Fifteen people were arrested on suspicion of possessing or exchanging child pornography. The story reports that four of those arrested are active-duty military. The rest are not, and their occupations are not mentioned.

Fair? Unfair?

It was the object of discussion among editors and reporters on Tuesday, as the story was being prepared. It was the subject of critique, both internally, and by readers, on Wednesday. Here are some of the arguments:

****

They just happened to be in the military stationed at Fort Carson or Peterson AFB.  Were the other 11 unemployed? If not, why list just the 4, is it that because there are in the military? I have noticed over the years that other reporters, like yourself, seem to pick out those in the military that have done something wrong with out indicating the employment of others that have done something just as bed if not worse.  Why is that?

****

I must take issue with how this story is being reported. Because of how the the gazzett turns the story into a personal vendetta agenst the military. Why not tell us where all the perps work. The fact that 4 of them were in the military was only repersentive of the ratio between civilian and military person in the area. As prior Military I will personaly assure you most who serve are honorible and loath those that abuse children. I think the local meadia is trying to give the military a black eye in the way this story was reported.

****

It would make sense that if we were going to call out the military connection for the four individuals we should also call out the employers of the other folks that got arrested. It should be an all or none call out to make it fair.

The implication of the call out is that the military connection has some special connection to the issue.

****

I would argue that military members fall into the same “interest” category as police officers, firefighters, prosecutors, doctors, clergymen – that is, they are widely viewed as standard bearers of responsibility and integrity and as such are held to a higher standard by our readers.
This is partly a matter of perception, of course, but I think it’s more substantial than that:  Just as police officers are charged with protecting order in our cities, our military people have agreed to be the public face of the U.S. abroad.  We delegate a tremendous amount of authority, power and money to them, just as we do the cops, etc.   We have a clear interest in how they conduct themselves.

If we apply the same restrictive standard, we’ll be hard-pressed to justify alerting our readers the next time a middle school band leader gets in trouble for child pornography.  In that case, there was no connection to the school.  But people are interested – and worried – because of concerns about how the guy used (or misused) the authority and privilege he got through the schools. It doesn’t spark the same concerns if the guy’s a butcher or a baker.

****

By legal definition, they are public servants set apart from others by the powers invested in them by their nation. They hold power of command over lesser-ranking service members, which is unique. Those empowered to issue orders and punish those who do not obey have accepted a burden of authority that necessarily comes with increased scrutiny.

We ask much of our military. We as a society do expect them to possess morality that may not be present elsewhere. Those who meet expectations are rewarded for their sacrifice, while some may say that reward is inadequate. Those who meet the standard can expect promotion. They’re paid by tax dollars, with annual raises in the past decade that have dwarfed those received by their civilian counterparts.

Commanders especially understand this. In a culture where absolutely accountability is crucial, scofflaws must be rooted out. For a unit to achieve the life-saving cohesion and the élan that is often the difference between victory and defeat on the battlefield, they must hold their soldiers to the highest of standards.

****

For the record, we did request the occupations of the others who were arrested. The information was not provided to us.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.