PHILIP PATTERSON
Oklahoma Christian University
In May of 1996, Adm. Jeremy M. (Mike) Boorda, the Navy’s chief of operations, committed suicide hours before he was about to be interviewed by Newsweek magazine regarding allegations that he had previously worn commendations he had not earned.
The suicide began yet another round of media introspection into how news is put together, and whether journalism organizations are responsible for the fallout from their stories. The harshest of Newsweek ’s critics claim that the reporters caused his death. The magazine’s defenders claim that Boorda had a lapse of honor in a closed community where honor matters most and that, as the public official who headed the Navy, his actions were appropriately the subject of public scrutiny.
The Newsweek inquiry began with a tip that the admiral had been seen and photographed wearing two “V-forvalor” clips over two of his medals. The tip came from the National Security News Service, a known critic of the military establishment that supplies news leads about the military to mainstream media outlets.
The “V-clips” are traditionally awarded for valor under fire. Nothing in Boorda’s military record directly indicated he had served under fire; however, during the Vietnam War he had served on ships off Vietnam in the
South China Sea. He had quit wearing the clips about a year before Newsweek was tipped to the story. Navy
Secretary John Dalton, in an interview given after the suicide, said that Boorda’s service off the coast of Vietnam would have given him “every right to believe” that he was qualified to wear the “V-for-valor” insignia. Dalton’s statements do reflect historical fact. Former President Lyndon B. Johnson justified intensifying American involvement in Southeast Asia by noting that American ships had been fired on by the North Vietnamese— statements which prompted Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964.
Evan Thomas is Newsweek ’s Washington bureau chief and was one of two reporters scheduled to interview
Boorda before he committed suicide. In an interview for American Journalism Review, Thomas said that the controversies surrounding the Navy in 1996 (sexual harassment charges, cheating scandals at Annapolis, etc.) were among the contextual factors that prompted Newsweek to pursue the story.
“The Navy’s under the gun right now. 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” (Rieder
1996, 6).
However, the interview never occurred. While Thomas was en route to the Pentagon for the scheduled interview, Boorda went to his home and shot himself in the chest. He left behind two notes calling the wearing of the
V-for-valor clips an “honest mistake.”
Newsweek ran an article after the suicide that indicated that at least one Newsweek writer, Retired Army Col.
David Hackworth, who writes on military affairs for the magazine, commented that Boorda “might just put a gun to his head” if the story was pursued. However, his comment was made to an office assistant in Montana and did not reach Newsweek editors until after the suicide.
Hackworth, when questioned about the statement by Newsweek ’s managing editor, characterized his earlier comment as “the remotest thought” and said that he would have called Thomas had he thought Boorda would kill himself. In the magazine’s coverage of the suicide, Hackworth in a side bar wrote that he personally believed wearing unearned medals was the most egregious ethical violation any military officer could commit.
Reader reaction to Newsweek ’s pursuit of the story was overwhelmingly negative. One writer to the magazine wrote: “I hold you directly responsible for the death of Adm. Boorda.” Press reports of the flap stated that
Newsweek lost hundreds of subscribers in protest of its handling of the story. Politicians and military figures took the opportunity to once again lambast the media.
However, Thomas sees it differently.
“I’m not insensitive to the fact that people are angry at the press. . . We’ve got to do our job. Part of that job is checking on the truthfulness of people in positions of power. Like the admiral” (Rieder, 6).
1. Was the Boorda story newsworthy? Why?

2. Should the fact that Boorda apparently stopped wearing the decorations influence your decision?
3. Should Hackworth have voiced his concerns, no matter how minor?
1. If Boorda had continued to wear the medals, would your decision change?
2. Should Newsweek have interviewed other military officials about the medals and when they should be worn?
3. Did Newsweek rely too much on its own insider knowledge which clearly had a point of view?
4. Should the magazine have been concerned about the point of view of the original source of the story?
1. How can a reporter who had not served in the military evaluate the role of medals in the service?
2. Was this story about the Navy worthy of Newsweek ’s time and resources? What other stories might the magazine have explored?
3. In this era of “gotcha” journalism, should reporters and editors consider that story subjects will believe journalists will portray them in the worst possible light? Should that fear of “gotcha” journalism influence journalistic behavior?