Originally Posted by
franklin_m
What prompted the ad hominem attack on the military? For the vast majority of my career we were taught that within the limits of security and privacy, we were taught to be open and honest, but stick to the facts,
How hard would it be to say this? "We are aware of the reports and we are investigating. We take this matter seriously. Pending the results of the investigation, we will comment and take action if warranted."
Oh please, who attacked the military, that is a desperate diversionary ploy there. It's interesting to hear and see what you were taught when you were active duty, back in the day. That was then, and this is now. That was military, this is civilian. If you don't see what the difference is there, and how the two entities would respond, there's nothing I can say that would make a difference. Given your proposed response I can safely say you've never issued a press/media release, or at least not one that's ever dealt with civil litigation. Hint: less is more. There are far fewer concerns about a "no comment" than there are those that will attack and parse what those three sentences. And don't misunderstand, I'd like to see more and be comforted by that kind of language as an end user or consumer, but that's just not what really happens anymore.