🔗 Share this article

An experienced Pentagon journalist recalls numerous instances during their career reporting on the Department of Defense when the real story diverged substantially from the official account.

Following the fall of Baghdad in 2003, the at that time defense secretary was openly ecstatic, claiming it demonstrated the success of the US invasion. However, through informal discussions with military officers, the reporter quickly discovered a more complicated situation: more forces were required to protect logistical routes under attack by supporters of the deposed government.

“Was I, as a journalist, seeking out information?” they stated. “Of course. That is the essence of journalism. Uncovering what’s really going on away from public view and refusing to accept wholesale official statements claims.”

This reporter is one of numerous defense correspondents confronting the revocation of their official access after refusing to agree to a new policy from the Pentagon leadership. The rule would mandate reporters to sign an pledge asserting they will solely report information “officially approved” by the military establishment.

Transformation from Watchdogs to State Functionaries

Agreeing to such an agreement would essentially convert reporters “from independent observers into government mouthpieces”, according to a former chairman of a major journalism organization and former senior editor of a international wire service.

This journalist is in good company. Media outlets including major publications, news agencies, and digital outlets – including some with conservative viewership – are rejecting the demand.

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

Television Outlets Support the Movement

In a major development, the major broadcasters – even those seen as friendly to the current administration – issued a joint statement expressing their opposition.

“The directive is without precedent and endangers fundamental press freedoms,” they announced. “We will persist to cover the armed forces as each of our organizations has done for many decades, upholding the values of a free and independent press.”

This vast majority stance is correct – and it is encouraging to see such solidarity. This type of press unity is powerful – and the public could benefit from more of it, particularly when the press are frequently under siege.

Journalism vs. Stenography

No matter how much the Pentagon leadership might desire it, reporting is not stenography, and the government-sanctioned story is frequently only a starting point for more thorough reporting that uncovers the facts.

The directive has been characterized as a “assault on facts” that obviously imperils the purpose of constitutional protections and erodes the citizens' ability to understand what their leaders is undertaking.

The official's reaction to this near-universal rejection was marked by a childish display of digital icons on online platforms, dismissing outlets that declined to submit.

Escalation of Press Restrictions

This newest effort constitutes an increase in controls. Not only does the Department of Defense rarely hold media availabilities now, but previously it also banned reporters from the majority of the facility without an minder. This deviation from historical precedent hindered the ability of correspondents to gather nuanced information through everyday interactions.

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

Determination of The Press

It is certain that reporters and their news outlets will persist to report on the activities of the Pentagon, informing the public about their leaders' actions.

Credentials isn’t everything. In fact, the professional pursuit for proximity to influential figures and institutions – and the impulse to maintain that access – may impede truthful reporting.

As a previous journalist observed, reporters can continue doing their jobs through methods other than relaying government-sanctioned information to the audience.

“Reporting of the armed forces can be conducted through leaks, freedom of information petitions, and additional cooperative methods harnessing the legal system’s protections,” the journalist stated. And they can continue to do so, it was noted, “until this misguided regime reaches its conclusion.”