Mr. HUTTO. OK, thank you, Colonel Cook.

Colonel Montgomery.

STATEMENT OF COL. EDWIN J. MONTGOMERY, JR., COMMANDER AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, PACIFIC STARS AND STRIPES

Colonel MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir, thank you.

I'm Colonel Edwin J. Montgomery, Jr., and I'm the Commander and Editor-in-Chief of Pacific Stars and Stripes.

My staff and I publish the newspaper from our facilities located in Tokyo, Japan. As Commander and Editor-in-Chief, I'm responsible for establishing policies, planning, directing and supervising all programs and activities necessary to accomplish the mission of the newspaper. I do this within the guidelines established by my immediate superior who is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Pacific Command, and the Secretary of Defense.

The Pacific Stars and Stripes exists to meet the reading needs of the Servicemen and Servicewomen of the Pacific Theater. We publish a daily newspaper, we sell books and magazines, we provide printing and distribution services. As with other nonappropriated fund activities, the great majority of our expenses must be met by self-generated revenue.

As a newspaper, our mission is to report the news of the world in our theater to a unique and youthful military audience with an emphasis on news affecting that readership and our nation.

My civilian and military editorial staff and I have a clear charter to report the news accurately, fairly, and without censorship. We meet this trust to the best of our collective ability.

The commander-in-chief of the theater, as any publisher can, is the only person external to our staff who can authorize additions or deletions to the content of the paper. In my nearly 21⁄2 years as commander and editor-in-chief, neither of the two commanders-inchief for whom I have worked has ever exercised that authority. Moreover, I have never had anyone, no flag officer, no ambassador, no bureaucrat, no one, force the running or killing of a story, or has anyone dictated how a story should be edited or played.

Now, this does not mean that we do not get critical comments from our readership, but that to me is strong evidence that Stripes is a First Amendment newspaper.

Now, Pacific Stars and Stripes faces many challenges today apart from our normal demanding mission of service to our readership. The continued decline of the dollar threatens the financial liability of all U.S. organizations overseas, and we are no exception. At a point when more appropriated fund support would be helpful, budgetary constraints threaten the level of support that we currently receive.

But the most serious threat of all is to our reputation and our good name. This threat lies in the largely anonymous, publicly trumpeted allegations that the newspaper is censored. While these claims are not new, their damage is of longstanding.

When I arrived at Stripes in September of 1986, I found the Staff riven with dissent. There were at least eleven complaints under investigation by the local Army Inspector General's office, four similar complaints to members of Congress, one complaint directly to

the GAO, and one formal grievance being pursued through Government civilian channels. The complaints ranged from suspicions of military censorship to concern by some employees that their civilian supervisor was out to get them.

News stories appearing on both coasts in this country described a general "climate of fear" on the staff at that time.

The practical effects of this situation were readily apparent. Senior officials, and not all of them military, were increasingly complaining that the paper was guilty of biased, inaccurate, and sensational reporting. The readership itself was expressing its opinion more fundamentally. Despite a slight increase in the potential audience, circulation had decreased relative to the same month the previous year for 15 months in a row. This combined with the fall of the dollar worldwide, had forced Pacific Stars and Stripes to begin operating in the red. With no real prospect for increased external support, the outlook was bleak.

I also found at Stripes, however, a large percentage of employees skilled in their work and eager to do it right. They needed personal reassurances that their jobs were not at risk, that the staff of the paper alone would decide what was printed, and that only we, the staff, could take the steps necessary to improve the paper and operate more efficiently.

The collective work of that civilian and military staff has been a success story. For the past 2 years, Pacific Stripes has been in the black despite the continued decline of the dollar. More importantly, from the standpoint of our credibility with our readers, circulation turned around and has increased for 15 of the last 18 months.

The anonymous allegations have not left us, however. Although I believe that the individuals involved have decreased in number, their efforts continue to plague Stripes and have occasioned a formal investigation by the General Accounting Office. Sadly, in my opinion, that investigation and its subsequent formal report to the Congress were seriously flawed.

Let me enumerate our main concerns regarding that report. First, the definitions selected by the GAO upon which the review hinged permit nearly every editing decision made every day by free newspapers around the world to be construed as censorship. There isn't one paper in the country that doesn't have to make hundreds of editorial judgments as to what should or should not be printed on a given day.

Second, the report failed to analyze the allegations critically and failed to mention important information that would argue against a finding of censorship.

Third, the report was largely based on a content analysis flawed both technically and philosophically. Technically, the analysis measured the use by European and Pacific Stars and Stripes of wire service news, when the services given to those two theaters are not the same.

Philosophically, the analysis concluded that differences between the two papers supported a judgment of censorship when the mark of newspapers in a free society is their differences, not their same

ness.

Last, at no time during the visit of the GAO to my headquarters or subsequently, was I fully presented with the specifics of the alle

gations, nor was I presented the opportunity to research and provide substance to the actual facts pertaining to my actions or those of my staff before the GAO received the judgments of the Society of Professional Journalists. As a result, our side of the story was simply not heard.

Why, one may ask, do these allegations persist with Stars and Stripes? The reasons no doubt run the gamut from employees who are genuinely concerned with specific editing decisions to disgruntled employees with intra-staff scores to settle. Scrutiny by Congress is also not new. Similar charges have been investigated in the past and the newspaper was found to be doing its job, and doing it well.

Because Stripes is chartered and partially funded by the United States Government, we apply specific guidelines to ensure fair and impartial news and information reaches our audiences. These troops and their families in their often cloistered overseas environment have diverse backgrounds and interests that we must attempt to satisfy with our one newspaper. For example, Stripes ensures that the broad spectrum of editorial opinion, from conservative to liberal, from wire and syndicated services, is provided to our readers. It is just this balance of mixed editorial writers and opinions that permits Stripes to provide our readers with a service found in other reputable newspapers stateside. This balance also argues against the charges of censorship.

Quite simply, however, the guidelines cited above and the newspaper's military aspects are what make Stars and Stripes-Stripes. No other newspaper is so uniquely qualified to provide the same service to our people. No other paper provides the local military and sports scene or the diversity of news from around the world, and throughout the United States, that is of direct interest to our readers. The purpose for our editorial guidelines is to protect the readership from the possibility of Government bias; our mission is to report the news, not make it. The mix of civilians and military on the staff, at all levels of the editorial process, is to ensure competence both in the journalistic preparation of this unique paper and in the reporting of professional news to a professional military audience.

The crux of these issues is whether or not Stars and Stripes should be a unique and professional institution serving a unique and professional audience. Removing all differences between Stripes and other newspapers would be a simple thing to do. The question, then, in a world where USA Today, the International Herald Tribune, the Asian Wall Street Journal, and other English language papers exist overseas, would be why another newspaper no different from these would be needed. The answer is that they simply do not satisfy the particular needs of our audience the way Stripes does.

It is our belief that the military readership's need for Stripes is as strong today as ever. It is also our belief that we can and do meet our responsibility to report the news of the world accurately and impartially. Finally, our readership votes on this subject with its money every day. Their yes vote, a vote of trust and confidence, is reflected by the newspaper's increased sales.

Gentlemen, I believe in the First Amendment. As a matter of fact, I've taken an oath to defend it and the rest of the Constitution. No one, absolutely no one takes the mission of Pacific Stars and Stripes more seriously than I do.

I appreciate this opportunity to be here with you today to tell the story firsthand of this important morale instrument for our tens of thousands of men and women serving in the Pacific theater.

Mr. HUTTO. Thank you, Colonel Montgomery and Colonel Cook. We've heard a lot today about censorship and defining censorship.

I'd just like each of you to give me your definition of censorship. Colonel MONTGOMERY. Sir, from my standpoint in looking at this, I would define news management and censorship being a further step along that line as being any deliberate attempt during the editing process to convey a false or misleading impression of what has actually happened to the reader.

Mr. HUTTO. You haven't, your newspaper has not done that, I take it?

Colonel MONTGOMERY. No, sir. We certainly have not.
Mr. HUTTO. Colonel Cook.

Colonel Cook. I would take what Mr. Rizer said and add perhaps one word, and that would be calculated withholding of unfavorable news. Presumably, this would be news that in this case would relate to the military chain of command.

In terms of news management, I think that would be defined as presenting the news in an unbalanced fashion so that the full facts of the situation are really presented perhaps in a more favorable light for the military if it were a negative story.

Mr. HUTTO. Colonel Montgomery, I commend you on the management from bringing it from the red into the black and increasing your circulation. I take it that there was a morale problem probably on the staff when you took over?

Colonel MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir, there was a significant morale problem. Frankly, I wish I could tell you that it was solved.

Mr. HUTTO. That's what I wanted to ask you about.

Colonel MONTGOMERY. Well, sir, I think as long as this particular cloud hangs over our head, it's going to be very difficult for Stripes to have high morale on the staff.

Mr. HUTTO. By the "cloud," you mean the allegations?

Colonel MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir. The continuing allegations in public, press reports, and this kind of thing.

Mr. HUTTO. Where are most of the allegations coming from? I think you indicated earlier that some of the employees were making them?

Colonel MONTGOMERY. Sir, I believe that nearly all the allegations that were looked at by the GAO came from employees of Stripes.

Mr. HUTTO. From the employees?

Colonel MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUTTO. What's it going to take to turn that around? Colonel MONTGOMERY. Sir, I think what we're doing with the paper is proving itself everyday. In other words, the fact that we're operating successfully and the fact that I think we have or are well on our way to restoring our credibility with our audience.

We have certain employees who have an agenda. Their agenda is to remove all military influence over the newspaper.

Mr. HUTTO. I take it they are civilians, then?

Colonel MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUTTO. What is the mix of civilians and the military? Colonel MONTGOMERY. We're about half and half on the newspaper. However, in nearly all of the supervisory positions, we have civilians. In other words, all of our bureau chiefs, our desk editors, the assistant managing editor, the managing editor, they are all civilians.

Mr. HUTTO. Is most of the conflict between military and civilians? Is that your assessment?

Colonel MONTGOMERY. From time to time, I see indications where there may be some friction between military and civilian, but frankly I think that portion of the staff seems to work fairly well together.

I think what we have here is a feeling on behalf of the civilian journalists who come to work for Stripes that Stripes should be exactly like other newspapers. In fact, we're not exactly like other newspapers, we're different.

Not in the First Amendment, sense, sir. Let me hasten to say that. But in the fact that we are a Government newspaper and that makes us different.

Mr. HUTTO. You are a Government newspaper.

Now, do you have frequent sessions with your civilian-what is the highest civilian position on the Stars and Stripes in the Pacific? Colonel MONTGOMERY. The highest civilian position actually is my general manager who oversees the greater portion of our business operations. The other position of nearly equal rank is the managing editor, a civilian managing editor of the newspaper. Mr. HUTTO. Are you over each of those?

Colonel MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir, I am.

Mr. HUTTO. Do you have a good rapport with the general manager and the managing editor?

Colonel MONTGOMERY. I believe I do, sir.

Mr. HUTTO. Do you discuss these problems with them?

Colonel MONTGOMERY. Oh, yes, sir. I don't believe they are the source of the allegations, if that's what you're asking.

Mr. HUTTO. Well, I'm getting around to asking, do these people have the authority to fire civilians who are causing trouble?

Colonel MONTGOMERY. The way the system is, sir, the people who work for Stripes, because they are Government employees, they are civil servants. As a result, you cannot simply remove someone from a position because you believe someone else could do that work better.

Civil servants, you have to go through a very long and complicated process that was established to protect civil servants, but it does make it very difficult to remove them unless their performance is so poor that it can be documented on a continuing basis.

Mr. HUTTO. What about transferring, is that also involved? Colonel MONTGOMERY. No, sir. We're a very small staff. The only offices we have external to the headquarters are in our bureaus. These are small, two-person bureaus in various places. We have bureau chiefs there in those positions.