Defending the Stars & Stripes

There has some speculation recently that the Stars & Stripes have been intentionally covering up, not reporting, ignoring, or whatever other phrase you want to use to describe not publishing stories about GI misbehavior in Korea which is giving the appearance of a drop in GI incidents. I don’t believe it, but I decided to e-mail the Stars & Stripes and get a response to such claims anyway.

As I expected there was a logical explanation for the spike in incidents earlier this year along with the drop off this summer and it has nothing to do with the Stars & Stripes intentionally not reporting incidents. Many people working in the JAG office were PCSing in May and front loaded the cases to get them completed before they left. This contributed to the apparent spike in incidents earlier this year. With so many cases tried before the summer started this caused the apparent drop in incidents this summer.

For those that are wondering even if the USFK command wanted to censor the Stars & Stripes they can’t due to DOD Directive 5122.11:

Stars and Stripes is a Department of Defense-authorized daily newspaper distributed overseas for the U.S. military community. Editorially independent of interference from outside its editorial chain-of-command, it provides commercially available U.S. and world news and objective staff-produced stories relevant to the military community in a balanced, fair, and accurate manner. By keeping its audience informed, Stars and Stripes enhances military readiness and better enables U.S. military personnel and their families stationed overseas to exercise their responsibilities of citizenship.

Now I know many of you reading this are wondering why the Stars & Stripes are not reporting on developments in some of the USFK corruption cases or the killing of SPC Vang Her by a Korean taxi driver. I would like to know more as well, but just because the Stars & Stripes hasn’t published any more follow up articles doesn’t mean they are covering anything up. A legitimate newspaper like the Stars & Stripes needs facts to report something not innuendo and rumor. Innuendo and rumor is what my comments section is for. 🙂

I think the Stars & Stripes has done a very good job of publishing incidents along with other articles of interest for USFK, especially in the last two years. I have said before that the perception of the increase in GI crimes is because the Stars & Stripes along with the Korean media does a much better job of reporting incidents compared to in the past and then these reports are picked up on blogs like this one thus making people more aware of them. When I first came to Korea eight years ago the villes were much more crazy and filled with many more incidents than now. It was just that the media and people in general did not pay as much attention to it as they do now in this post June 13, 2002 period.

I for one am glad the court martial and civilian court results are published because it creates better awareness of the penalties in store for those who violate either Korean Law or the UCMJ. I used to take the newspaper clippings and hang them on the barracks bulletin board for the soldiers walking out to read. I have always been a big believer that informed soldiers make better decisions and the Stars & Stripes in my opinion has done a good job of this.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

17 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
mcnut
mcnut
17 years ago

the cover up could be from the pmo office not realeasing information to stars and stripes

once they get the initial story maybe they dont get much more after that

as for better informed soldiers you are right

GI Korea
17 years ago

I think the cover up thinking is coming from people reading blotter reports and seeing something on there that did not end up in the Stars and Stripes. The incidents in the blotter report may not have gone to trial due to lack of evidence. I can remember a case in my old unit where a sexual assault made the blotter but the case did not go to a court martial because it was determined the victim lied about the assault.

Also incidents in the blotter may have been handled with a Article 15. Article 15's are non-judicial punishment handled no higher than the battalion level. Thus Stars and Stripes has no access to this information and personally I don't people who get Article 15's should have their names out in the media.

However, people convicted in court martials or in Korean court being published in the S&S I can understand because they committed serious crimes and this serves as a warning to the rest of the people in the ranks that such serious crimes will be punished.

The increased media attention to GI incidents I think is a double edged sword because in my opinion it has created a perception of increased incidents but at the same time it has also probably educated soldiers more about what happens to you if you get trouble which has contributed to the reduction of GI incidents over the past few years.

Leon LaPorte
Leon LaPorte
17 years ago

I'm here to cater to your innuendo and rumor needs. 😉

ChickenHead
ChickenHead
17 years ago

Apples and oranges, GI.

Is Stars & Stripes management working in conjunction with USFK leadership to cover up or suppress embarrassing or illegal events? No… probably not. I don't think anybody is crying, "Conspiracy!"

Are 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? Absolutely… and I'll be happy to publicly discuss this in painful detail if anyone wishes to deny it.

These are two separate concepts.

Disproving an active "conspiracy" certainly does not demonstrate that USFK is committed to honesty and transparency… or that S&S is engaged in thorough reporting and an insistence on accountability.

Further, there is a difference between the newsworthy-ness of Private Jerkoff's Article 15 for Drunk and Disorderly… and Colonel Halftrack's close relationship to a questionable situation. A fight in the Ville and a stabbing in the Ville have different degrees of public interest. Everyone understands this and nobody expects a three page supplement with the gory details of every curfew violation.

But not expecting S&S to report on every Article 15 doesn't excuse them for ignoring serious crimes. When a stabbed GI winds up at the hospital, it is news when it happens… and it is worthy of a follow-up when the legal process concludes… especially when it happens TWICE!

Let's take a look at your post and clarify a few things…

"For those that are wondering even if the USFK command wanted to censor the Stars & Stripes they can’t due to DOD Directive 5122.11"

That's the story. However, since the increased secrecy of the LePorte regime (especially during the Lt. Davis scandal), USFK has been very miserly with information. Coupled with reporters who don't want to jeopardize an easy working relationship with USFK for the information they are spoon-fed, it results in a self-censorship.

There is a lot of obvious stuff out there which S&S could bring attention to that would be embarrassing for now but would cleanse and strengthen USFK in the long-run… but life won't be easy for that brave reporter for his short remaining time on the job.

Mcnut is on the money… USFK doesn't release it, S&S doesn't ask. Everyone is pretty happy with this status-quo arrangement.

"I would like to know more as well, but just because the Stars & Stripes hasn’t published any more follow up articles doesn’t mean they are covering anything up."

Probably… but it DOES mean they are complacent in USFK's desire to cover them up. A real S&S reporter in Korea would keep a little file of unresolved issues that USFK would rather go away… and would pursue them on slow news days to keep the stories in the public eye… which would force a higher degree of transparency… which would discourage the dishonesty and corruption which flourishes in an environment of secrecy. In the long run, this secrecy benefits a select few of the worst type of careerists while damaging the military and the majority of its members.

That intelligent and professional soldiers, such as yourself, aren't pushing for this to happen (even covertly) is disappointing.

"A legitimate newspaper like the Stars & Stripes needs facts to report something not innuendo and rumor."

In most of the cases where USFK and S&S allows stories to go down the Memory Hole (or doesn't even bring them up), these facts are out there if one truly looks for them. (It took about 15 minutes on the Internet to find a picture of Vang Her's grave and contact information for friends and family members.) Further a S&S reporter can ask for official comments and then print, "USFK refused to comment"… over and over again until the public becomes interested as to why.

As the Gub'ment likes to say, "If there is nothing to hide, there is no reason you can't answer all of our questions."

Also, there are lots of stories which are just waiting to be written yet never are… "Why are Clubs Which Confine Their Filipina Bargirls Not Off-limits for Human Trafficking?" comes to mind.

One purpose of the press in a free society is to insure openness and a free flow of information from its institutions. When the press becomes complacent or assists dishonest members of these institutions, it damages the institutions and weakens our free society.

Right now, Stars & Stripes in Korea is not doing their best.

(I would like to point out that the S&S reporters are not entirely to blame. They have to function within a framework controlled and manipulated by USFK. Short of a public feud between a unified S&S and USFK over openness, honesty and transparency, there is little chance for any change in the current system.)

J!

Leon LaPorte
Leon LaPorte
17 years ago

Chickenhead, you have vocalized, er typed, my exact same thoughts eloquently. There are many others on the penn that share the exact same view. Thanks.

trackback
17 years ago

[…] posted yesterday why there was a drop in GI incidents this summer and now it appears things are about back to normal with a warrant officer convicted of […]

Erik Slavin
Erik Slavin
17 years ago

Normally I let this stuff go, but I'd like to clear up a few things:

If you know a way to get information out of CID that we haven't tried, I'm all ears. Same goes for an end-around on medical privacy laws and a host of other exemptions the military can legally employ. I've already contacted two members of Vang Her's family and they aren't being told anything either. Same with the staff sergeant that allegedly committed suicide recently.

We press and sometimes we find a sympathetic ear or multiple soldiers in a unit willing to talk. But few are willing to jeopardize their careers to talk to us. We do not simply forget these incidents; however, we can't publish uncorroborated rumors either. Typically, we don’t run “nothing new and no comment in this case” stories because, well, nothing happening isn’t really news.

As for avoiding asking tough questions to USFK, I find that contention surprising – as would Gen. Bell and the rest of the USFK command. Sure, sometimes we run stories pitched through command, because they’re news too. However, I would recommend you read the following story and ask yourself if you really think this came from a command release, or if you believe this was somehow the product of a cushy command relationship:
http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&ar

There are plenty of similar examples available in our archives.

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. If we’re working downrange (most of us are on rotation), add “while getting shot at” to that statement.

We’re always interested in hearing from readers regarding our coverage, and I regularly ask servicemembers what they would like to read about. I personally have no problem with criticism and I generally welcome it. If you’re interested in a story and haven’t seen a followup, feel free to e-mail us. But never doubt for a minute that we are busting our ass.

Regards,

Erik

ChickenHead
ChickenHead
17 years ago

I delayed responding as I hoped more people would voice an opinion on this… but, of course, there would be more comments if S&S stopped printing the sports scores than if it stopped writing about court-martial results.

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!

Mark
17 years ago

ChickenHead, you should work for CID or Stars & Stripes.

Bones
Bones
17 years ago

Or better yet have his own show, modeled after A&E call it Chickenhead Investigates or Cold Case files with Chickenhead as your host.

ChickenHead
ChickenHead
17 years ago

Hmmm…

"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!

Bob Walsh
Bob Walsh
17 years ago

I have to chime in. In WWII, we had the S&S in both the Pacific and EU theaters, and also a mag called "Yank". All you have to do is dig up copies of these to see how much better a job they did of voicing soldier's concerns and digging into them. The Yongsan library used to have bound copies.

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'.

ChickenHead
ChickenHead
17 years ago

Ahem.

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&a

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!

ChickenHead
ChickenHead
17 years ago

More crack reporting from Stars & Stripes!
http://www.pstripes.com/article.asp?section=104&a

"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.

17
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x