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.

Post from: The Newsroom

Rivers came to mind today as I read Dean Toda’s story about Lamborn topping the list of Colorado’s seven U.S. House members in the “Pig Book,” an annual tally of earmark spending (pork) secured by members of Congress for their home districts. Lamborn obtained $21.73 million for his district in the most recent fiscal year, all of it for projects at the region’s military installations.

Lamborn responds that local military spending doesn’t meet the definition of pork. It’s national defense; it’s not a parochial pet project because it benefits all Americans.

A worthy argument, to be sure — to a point. As with most arguments, though, it’s a matter of degree — because if Lamborn is asserting that any military spending in Colorado’s 5th Congressional District deserves a complete pass by the Pig Book, he’s asserting that no appetite is too large. And that invites comparisons to Mendel Rivers.

I learned of Rivers’ astounding record of bacon-hauling many years ago, as a reporter. I was researching the history of America’s episodic waves of military base-building, as part of the Gazette’s 1995 coverage of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, which was contemplating the fate of Fort Carson.

Here’s the excerpt from the story I wrote:

During Rivers’ tenure from 1941-70 representing Charleston, S.C., on the House Armed Services Committee, that city’s naval yard became a major Atlantic Fleet base and acquired squadrons of destroyers and nuclear submarines. The base added sumbarine-training and maintenance centers, a hospital, supply and weapons depots, and a mine-warfare center. An Army depot, Air Force base, Marine recruiting depot, Coast Guard station and veterans hospital opened.

Never was a campaign slogan truer than “Rivers Delivers.”

“You put anything else down there in your district, Mendel, it’s gonna sink,” a colleague once told him.

And that was before Rivers became committee chairman. After he did, Charleston’s share of the annual Navy construction budget more than doubled. In just two of Rivers’ six years as armed services chariman, the base received as much construction money as it had during the 10 years before he took control of the committee.

“What my people want is prosperity,” Rivers said in 1969. “They want jobs. Money. And that’s what I’ve brought them.”

Rivers didn’t even try to pretend that the money he caused to rain down on his district served a higher, national purpose that protected it from being lumped in with pork. The money was for local jobs, local paychecks, period.

Lamborn, by contrast, is making the very argument that Rivers didn’t even attempt: military spending is not pork. In that way, he is cut from the same cloth as his predecessor, former U.S. Rep. Joel Hefley, who regularly and loudly ridiculed pork elsewhere while pulling every string he could to save Fort Carson during the BRAC Commission days.

Or, maybe Lamborn does think there is a line between sensible military spending and outright piggery. If so, the congressman hasn’t said what it is. By his own definition, it’s somewhere north of $21.73 million.

Post from: The Newsroom

The story, in case you haven’t seen it yet, is about a Government Accountability Office report, still a draft and not final, that asserts military testimony to Congress in March understated the vulnerability of PAFB’s “Building 2,” headquarters of NORAD and of Northern Command (the military component of the Department of Homeland Security). It’s the new nerve center of any military response needed in the face of a natural disaster or terrorist threat.

It’s also a stone’s throw from any number of nearby buildings. And right next to the airport. And it’s not, any more, in Cheyenne Mountain, perhaps the planet’s most impenetrable fortress. Its move from the mountain’s womb to an above-ground office building in an urban setting has raised obvious security questions from the day it was proposed. You don’t have to be al-Qaida to wonder, what if . . .

I don’t mean to dismiss this woman’s concerns. She has every right to be worried. And on the surface, it seems logical that publicizing the vulnerability of the building is courting attack.

That logic would hold up — if it could be assumed that the military had made Building 2 as secure as it needs to be.

The problem is: how do we know the military has done that? How can Americans hold their military leadership accountable?

Accountability requires publicity. Accountability cannot be achieved in secret. You can’t entrust verification to someone else — even someone you’ve elected — and call yourself a government of the people. That’s why we published the story, and will continue to cover it.

I’m not talking about revealing Building 2’s specific vulnerabilities. We’re not about to publish a blueprint for destruction. This is about verifying whether America is getting the best protection possible of a vital national asset. For now anyway, the GAO is saying the Pentagon isn’t delivering that product. The military now has its turn to respond to the GAO assessment and assure Congress — behind closed doors — that it’s doing what’s necessary to get the facility up to security standards.

This whole process is supposed to be classified. So it’s doubly concerning to discover, through this small crack in the secrecy surrounding the move of NORAD command to Building 2, real questions about military accountability. Maybe those questions will be answered. Unless more cracks in the secrecy appear, we won’t know.

What is more secure: a building that actually — and verifiably — is as fortified as necessary, or a building that actually has weaknesses that we hope a terrorist never finds out about?

Post from: The Newsroom

Me, I watched the Tbirds’ practice runs from the ground as I munched a burger at a neighbor’s Memorial Day BBQ. Aren’t many places on this planet where you get your own flyover during a picnic.

Post from: The Newsroom

On Sunday we plan to publish a photo essay by David Bitton, who’s in Iraq covering elements of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team from Fort Carson. He has assembled a collection of images of Iraq as seen through the frame of the window of the Humvee that has hauled him all over Baghdad. The parade of seemingly disconnected, random images from a cohesive vantage add up to a reflection of the often disconnected, random life and events of a country trying to hold itself together.

Many more of his photos will appear in an online gallery.

Post from: The Newsroom

They’ve also begun to check in at their Iraq Notebook blog, where Tom reports on a rare snowfall and the living conditions for the Fort Carson troops.

Post from: The Newsroom

How about this?

A few readers called or e-mailed me Sunday and Monday to complain that our A1 report on Colorado Springs military wives, which included the photo above, was front-page smut. The story, by reporter Melissa Cassutt, was about Colorado Springs military wives hiring a professional photographer to create some glossies of them in classic, 1940s-style pinup poses. The photos are then sent to their husbands serving overseas.

“Gross!” was the heading on one e-mail sent to me. “How offensive can you get? I was truly nauseated.” A caller said it was “inappropriate” material for her three teen-age boys. Another called it “soft porn.”

Some other readers saw nothing out of line. “This is a wonderful way for the wives to support their husbands,” one reader said in a comment posted beneath the story. “Anything to cheer up the ‘boys’ over there is fine by me,” wrote another.

What do you think? Is there a difference between Betty Grable showing some leg for the soldiers in 1943, and married women doing the same for their husbands in 2007?

Or, is the issue more about the placement of the story? Do you think our story was fine, but belonged somewhere besides the front page?

Post from: The Newsroom