Column preview: Fairness to Stuttgart victims rightly trumps naming their rapist-father

One of the most read stories in Stars and Stripes this week was a disturbing account from Stuttgart of the court martial of an Army major convicted of raping his three young daughters over a period of years. The Stripes newsroom chose not to identify the major, on the grounds that it would identify his victims.

Though some commenters objected, I agree that fairness to the daughters trumped letting readers learn the identity of their rapist father. Withholding the names of victims of sexual assault -- deliberately omitting what would ordinarily be a fundamental fact -- was also consistent with policies and practices in most modern newsrooms.

Quiz Time: What if you were the ‘Un-Publisher’?

Unlike libraries full of books, papers and other actual documents, material in a digital archive is relatively simple to alter. From that fact has emerged an ethical question for newsrooms: When should a story in the archive be corrected to reflect new information? Or even, when should a story in the digital archive be deleted – “unpublished,” as the expression goes?

Editors more and more frequently face those questions from people who have been identified in stories about arrests, foreclosures or other behavior they’d like to put behind them. Tired of seeing that old, embarrassing information pop up with their names in a Google search, they ask that the original story be expunged. Or maybe the charges were dismissed and that went unreported, so the Google search is reinforcing something that is no longer accurate.

Sequestration shouldn't be cover to shut down (or shut up) Stars and Stripes' independent voice

As Stripes’ newsroom reported last week, shutting down Stars and Stripes is under consideration as the Pentagon faces the prospect of dramatic budget cuts. Silencing Stripes’ unique, independent voice is a very bad idea, even if the motives are pure – and that’s never a sure thing when money's on the table.

In the current fiscal climate, especially facing the continuing additional cuts from sequestration, a top-to-bottom review of DOD spending is to be expected.That's basic management. But it's also an environment that can invite a few well-placed people to work out their personal preferences. In Stripes' case, that could mean someone who doesn't like its reporting using the rationale of fiscal pressure to mask an entirely different intention -- to eliminate an irritant.

Signed Defense bill blocks Stripes’ newsroom move to Fort Meade

In the hundreds of pages of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act signed by President Obama this week are two paragraphs that block the Defense Media Activity proposal to move Stars and Stripes’ central newsroom to the home of command-centered information at Fort Meade, Md. Those two paragraphs don’t rise to the level of news coverage, but they matter for the readers who depend on Stripes to operate as a First Amendment publication, independent of command influence.

As I’ve written previously as this issue played out since spring, Stripes’ independent newsroom shouldn’t be housed in the central production facility of command-centered and command-controlled print, web and TV operations.

Nothing sinister in why Stripes spiked that Dempsey-Ward story

 “Bad commander” stories always attract attention (and online comments) in Stars and Stripes.  That was true of the Associated Press report last week that Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey favors allowing former U.S. Africa Command head Gen. William Ward to retire with four stars, despite an IG report that concluded Ward, while leading AFRICOM, “engaged in multiple forms of misconduct related to official and unofficial travel.”

The AP story was posted at stripes.com, but in considering it for the print edition, editors raised a doubt about a key fact: Ward’s current rank.  He had four stars at AFRICOM, but they thought that rank was due to that command, which he left in 2011. Print deadline was near, and when they couldn’t settle their doubt, they chose not to use the story. 

Election Scorecard: Has Stripes played fair in 5 big moments in the presidential campaign?

 In previous election scorecards, I’ve tallied stories, photos, cartoons and op-eds to assess fairness, impartiality and thoroughness in the general flow of Stars and Stripes campaign coverage. In my latest column, I concentrate on five milestone moments over the past five weeks: the GOP convention, the Democrats’ convention, the murder of the U.S. ambassador in Libya, the disclosure of Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” comment and the first presidential debate.

The short answer: Generally very well, though there were spots I’d like to have seen more. Check the column for details. And weigh in with your own judgment, either here on in the comments section of the column.

Column preview: ‘Grim milestone’ graphic wasn’t insensitive

 As the number of servicemembers lost in the Afghanistan war nears 2,000, Stars and Stripes' front page on Aug. 30 featured a graphic explaining how different organizations arrive at different counts. The Pentagon’s most senior public affairs official called the page “a slap in the face to all those who have put their lives on the line for this country.”

In my column, I say why I think he’s off the mark. Adding up the total doesn’t diminish or trivialize any individual loss.

Column preview: Summer scorecard on campaign coverage

As the political conventions approach, it’s time to update my scorecard of how Stars and Stripes has so far met its obligation to provide readers with thorough and fair political coverage, including a broad spectrum of opinions. 

The short answer: It’s been a good summer, but the big challenge remains as the campaign season really heats up.

Column preview: Troops downrange rely on Stripes’ independence

I recently returned from a listening tour with troops deployed to American bases in the Persian Gulf region. My column online today (and in Friday’s print editions) is a report to readers about my conversations about Stars and Stripes with troops from every service, across the ranks, in Kuwait, Bahrain and another undisclosed location.

Short version: They rely on it for impartial and relevant news – plus the fun stuff, just like the American newspaper it’s designed to be. And they want another page of that little touch of home, the daily American Roundup.

Election Scorecard: Is Stripes’ Obama-Romney coverage balanced?

 Mitt Romney’s not officially the nominee yet, but he effectively clinched it by May. So how was Stripes’ Obama-Romney coverage that month?

Short answer: Well balanced, allowing for the fact that President Obama is going to make more news outside the actual campaign.  And that gives him both upside -- more presence -- and downside – more criticism.


Tobias Naegele

Stars and Stripes ombudsman

Over 30 years as a journalist, Tobias Naegele has focused almost exclusively on military and defense issues, headed up the Military Times newspapers — Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times — from 1998 to 2014, establishing Marine Corps Times as its own distinct product during that time. Prior to then, he was editor of Navy Times, where he created its weekly Marine Corps Edition.

From 2004 to 2014, he was editor in chief of the Military Times products as well as Defense News, Armed Forces Journal, Federal Times, and a number of other magazines and websites, including Military Times Faces of the Fallen and its Hall of Valor, along with the weekly syndicated TV program This Week in Defense News with Vago Muradian. Under his leadership, the newsroom was consistently recognized with awards from the Associated Press Managing Editors, Online News Association, Society of Professional Journalists, American Business Press Editors, Military Writers and Editors, White House Correspondents Association and more.

Tobias Naegele can be reached at naegele.tobias@stripes.com or (202) 761-0900.

The ombudsman

Congress created the post in the early 1990’s to ensure that Stars and Stripes journalists operate with editorial independence and that Stars and Stripes readers receive a free flow of news and information without taint of censorship or propaganda.

The ombudsman serves as an autonomous watchdog of Stars and Stripes’ First Amendment rights. Anyone who fears those rights are imperiled should alert the ombudsman.

The ombudsman is also the readers’ representative to the newsroom. Readers who think a journalistic issue or event was misrepresented or ignored or who feel complaints were not properly addressed by Stripes reporters or editors should contact the ombudsman.