the big circled NINETEEN on the warning label. I continued to do this every time S&S published a story with the incorrect drinking age of 20… FOR A YEAR! A year, Erik.

Now, one would think most “reporters” would read my e-mail and see if I was on the level or not… you know, maybe, take a look at an easily-available bottle of Korean alcohol and find their curiosity roused by a circled 19 just enough to question an easily-available Korean to see if the written warning in fact said, “Selling to minors under 19 is forbidden”. Yep, one would think that. One would be wrong.

This was an easy story which didn’t require career-risking informants or the cooperation of CID… just the reporting of publicly available facts. It did undermine USFK’s drinking policy propaganda at the time, though.

The absolute worst reporting in the history of journalism or unethical assistance with USFK’s alcohol agenda? I would LOVE for an explanation on why S&S ignored this story.

It wasn’t until Sep 21, 2006, when I e-mailed Stars & Stripes OUTSIDE of Korea, that I got a response that it would be looked into.

The result, on November 7, 2006, was a well-written article on page 3 (which has mysteriously vanished from the on-line archive) which clearly explained the complexities of the Korean drinking age and how it was 19… and sometimes EIGHTEEN depending on your birth date.

Excellent. But that was only half the story… the small half.

The “tough question” was how this could have happened. Was USFK ignorant of host country law? Or was it an attempt to keep 19 year-olds from being run out of the villes to cause trouble like the 20 year-olds when the USFK drinking age went to 21… as lying to trick soldiers into compliance is easier than creating well-disciplined soldiers through inspired leadership.

I still don’t know… but I know it’s newsworthy… especially coming from reporters who feel Gen. Bell and the rest of the USFK command would be surprised at the contention that tough questions were avoided.

Think these are isolated examples? No. There are tough questions being avoided on many, many, many issues. I would love for somebody to accuse me of not being able to come up with any more examples so I could explain in agonizing detail.

All of the articles on Lt. Davis are prime examples.

—– ignoring newsworthy situations that require a minimum of investigative journalism

One night of juicing and asking the right questions will show that USFK’s “zero-tolerance policy” tolerates quite a bit of human trafficking. This is news.

It’s also news when a bar is placed off-limits… and S&S has the ability to insure fairness and honesty by reporting the off-limits as well as comments by the AFDCB and the business owner.

The list goes on and on and on…

—– resigning themselves to USFK’s policy of releasing as little information as possible

Too often, S&S accepts “no comment” without more follow-ups on the event or articles questioning WHY the secrecy is necessary.

An example might be the article on The Army Corps of Engineers Far East District commander’s husband’s company being awarded a large contract.

I don’t know that there was anything dishonest about this award… but the article certainly didn’t convince me it was on the level. It actually seemed that S&S was trying to give the appearance of closure.

S&S failed to question the commander. S&S failed to question the husband. S&S failed to question his company. S&S failed to question any of the Evaluation Board members (or even research past employment relationships that might be telling)… and, of course, asking questions and getting a comment are not the same thing. In this case, there were no statements from anyone either.

If there really was no dishonesty, all of these parties should be happy to explain the situation in detail… and S&S should report it to build pride and confidence in the integrity of American institutions… and to insure unnecessary secrecy is seen as abnormal… leading to a higher degree of scrutiny for those who practice it to hide their dishonesty.

So, S&S basically repeated the FED spokesman’s “nothing to see here, move along” statement and never questioned why nobody else wanted to talk (or didn’t try to get them to). And with that, the story went away… never… to… be… heard… from… again. As many do.

This is great news for those engaged in wrong-doing. Nothing to fear. “See, Stars & Stripes investigated it and found nothing wrong.”

…and, one other thing…

“We do our best to provide servicemembers with the good, bad and ugly. In the process, we sometimes get slammed by commanders and threatened by others.”

Fantastic! This should generate NEW news. “Commander Threatens Journalist Over Exposure of Misdeeds” I’m not seeing these headlines. Why? Do you let it slide?

So. That’s it.

I understand your situation is more complex and your job is harder than most realize but I certainly would like to have your views on my comments.

I would also like to hear comments from others who share my opinion or think I am barking up the wrong tree.

J!

Keep up the good work.