“The press is not the enemy, and to treat it so is self-defeating.”
— Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, to the 2007 graduating class of the United States Naval Academy

You may have read that a Stars and Stripes reporter, Heath Druzin, has been blocked from embedding with a 1st Cavalry unit.

More precisely, he has been barred from returning to cover a unit that he previously accompanied during the joint U.S.-Iraqi military effort to secure Mosul, one of Iraq’s most violent cities.

The unit’s commander, Col. Gary Volesky, simply does not want Druzin back. The various reasons offered by Volesky and his public affairs officer, Maj. Ramona Bellard, involve Druzin’s personality, professionalism, reluctance to discuss story ideas and that he “refused to highlight” aspects of the Mosul campaign that they wanted him to promote (See Editorial Director Terry Leonard’s point-by-point rebuttal, “Army denies Stripes reporter access to combat team in Mosul,” article, June 24).

In a raft of e-mail correspondence between Stars and Stripes and the military that began May 11, the colonel and the major emphasized that their problem was not with the newspaper but with Druzin — another Stripes reporter would be welcome in Mosul, they said. (Army officials in Baghdad offered to let Druzin embed somewhere else.)

In other words, they made it personal. And that is wrong, in just about every way.

Before I go any further, let me say that while I do not know Col. Volesky personally, his public record of service to his country bespeaks a soldier’s soldier, one who presently bears huge responsibility in carrying out an extraordinarily tough, dangerous and complex mission in Mosul.

Now serving his third tour in Iraq, Volesky has received the Silver Star, the Bronze Star three times, the Purple Heart, and the Combat Infantryman Badge (twice). He has an advanced degree in Near Eastern Studies from Princeton, studied Arabic at the Defense Language Institute, attended the Command and General Staff College and the Air War College, and once held the post of Chief of Infantry Doctrine at the United States Infantry School. And did I mention he’s a Ranger?

Even reporters in Baghdad hold him in high regard, according to Thomas E. Ricks, the veteran military affairs reporter for The Washington Post.

But for all that, Col. Volesky is way wrong on this one.

According to both standard journalism practice and Defense Department policy, military commanders do not get to say which reporters get assigned where, whether they work for Stars and Stripes, The New York Times, MSNBC, the Huffington Post or the Podunk Gazette.

Editors do.

And whether Volesky, Bellard, the soldiers of the 1st Cavalry, the people of Mosul or the readers of Stars and Stripes think Druzin is a good reporter or a bad reporter is a matter of opinion outside the legal and policy framework that governs military-media relations and the assignment of reporters.

In that regard, the only opinion that counts, by practice and by law, is that of Druzin’s editors. And they are standing by him and his performance in Iraq. And they want him back in Mosul.

It is worth revisiting here some of the official policy that covers this situation and the military-media relationship in general, and none of it favors Col. Volesky’s position.

Department of Defense Directive 5122.11, which governs Stars and Stripes, states that “it is DoD policy that…that there shall be a free flow of news and information to its readership without news management or censorship. The calculated withholding of unfavorable news is prohibited.”

Elsewhere, the directive pointedly prohibits “the calculated withholding of news unfavorable to the Department of Defense, the Military Services, or the U.S. Government.” It even adds that “sensitivities of host nations shall not be a reason to withhold any story from publication in the Stars and Stripes.”

By these lights, denying access to a reporter because one fears unfavorable articles amounts to “calculated withholding of unfavorable news.”

Finally, the directive reminds one and all — including commanders — that “Stars and Stripes does not represent the official position of the U.S. Government, including the Department of Defense or the Unified Combatant Command.”

That can cover a number of things, but in this case it means a commander can’t bar or otherwise punish a reporter because he “refused to highlight” information the commander wanted highlighted. DOD rules all define journalistic misconduct in terms of actions taken, not untaken. And punishing a reporter for not writing something is mistaken.

If Stripes editors acquiesced and sent another reporter in Druzin’s place, as Volesky proposes, everything that reporter wrote would be suspect, in contravention to the DOD declaration that Stripes reports independently and does not “represent the official position” of any government entity.

Moreover, an unintended consequence for Volesky might be that the substitute reporter, mindful of the pall of suspicion over him or her, might prove even more nettlesome than Druzin, to dispel suspicion and preserve his or her independence and professional reputation.

Either way, it's a lose-lose situation.

Another document, DOD Directive 5122.05, which addresses policy toward the news media in general, explicitly states that “open and independent reporting shall be the principal means of coverage of U.S. military operations.” Elsewhere, it says, “journalists shall be provided access to all major military units” except when “special operations restrictions” intervene.

Most notably, it declares, “propaganda has no place in DoD public affairs programs.”

“A free flow of general and military information will be made available, without censorship or propaganda, to the men and women of the Armed Forces and their dependents,” the directive continues. “Information will not be classified or otherwise withheld to protect the Government from criticism or embarrassment.” I read “otherwise withheld” to encompass “access denied.”

The Multi–National Forces—Iraq rules for embedded journalists, contained in a document issued under authority of 5122.05, “recognize the inherent right of the media to cover combat operations and are in no way intended to prevent release of embarrassing, negative or derogatory information.” Reporters can be barred or expelled only for breaking the rules. And the fact that MNF-I has offered to embed Druzin elsewhere undercuts any argument on that point.

And on it goes. You get the picture.

In another setting, I would say that Col. Volesky and Maj. Bellard had some reading to do. But the colonel is leading his troops in battle and rightly has more pressing concerns.

However, Maj. Bellard, his public affairs officer, needs to revisit this issue quickly and advise her commander that, like it or not, there are utterly no grounds to bar Druzin from returning to the 1st Cav unit in Mosul and that to continue to do so violates DOD policy.

If she cannot render that advice, or Volesky will not accept it, then more senior military and civilian leaders need to step in and offer their counsel, the colonel’s impressive resume notwithstanding.

Indeed, if there were grounds to bar Druzin from the 1st Cav in Mosul, then those same grounds should bar him from any other unit. Tellingly, that is not so. The military says it is fine having him embed anywhere but with the 1st Cav in Mosul.

Well, it doesn’t work like that. Either he’s unfit to embed anywhere per DOD policy or he’s fit to embed everywhere, including the 1st Cav in Mosul.

You could look it up.

Got a question or suggestion for the ombudsman on what appears, or should appear, in Stars and Stripes? Send an e-mail to ombudsman@stripes.osd.mil, or phone 202-761-0945 in the States. For several links associated with this column, please go to Mark Prendergast’s Right to Know blog. It can be found here.

• Email
• Print
• More...