🔗 Share this article

An experienced Pentagon reporter recalls many occasions during their years reporting on the defense establishment when the real story diverged significantly from the approved version.

After the fall of Baghdad in 2003, the then head of the Pentagon was publicly overjoyed, claiming it demonstrated the triumph of the military campaign. Yet, via informal discussions with military officers, the reporter soon learned a more complex situation: more forces were needed to secure supply lines being targeted by supporters of the former regime.

“Was I, as a journalist, seeking out information?” the reporter wrote. “Naturally. It’s called journalism. Finding out the actual events away from public view and not accepting wholesale official statements says.

This journalist is one of numerous Pentagon reporters facing the loss of their credentials after declining to agree to a controversial directive from the Pentagon leadership. The rule would force journalists to sign an agreement asserting they will solely report information “officially approved” by the defense department.

Transformation from Watchdogs to State Functionaries

Signing such an document would essentially convert reporters “from watchdogs into state functionaries”, as noted by a previous chairman of a major press association and former senior editor of a global news agency.

This individual is in good company. Media outlets including leading publications, wire services, and online platforms – even some with conservative audiences – are rejecting the demand.

Predictably, a network known as a propaganda outfit has consented to comply.

Television Outlets Support the Protest

In a major development, the major TV networks – including those seen as supportive of the government – released a unified message expressing their rejection.

“The directive is unprecedented and threatens fundamental journalistic protections,” they announced. “We will continue to cover the armed forces as each of our organizations has done for many decades, upholding the principles of a independent media.”

This near-unanimous position is justified – and it is heartening to witness such unity. This kind of press unity is formidable – and society could benefit from more of it, especially when the press are frequently targeted.

Journalism vs. Stenography

No matter how much the defense chief might wish it, journalism is not mere transcription, and the government-sanctioned narrative is frequently only a starting point for deeper investigation that reveals the truth.

The directive has been described as a “assault on facts” that obviously imperils the purpose of constitutional protections and erodes the public’s right to know what their government is doing.

The defense chief's response to this widespread defiance was characterized by a childish use of digital icons on online platforms, waving goodbye outlets that refused to comply.

Escalation of Media Controls

This newest action represents an increase in controls. Not only does the Pentagon seldom hold media availabilities these days, but previously it also banned reporters from the majority of the building without an official escort. This deviation from historical precedent impeded the ability of reporters to collect detailed information through everyday contacts.

Under the new policy, reporters could be labeled a threat simply for asking Pentagon employees for confidential information.

Persistence of The Press

It is clear that journalists and their news outlets will continue to cover the activities of the military, informing the public about their leaders' decisions.

Access is not paramount. In fact, the journalistic quest for access to powerful people and institutions – and the impulse to maintain that privilege – may impede accurate reporting.

As a previous journalist noted, the press can continue performing their duties through methods other than relaying government-sanctioned information to the public.

“Coverage of the military can be pursued through unauthorized disclosures, public records requests, and other cooperative methods harnessing the legal system’s protections,” they noted. And they can persist in this work, it was noted, “until this misguided administration reaches its conclusion.”