The ombudsman of the military news organization Stars and Stripes wrote an extraordinary op-ed this month, calling on Stripes’ readers to help its journalists preserve the outlet’s editorial independence from the U.S. Department of Defense.
The role of ombudsman at Stars and Stripes is unique. Jacqueline Smith, who holds the job, reports to the U.S. House and Senate Armed Services Committees, rather than to Stripes’ editor and publisher. She told me that her chief responsibility is to inform Congress when the news site’s independence is under threat.
That’s the case right now, Smith said, after a surprise Jan. 15 social media post from Pentagon public affairs official Sean Parnell. Parnell said in a lengthy post on X that the Defense Department “is returning Stars & Stripes to its original mission: reporting for our warfighters.” The department, Parnell said, “will modernize [Stripes] operations, refocus its content away from woke distractions that syphon morale, and adapt it to serve a new generation of service members.”
In a follow-up story in the Daily Wire, Defense Department officials said they expect 50% of the news site’s content to be material generated by the Pentagon itself. Active duty service members, according to the Daily Wire story, will supplant Stripes’ civilian staff of professional journalists and the site will no longer republish stories from the AP and Reuters.
Parnell told the Daily Wire that Stripes’ content will be “custom-tailored” to members of the armed services, “focused on ‘warfighting, weapons systems, fitness, lethality, survivability, and ALL THINGS MILITARY.’”
The Department also on Jan. 15 abruptly ended a years-long regulatory process that would have codified policies and procedures to assure the independence of Stripes’ journalists. Smith said in her Jan. 20 editorial, “Pentagon wants a ‘refocus,’ but Stripes hasn’t wavered from its true mission,” that the Pentagon’s last-minute decision to yank the proposed regulations would leave Stripes exposed to the “whim” of the Defense Department, in defiance of “Congress’ intent for Stripes to remain editorially independent.”
Against that backdrop, Ethics and Journalism Initiative senior adviser Alison Frankel interviewed Smith on Jan. 21. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Alison: Did you have any inkling before [Parnell’s post on X] that the Pentagon was concerned about content in Stars and Stripes?
Jacqueline: No inkling at all. There was no communication to me as ombudsman of Stripes complaining about a story, asking why a particular story was covered, no communication in any way. There was also no communication to Stripes editors, no complaints, nothing. So it was quite a surprise to see through social media that this was being planned.
Alison: And this, in your view, represents a huge change in what would be the content that the newspaper carries, and the website displays?
Jacqueline: Yes, it could be. Now, some of the things that Sean Parnell mentioned that the Pentagon wanted Stars and Stripes to cover are [covered] already, like weapons systems. You can read about new classes of submarines, for example, and you can read about drills with the military in Australia or South Korea.
But the key point is that it’s the journalists and the editors who decide what to cover and how to cover it. It’s not the Pentagon saying, “You must do this, you must do that.”
Alison: Why do you think it would seriously undermine the credibility of Stars and Stripes if 50% of your content were generated by the Pentagon?
Jacqueline: If a reader knows that half of our information is being fed to Stripes by the Pentagon, how can they trust the other half to be fair and accurate?… And how do you know what half is what? How do you know this story is from Pentagon public affairs, and this story was [written because] the Pentagon said to cover it this way and protect that person.
The editorial independence would just be lost.
Alison: Your view and the view of the current editorial leadership is that your readers want more than, say, military operations took place in South Korea, or this is a new weapon system being developed. Correct?
Jacqueline: Stripes has a great readership – more than a million views a day on their website. They want that information, but they want more also. For example, Stripes did really great public service in Japan, highlighting the difficulties with changes to the health care system, and how this affected troops in Japan and their families. It was ongoing coverage, not just one story, but really following it.
And I have to tell you that since all of this came about, there have been hundreds of comments on social media in support of Stripes. I’ve also had readers email me saying how much Stripes has meant to them, either now or through the years. Spouses say that it helps them feel connected to home, and it’s also very useful for them. Veterans have written to say how important it was to them when they were deployed, and they still read it.
Alison: Do you know why the Pentagon is seeking to make these changes in your editorial content?
Jacqueline: All I can think, because I haven’t had any communication from them, by the way, is that it’s within a broader context of trying to restrict journalists. I have to think it’s part of trying to control the media.
Alison: Let’s talk about the budget for a second. The first Trump administration previously sought in 2020 to eliminate Defense Department funding for Stars and Stripes. After a public outcry, that funding [which covers about 35-45% of the news outlet’s budget] was restored. Is there any inkling that the administration will attempt once again to slash your funding? Congress knows and cares that Stripes exists, so could the Defense Department just say, now we don’t like their coverage, they’re gone?
Jacqueline: I don’t think they could just say that and snap their fingers and make it happen because there’s a Congressional mandate to provide the news. We’re the only First Amendment-protected news outlet within the Defense Department.
Alison: Wait, what do you mean by that?
Jacqueline: For example, Army Times, Navy Times, anything issued through the Pentagon’s Public Affairs office is not independent.
So the Defense Department can’t just kill [Stripes]. But they could remove the funding. I don’t like to say that because I don’t want to give anybody ideas.
But this is why it was attempted back in 2020, and we’ve seen that tactic with Voice of America. Its mission is very different from Stars and Stripes. But we’ve seen how, without just outright killing an agency, they can disable it.
Alison: When you wrote your piece, was there any hesitation about publishing it? You’re taking on top officials at the Pentagon. Were you at all concerned that this is going to make things worse?
Jacqueline: In the back of my mind, yes, but I don’t think that’s a reason to not speak out and to support what’s right.
I felt strongly that the public needed to know what’s going on, and if they care about it, here’s what they can do about it.
Alison: Do you know if people have heeded your call to action? Have you heard anything from the House or Senate Armed Services Committees?
Jacqueline: I haven’t heard from them about any emails or letters that they have gotten, but I’ve heard anecdotally from many people that they are sending letters or have sent letters to their Senators, their Congressmen and women.
Alison: What is the Pentagon’s next step? Did Parnell give a deadline for when the changes are supposed to happen?
Jacqueline: There was no deadline. There was no time frame there at all. And because there’s been no communication other than that, nobody at Stripes knows. So our staff here is proceeding as usual, covering the news the way they always have, and guess it’s a cliche, like, I’m waiting for another shoe to drop, but maybe it won’t. Maybe the pressure and maybe outrage from readers, from people who care, will be enough to just stop this before it causes any further harm.