Column preview: When war reporting becomes crime reporting

 "Where are the everyday mentions of heinous acts perpetrated by other entities on the battlefield?" asks Army Capt. Dana Fitzpatrick of the 1204^th Aviation Support Battalion.

This week's column poses that question to Stripes editors and takes a look at the balance of misdeeds in coverage. 

• Read More
• Comments

VE Day back story: Did the Stripes reporter keep his promise to delay reporting the Nazi surrender?

Here’s another take on AP reporter Ed Kennedy’s 1945 scoop on the Nazi surrender 67 years ago today – the story of Stars and Stripes reporter Charles Kiley, who covered the surrender negotiations and (unlike Kennedy) kept his promise to Allied military authorities to delay reporting the actual surrender for 36 hours.  David Kiley recounts in the Huffington Post how his father viewed Kennedy’s “cowboy” decision to break the embargo on his own. Good reading in full, though I’ll just quote one point here:

 “[L]et's not think for a minute that Kennedy was motivated by ‘the people's right to know.’ Recalling my father's account, I know he said the following to me, though it is not on tape: ‘Kennedy wanted the scoop, plain and simple.’"

• Read More
• Comments

WWII quiz: What prize went to the reporter who got Nazi surrender scoop?

 The Associated Press apologized today for firing World War II correspondent Ed Kennedy after he broke a pledge of secrecy to break the news of the German surrender on May 7, 1945.  

Did the people’s right to know the war was over in Europe trump the Allied chiefs’ plan to let Stalin stage his own Nazi surrender? What would you have done?

• Read More
• Comments

Column preview: Impartiality doesn't require living in a bubble

 This week's Ombudsman column picks up a reader's questions to explore the journalism value of independence. It's essential to any credible newsroom, and a special challenge for Stars and Stripes in covering the military, because the staff are all DOD employees.

The column is online now and in the print editions Friday. 

• Read More
• Comments

House subcommittee would block moving Stars and Stripes to Fort Meade

In addition to high-profile stipulations about troop strength, a pay raise for the troops and new regulations to prevent and punish sexual assault, the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee will consider language in the 2013 Defense Authorization Bill that would prohibit moving the central office and newsroom of Stars and Stripes to the same location as the command-centered media operations of Defense Media Activity at Fort Meade, Md.

The direction that would block the proposed move is deep in the 190-page draft that will be considered Thursday by the subcommittee. The subcommittee released the draft today, which includes this language on page 113:

• Read More
• Comments

The Inbox: Why run old stories as 'Related' links?

 One of the beauties of a newspaper website is that it’s easy to provide readers with more background and context by linking from a current story back to previous stories, photos, maps or other supplemental material.  It’s a great advantage over newsprint and ink, where papers run out of space for that kind of helpful content.

Sometimes, though, an old headline or story is mistaken as new. That happened last week with a reader who lives at Camp Zama, Japan.  From a timely Stripes story looking at how Japan’s continuing post-tsunami nuclear-power shutdown might affect electricity use on U.S. bases this summer, she followed a link to a story about brownouts and power restrictions from last summer. Trouble was, she took it not as background but as the official word on what to expect this summer.

• Read More
• Comments

Column preview: Would you run photos of US troops toying with Taliban corpses?

Extend the search beyond DOD for new location for Stripes’ central newsroom

 I’ve written lately about the newsroom’s performance in respect to political fairness, news judgment, photo selection and other aspects of its journalistic obligations to readers. This week, in updating the status of the proposed relocation of Stripes' central office and newsroom to Fort Meade, the column returns to another aspect of the Ombudsman’s role: supporting the newsroom’s ability to operate as an independent, First Amendment enterprise.

 The column is online today and in print Friday. 

• Read More
• Comments

The Inbox: Other voices on the suicide-bombing photo

 As I said in a previous blog posting, I fully support the Stars and Stripes editors who chose to run a photo of the immediate aftermath of a suicide bombing in Afghanistan last week. It was a disturbing image, but undoubtedly newsworthy, and the editors did not take lightly the decision to put the photo on Thursday's front page. After a full discussion, they concluded that its news value outweighed the issues of sensitivity. In light of that sensitivity, they also chose the photo that showed no horrific injuries and in which the injured American soldiers were not identifiable.

All those considerations notwithstanding, they no doubt also knew some readers would find the photo objectionable.

• Read More
• Comments

Suicide-bombing photo was the right choice for the right reasons

 A photo taken immediately after the suicide bombing in Maimanah, Afghanistan, dominated the front page of Thursday’s Stars and Stripes. In the foreground, two American soldiers lie wounded as civilians and Afghan police officers carry a victim from the scene.

Some readers objected to the use of the photo, as shown in the following excerpts from emails to Stars and Stripes Publisher Max Lederer. (I’ll post their full messages and their names if I can get their permission.) 

• Read More
• Comments