The Admiral and the "V" Chips   

Newsweek was pursuing a legitimate story when it sought to interview Adm. Boorda. This tragic episode is not another count in the indictment of the media.

The event was tragic, the reaction predictable.

Adm. Jeremy M. (Mike) Boorda, the chief of naval operations, committed suicide as Newsweek was about to question him about allegations that he had worn commendations that he hadn't earned.

The kneejerk response: Blame the media.

The magazine was deluged with criticism; hundreds canceled their subscriptions. "I hold you directly responsible for the death of Adm. Boorda," one reader wrote. "Shame on you." Former Navy Secretary John Lehman inveighed against "gutter journalism." Sený Robert Smith, a New Hampshire Republican, cited "relentless, often excessive hounding" by the media. Hillary Rodham Clinton – whose close friend Vincent Foster took his life in the face of harsh criticism in the press – spoke of Washington's "unforgiving glare."

Some people questioned why Newsweek would pursue a matter as seemingly minor as an admiral wearing small "V" clips over two of his medals. They pointed out that he had stopped wearing the clips, which are awarded for valor under fire, about a year ago.

So is this another case of media blood lust run amok? Another manifestation of the media's obsessive need to tear down public figures, to claim scalps, to badger and hector and torment over any and all indications of impropriety, no matter how trivial?

Hardly.

There's no doubt the media have plenty on their collective conscience (and no, "media conscience" isn't an oxymoron) when it comes to feeding frenzies in recent years, some over minor matters. But in this case it's clear Newsweek was pursuing a legiti£ate news story, and pursuing it in a responsible way. And no one could have anticipated that the magazine's inquiries could have triggered such a tragic outcome.

Why was it proper to ask the admiral about the "Vs"?

For one thing, while the affair may seem like much ado about nothing to civilians, medals are taken seriously indeed in the military, particularly by combat veterans. Those who wear awards they didn't earn, or alter their records, face court-martial.

And while murky waters engulf the Navy's policies on the clips, there is plenty to suggest that the admiral, who never encountered enemy fire, hadn't earned the right to wear them.

Finally, Boorda was at the helm of a troubled service, a Navy plagued by sexual harassment scandals and plane crashes and cheating at the Naval Academy. The admiral's daunting mission was to help restore the Navy's luster. His behavior had to be impeccable.

"The Navy's under the gun right now," Evan Thomas, Newsweek's Washington bureau chief and one of the two reporters who were scheduled to interview the admiral when he took his life, told AJR. "Here's a guy whose job it is to restore the integrity of the Navy. If he is possibly fudging on his own medals, that's something you look into. There wasn't a moment's hesitation."

It's important to remember that Newsweek hadn't published anything at the time of Boorda's death. We'll never know if the Boorda interview would have led to the conclusion that there wasn't a story, or how it might have affected the shape of a story sÐould one have been printed. Thomas says he had the sense there was "a missing paper we
didn't have that would help explain all of this."

Much also has been made of the driving force behind the story. Newsweek was tipped off by the National Security News Service, a small Washington operation that uncovers information about the military and funnels it to mainstream news organizations. Critics have excoriated the news service as an unwavering foe of the military, suggesting that its agenda invalidates the story it brought to Newsweek. Others have speculated darkly about the role of Boorda's enemies in the Navy in bringing the information to light.

But this, too, misses the point. Damaging information is rarely leaked by close friends of the subject. News organizations always must be careful to avoid being manipulated by those with axes to grind. But the ultimate test is the quality of the information. Is it relevant? Is it important? Does it check out?

That being said, there's no question that the outcry over the episode reflects a major problem for the media: their turned-off audiences (see "Under Siege," September 1995). Too many Americans have lost confidence in their newspapers and broadcast news operations. They don't necessarily believe what they read, watch and hear. Many see journalists as pitiless and unfeeling, as piranhas who care only about the kill, as members of an elite who are clueless about the lives of ordinary people.

Until that changes, people will assume the worst. The messengers will be blamed when they are at fault, and when they aren't.

Newsweek's Thomas is well aware of the backdrop against which the Boorda debate has played out. "I'm not insensitive to the fact that people are angry at the press," he says, and that episodes like this one will only serve to fuel their rage. "You gotta pay attention to that," he adds.

As for the denouement, he says, "Obviously I feel terrible that Admiral Boorda died. I'm devastated."

But he's not sure he sees anything that Newsweek should have done differently. "We've got to do our job," he says. "Part of that job is checking on the truthfulness of people in positions of power. Like the admiral." l