CONSIDERATION OF MANAGEMENT AND CENSORSHIP ISSUES OF STARS AND STRIPES NEWSPAPERS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE, Washington, DC, Wednesday, February 22, 1989. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m., in room 2216, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Earl Hutto (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EARL HUTTO, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA, CHAIRMAN, READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE Mr. HUTTO. The Subcommittee on Readiness will please come to order. Today, we look at a matter of utmost importance to our military personnel and to the Nation as a whole. The Stars and Stripes Newspapers have a daily circulation of 175,000 and a long tradition of providing information for the military serving overseas. In many areas, it is the only source of information for these dedicated people. These are authorized publications of the Department of Defense whose policy is that a free flow of news and information shall be provided to all military personnel. The subcommittee has been interested in the Stars and Stripes since 1984, particularly when concerns arose about rising appropriated fund costs, and requested a General Accounting Office review of ways to put these newspapers on a more self-sufficient footing. GAO has made several recommendations in this regard, and we look forward to hearing from GAO and the Department of Defense regarding implementation. It was also in 1984 when the first allegations of censorship surfaced. In 1987 these allegations became more frequent and substantial, and the Congress became concerned that the free flow of news was being impeded. The Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act directed a thorough review of the issue of censorship of these newspapers. Since directing this review, the subcommittee has received further information indicating widespread censorship and management of the news by the military chain of command and others within the newspaper itself. The subcommittee has learned of many cases where journalists may have been forced to compromise many of the tenets of their profession. Also, several military professionals have been torn between their duties as military officers and as editors. Each in his own right has become casualties of this system. But the list of those affected is far longer when we consider the millions of military people and their families who may have been denied one of the most important benefits of a democracy. Indeed, one of the most vital tools in the proper functioning of the democratic system is the rights set forth in the First Amendment of our Constitution. It is these people, charged with the defense of this nation, who must know why they will be the first to fight and die for their nation. They are therefore perhaps most entitled to all of the freedoms we hold so dear-the right to a free press and the right to intelligently exercise citizenship responsibilities. The subcommittee also seeks to determine if censorship exists in other forms of Department of Defense media. We are also here to consider whether the Stars and Stripes newspapers are operating in the most efficient and effective manner on behalf of the American taxpayer and their readership. I believe that in the absence of our ranking minority member, Mr. Kasich, Mr. Hefley has a statement at this time. Mr. Hefley. Mr. HEFLEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. If I might, I would like to read Mr. Kasich's statement that he wanted to present for the record. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN KASICH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM OHIO, RANKING MINORITY MEMBER (AS READ BY REPRESENTATIVE JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM COLORADO) Mr. HEFLEY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I commend you for addressing this very important issue. The perennial debate over the Defense budget ultimately carries us to military benefits, entitlement, and privileges. Each year, we debate the pay entitlement, medical benefits, the commissary privilege, and a wide range of other programs. But this is the first time that I believe the Committee has had to wrestle with a right, a constitutional right. I am astonished to learn that this situation has been allowed to come to the point where the United States Congress must remind the Department of Defense that our military people have the right to a free press. If these allegations of censorship are true, and they appear to be, I see no difference between this censorship and tampering with the ballot box. During these modern times, when there is an abundance of newspapers available to our military overseas and when network news is instantly beamed into the barracks, I find it hard to believe that military leaders would risk their credibility in an effort to manage the news and keep information from our men and women in uniform. These allegations have already harmed the credibility of these newspapers. Frankly, if we can't figure out a way to restore credibility, then I wonder if we should ask the American people to continue to subsidize a censored publication. Mr. Chairman, the General Accounting Office has made several recommendations that could save the taxpayers over $5 million each year. I understand a Department of Defense study has recommended further cost-saving measures. I look forward to hearing about these initiatives. Mr. Chairman, these newspapers get their name from the American flag, a flag that stands for freedom. I certainly hope that they are worthy to bear this name. I am very interested in hearing from today's witnesses about how this situation was allowed to reach this point and what we are going to do about any censorship, and whether these newspapers are being efficiently managed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HUTTO. Thank you, Mr. Hefley. Our first witnesses this morning are from the General Accounting Office. Mr. Martin M. Ferber is the Director of Manpower and Logistics Issues, National Security and International Affairs Division. He is accompanied by Mr. John Harper, Group Director, and Mr. William Wood, Senior Evaluator. Good morning, gentlemen. Mr. Ferber, it's good to see you again. We have benefited from your testimony in the past and I am sure that we will do so again today. So you may proceed as you see fit. STATEMENT OF MARTIN M. FERBER, DIRECTOR, MANPOWER AND LOGISTICS ISSUES, NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE Mr. FERBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, we are pleased to be here today to discuss two U.S. General Accounting Office reviews of the Stars and Stripes newspapers. Our first review, done at the request of this subcommittee, analyzed the operations and management of the organizations that publish the newspapers. Our report described how the organizations could be managed and operated in a more cost-effective manner. We did our second review pursuant to a requirement in the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal years 1988 and 1989. It involved investigating allegations of censorship, news management, and command influence at the Stars and Stripes newspapers. Our report on that investigation described built-in cultural conflicts between the military and the media that led to the allegations. It is important to understand that the Stars and Stripes newspapers are published by separate organizations in Germany and Japan. The two papers are authorized publications of the Department of Defense whose policy is that a free flow of news and information be provided to all military personnel without censorship and news management. The papers have a dual mission. The first mission is civic in nature. It is to provide stateside news to help DOD personnel intelligently exercise citizenship responsibilities and to improve morale and readiness. The second mission is military in nature. It is to provide DOD, command, and local news to improve capability for mission accomplishment. According to the Director of the American Forces Information Services, the first mission requires Stars and Stripes to be like a commercial paper that carries news protected by the First Amend ment of the Constitution. The second mission requires them to be like command newspapers that carry company news. The organizations that publish the Stars and Stripes engage in several revenue-producing activities in order to subsidize the price of the newspapers and to expand and modernize their operations. The largest of these activities is the resale of books and periodicals. In addition, each receives revenues from advertisements placed in their newspapers and some appropriated fund support. At the subcommittee's request, we reviewed the possibility of consolidating the management and operations of the two papers. Interest in consolidation resulted from the papers' substantial increase in appropriated fund support, which grew from $3.7 million in 1977 to about $9 million in 1984, and because of the financial difficulties experienced by the Pacific paper. We found that DOD had previously determined that consolidation was feasible but had chosen to resolve the financial difficulties in other ways. One of the major alternatives to consolidation that DOD adopted was to authorize the newspapers to use more appropriated fund support. We concluded that Stars and Stripes organizations are resale and revenue-producing activities, like commissaries and exchanges and, as such, the amount of appropriated fund support they receive should be minimized. We found that the need for the support could be reduced or eliminated if management and editorial functions of the two papers were consolidated in the United States. However, DOD has chosen to maintain the separate entities. I would like now to briefly discuss our recent investigation of allegations of censorship and news management by military commanders of Stars and Stripes newspapers. We investigated over 200 allegations and performed an analysis of how the news printed in the Stars and Stripes compared to the wire services' stories they had available to print. We also worked with the Society of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi, to make distinctions between routine editorial judgments and censorship. We found that DOD, through its instructions, intended to provide Stars and Stripes with protection against censorship and command influence, but it has not entirely accomplished this objective. Trying to simultaneously execute the Stars and Stripes dual mission creates an inherent conflict between civilian journalists who must execute the First Amendment mission and commanders who must execute the military mission. Different expectations by these groups are the primary reason allegations of censorship exist. We also found that the content of the news covered in Stars and Stripes, compared to the wire service from which the news was drawn, was consistent with the allegations we investigated. According to the Society of Professional Journalists, evidence of censorship and inappropriate news management was conclusive at Stars and Stripes in the Pacific but inconclusive for the European paper. The Society emphasized that it viewed the military editorin-chief of the Pacific paper as a loyal public servant struggling to resolve conflicting duties as an officer and editor. We agree with that view and believe he acted within the authority of the DOD instruction. |