"Generals Sought More Positive Coverage on Head Injuries, Document Shows"

RallyPoint Shared Content — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:42:46 -0400

From: The NY Times

Two top Army generals recently discussed trying to kill an article in The New York Times on concussions at West Point by withholding information so the Army could encourage competing news organizations to publish a more favorable story, according to an Army document.

The generals’ conversation involved a Freedom of Information Act request that The Times made in June for data on concussions resulting from mandatory boxing classes at the United States Military Academy. The Times also requested similar data from the Air Force Academy in June, and from the Naval Academy this month.

During a Sept. 16 meeting at the Pentagon, the Army surgeon general, Lt. Gen. Patricia D. Horoho, recommended to the superintendent at West Point, Lt. Gen. Robert L. Caslen Jr., that the Army delay responding to The Times’s request, according to the document. General Horoho then suggested trying to get The Wall Street Journal or USA Today to publish an article about a more favorable Army study on concussions.

According to the document, described by Army officials as an executive summary of the meeting, the public affairs staff at West Point and the surgeon general’s office were instructed to promote that study, by a West Point sports medicine doctor, Col. Steven Svoboda, to the other publications.

“I recommend you let us publish this article BEFORE you release the FOIA to the NYT reporter,” General Horoho is quoted as saying in the summary, using an acronym for the Freedom of Information Act.

“Timing is everything with this stuff,” she added, according to the document. Neither the Journal nor USA Today published an article about the Svoboda study.

Both generals acknowledged the authenticity of the summary, but said it misrepresented their discussion. The Times obtained the summary from a military official who opposed the Army’s plans to delay release of the concussion information. The official said not being transparent with journalists “damages democracy.”

After learning last week that the document had been given to The Times, General Horoho said in a phone interview that she had been misquoted. She said the document, created by West Point staff members, bore little resemblance to what happened at the meeting.

She said she had worked hard to increase care for concussions, adding: “I am flat-out angry about this. Of all the topics, this one is very important to me.”

In a statement last week, General Caslen said the document had “inaccurately portrayed my discussion with Lieutenant General Horoho.”

“I allowed it to be distributed without my review and take full responsibility for any misperceptions this may have caused,” he said.

After learning of the document, the Air Force Academy and West Point quickly released concussion numbers.

Chris Gates, president of the Sunlight Foundation, which advocates transparency in government, called the details of the meeting as described in the document “disturbing.”

“To think that high-level officials at the U.S. Army and West Point would intentionally delay responding to a FOIA request in order to place a more favorable story in another outlet,” he said in an email. “Every level of the U.S. government should follow the spirit of the law and comply with FOIA, not use it as an opportunity for media manipulation.”

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
In the Sept. 16 meeting, according to the summary, General Horoho cited having successfully undermined the news media in the past, referring to how she had manipulated coverage of the Army’s Fourth Infantry Division at Fort Carson, Colo., last year.

“We were able to do something similar with the 4th ID when The Colorado Springs Gazette attacked them with treatment of wounded warriors last year — killed any scrutiny from the media and killed their story,” the document summarizes General Horoho as saying.

The news coverage that the document says the Army surgeon general “killed” at The Gazette focused on an investigation into mistreatment of soldiers by psychologists at the Army hospital at Fort Carson in 2014, according to The Gazette’s military reporter, Tom Roeder. The Gazette waited six months to receive a copy of the Army Medical Command’s completed investigation, Mr. Roeder said in an email.

About a week before the investigation was released to The Gazette, General Horoho held a “media round table,” inviting competing military reporters to the Pentagon to learn about the investigation. The event resulted in several stories that had her playing down the mistreatment of soldiers with mental health issues.

The Gazette article, which came out 10 days later, found that “some workers in the hospital’s behavioral health department were demeaning, patronizing, foul-mouthed,” and that they felt pressured by commanders to push soldiers with mental illnesses out of the Army.

The briefing summary also quoted General Horoho as saying she had felt blindsided by coverage of a pillow fight at West Point, first reported by The Times, that caused 24 concussions — more this quarter than boxing or football.

“Next time, when cadets are injured and it is sensationalized, please let me know ahead of time,” she is summarized as saying. “I can help shape the reaction from my position as surgeon general. I actually learned about this incident from the news.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/us/generals-sought-more-positive-coverage-document-shows.html?_r=1

To save articles or get newsletters, alerts or recommendations – all free.

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Sep 30 at 2015 2:46 PM

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:46:55 -0400

Great article! Intriguing!

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 30 at 2015 2:54 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:54:09 -0400

Oh jeez... The pillow fight thing is awful/hysterical though.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Sep 30 at 2015 2:57 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:57:06 -0400

This is truly interesting for one simple reason.

Why would a FOIA request even make it to the Generals desk? These should be in theory "fire & forget" level administrative issues, and unless they possess restricted content and are denied, you just fill them within the required timeline. There is no "delaying them." That's a bad term. There's taking every available second to fulfill the lawful requirement to provide the information, however.

So, that said, the article is VERY likely painting with a broad stroke and implying an illegal and/or unethical act, when in fact the government is meeting the letter of the law (not saying it is right, just legal). Remember, the Press is NOT Oversight for the Government, no matter how much they want you to believe that. They are profit driven, and will paint a story that implies malfeasance even if there is none.

So, I ask this. If the government is planning on releasing a study/paper/story which says one things, and they get a FOIA request, are they obligated to release that request immediately? Or can they wait until just before it's requirement deadline? Is that any different than a newspaper getting something wrong on the front page and writing a retraction on page 10?

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 30 at 2015 3:08 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:08:22 -0400

hmmm .... and?

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Sep 30 at 2015 3:41 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:41:04 -0400

Why do they want to hide the truth?