🔗 Share this article

A veteran Pentagon reporter remembers numerous instances during their career reporting on the defense establishment when the actual narrative diverged substantially from the official version.

After the fall of Baghdad in 2003, the then head of the Pentagon was openly overjoyed, insisting it demonstrated the triumph of the US invasion. However, via informal conversations with personnel, the journalist soon discovered a more complex situation: more forces were needed to protect logistical routes under attack by loyalists of the former government.

“Did I as a reporter solicit information?” the reporter wrote. “Naturally. That is the essence of journalism. Finding out the actual events behind the scenes and not accepting completely official statements claims.”

This reporter is one of many defense correspondents confronting the revocation of their official access after refusing to accept a new policy from the defense chief. The requirement would mandate reporters to endorse an pledge stating they will publish only information “explicitly authorized” by the military establishment.

Shift from Watchdogs to Government Agents

Signing such an agreement would essentially convert reporters “from watchdogs into state functionaries”, as noted by a previous head of a major journalism organization and former senior editor of a international wire service.

This individual is not alone. Media outlets such as leading newspapers, news agencies, and online platforms – even some with right-leaning viewership – are rejecting the demand.

Unsurprisingly, a outlet widely regarded as a propaganda outfit has consented to comply.

Television Outlets Join the Protest

In a major development, the leading broadcasters – even those considered friendly to the current administration – issued a unified message stating their rejection.

“The policy is without precedent and endangers core journalistic protections,” they announced. “We will continue to report on the US military as we has done for many decades, maintaining the values of a independent media.”

This vast majority stance is correct – and it is heartening to witness such solidarity. This kind of press unity is powerful – and society could benefit from more of it, particularly when journalists are often under siege.

Reporting vs. Transcription

No matter how much the defense chief might desire it, reporting is not stenography, and the government-sanctioned story is frequently only a starting point for deeper investigation that uncovers the facts.

The policy has been characterized as a “war on truth” that obviously threatens the purpose of constitutional protections and undermines the public’s right to know what their government is undertaking.

The defense chief's reaction to this widespread defiance was characterized by a juvenile use of emojis on online platforms, waving goodbye organizations that declined to submit.

Intensification of Media Controls

This newest effort constitutes an escalation in controls. Not only does the Pentagon rarely hold press briefings these days, but previously it also banned reporters from most of the building without an minder. This departure from historical precedent impeded the ability of reporters to gather nuanced information through everyday interactions.

Under the revised rules, journalists could be designated a security risk simply for inquiring Pentagon employees for confidential information.

Persistence of Journalistic Mission

It is certain that journalists and their organizations will persist to report on the activities of the military, educating the citizens about their leaders' actions.

Credentials is not everything. In fact, the journalistic quest for access to influential figures and institutions – and the impulse to protect that privilege – may impede truthful journalism.

As a former reporter noted, the press can keep doing their jobs through methods other than relaying officially approved information to the public.

“Reporting of the military can be conducted through unauthorized disclosures, public records requests, and additional cooperative methods harnessing the legal system’s protections,” they noted. And they can continue to do so, it was noted, “till this misguided administration sees out its days.”