Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
Military Screens Journalists Before Granting Interviews.
In recent articles, a Stars and Stripes reporter has claimed that officials screen reporters before allowing them to interview people in the military or embed with a unit in Iraq or Afghanistan, and that they have been accepting or rejecting journalists’ requests based on whether or not their previous coverage has been favorable to the military.
Defense and military officials acknowledge that they use assessments provided by a private contractor, the Rendon Group, to learn more about a reporter’s background. Finding out about a journalist, and reading their previous work, before they come for an interview is simply doing due diligence, and that is something that journalists expect. Nevertheless, as The Washington Post reports, some people have claimed that the military has turned reporters down because of stories they have written.
Officials, however, deny that “the analysis has been used to exclude journalists from embedding with U.S. military units in combat zones or to bar them from interviewing military personnel.” In fact, officials have told journalists they could not interview certain people in the military – I know, because it happened to me. Last September, I was planning to visit Fort Huachuca, Arizona, and interview people who were learning how to become interrogators, and I spoke with Tanja Linton, a media relations officer in the Fort Huachuca Public Affairs Office, about the visit. I was very much looking forward to it.
Then, not long before I was scheduled to leave Washington, I got an email from Linton: The subject heading said the following: “Visit to Fort Huachuca cancelled.” In her email, dated September 15, 2008, she wrote: “In preparing for your visit to Fort Huachuca, we had the opportunity to do some more research and learned that you authored Monstering: Inside America's Policy of Secret Interrogations and Torture in the Terror War
I was surprised – and disappointed. I had thought that the fact that I had an understanding of the subject of U.S. interrogations and had written about them in my book Monstering -- which chronicles the Abu Ghraib scandal, received a full-page review on The New York Times Book Review, and was praised by one of the Pentagon’s top public-affairs officials on Amazon -- would have put me in a strong position for the interviews that I had planned on doing. Instead, I was barred. I’m not sure what was said between Linton and the other people at Fort Huachuca about my upcoming visit, but the conversations did not go very well, at least from my point of view, because of the cancellation. I also wondered who was involved in the decision, particularly since Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast, who was the top intelligence officer in Iraq during the Abu Ghraib scandal, serves as an intelligence commander at Fort Huachuca.
Ultimately, the decision that the Fort Huachuca officials made to cancel the visit seemed very small-town-official-like: We don’t like something you wrote, and so we won’t talk to you. It also seemed below the Army. Most of the people whom I have worked with in the public-affairs offices have been extraordinarily professional and helpful, and I have learned a great deal about the military from them. My experience with the public-affairs office of Fort Huachuca, however, only confirms the accusations against the military, showing that it attempts to choose only those journalists who will write positive stories about them.
--Tara McKelvey
COMMENTS (5)
I too am suprised and disappointed that Ms. McKelvey would portray us as small town bureaucrats and unprofessional. Even more disappointing is her perception that we only support media representatives who will write positive stories about the Army. That simply is not true. We seek accuracy and balance in stories about our human intelligence collectors. Fort Huachuca has supported dozens of visits from national and international media outlets to our human intelligence collector course since the Abu Ghraib scandal first hit the news. It is my professional responsibility to review the media requests. My objective in doing this is to ensure our Soldiers are portrayed fairly. It's a responsibility I take very seriously. Nobody likes suprises. It isn't easy to deny a media request, and it is something we do rarely, but sometimes we feel it is the right course of action. As a footnote, Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast was not the commanding general here at the time Ms. McKelvy requested her visit and had no hand in our turning down the request.
Tanja Linton
Media Relations Officer
Fort Huachuca, Ariz.
Posted by: Tanja Linton | August 28, 2009 4:57 PM
It appears to me that you have no comprehension of military intelligence whatsoever. Military Intelligence is "An agency of the armed forces that procures, analyzes, and uses information of tactical and strategic military value." Since you are neither in the military, nor a government agency, why do you think you should be granted information pertaining to this area or access to those who do? If this area was in any way your concern, you'd be granted a security clearance with your press pass. It never ceases to amaze me at the raw arrogance of journalists and their perceived self-importance and outrage at being denied access. Not everything should be accessible to you. Just as you cling to the right to protect your sources, the military clings to the right to protect sensitive information that, when exposed by journalists such as yourself, could be detrimental to national security. If you bite than hands of those you want to feed you information, why you so surprised at their hesitancy to interview them? Judging from the title of the works you wrote and edited, it is clearly apparent you were not approaching Fort Huachuca with a fair and balanced perspective from the get-go. I think Ms. Linton and the command acted from a position of protection for the Soldiers, Families and Civilians of the post.
Bottom line- believe it or not, there are people and subjects journalists should not have access to because what they do is simply none of your business...nor is it the business of the rest of the world with whom you'd like to share it for your chance at a Pulitzer or another full-page review by the New York Times. Have a cup of integrity and call me when it kicks in, okay?
By the way- I am a journalist.
Posted by: Staci-Jill Burnley | August 28, 2009 7:50 PM
As a spouse of a soldier and a American citizen, I can’t see where you would thing the American public should see it bad for the Military to screen who does interviews or even is embedded. Well done for “small-town-official-like” actions the Military needs to do more of it, instead of letting journalist who have achieved a few merits do and go wherever they feel they wish under the cloak of freedom of speech. A freedom earned by the military they wish to turn interviews into their next “story”.
20 years my family has served through deployments and different duty stations and I don’t expect to go any place and do anything I want to without the Army’s approval … Why should a journalist pouting and stomping a foot get special attention!?!
Arrogance becomes you Tara McKelvey!
Posted by: G Peterson | August 28, 2009 11:58 PM
I am flummoxed by quotes like "under the cloak of freedom of speech" ... freedom of speech is not a "cloak." It's a bedrock principle, not a stratagem being nefariously used just because you don't like the results ... it's a fundamental right to speak up even if others disagree.
Ms Peterson, the Founders singled out the press for special attention when they guaranteed freedom of the press in the First Amendment. As Ms Linton herself points out, "dozens" of other journalists have gotten access to Ft Huachuca, so I don't think the author's looking for special attention.
Ms Linton, if you have specifics where Tara McElvey unfairly or inaccurately portrayed Soldiers in the two books you cite, I'd be interested to see what they are ... what, exactly, caused you to deny the request?
Posted by: Respectful Dissent | August 30, 2009 1:00 AM
Sure so when you get your freedom this means, the soldiers who work to preserve it don't always get theirs. To quote will Smith sure you’re free to say it but should you say it? You have the freedom to say anything in print, it is yours. But to interrupt the lives of others for your own progression, is when you are cloaking first amendment to your own benefit, “journalists” want cart blanch to do what they will for “the good of the over all knowledge of the whole” when it turns out to be the betterment of your pocketbook. Maybe you weren’t wanted to interrupt training, or reintegration with families, or whatever with your ideas of “freedom” by taking time to make your story.
I still don’t cry for you arrogant one. The fact you whine so heavily about such silly rejection shows my point to be correct, if your concern would be of the soldiers and their missions I am sure you would have swallowed the fact you couldn’t come when you wanted and readdressed it at a later date. But No your Freedoms require the Armies attention when you want it! Sounds very much like a “Cloak” to me!
Posted by: G Peterson | August 31, 2009 7:01 PM