🔗 Share this article

A veteran Pentagon journalist remembers numerous instances during their career reporting on the Department of Defense when the actual story differed significantly from the official version.

After the fall of Baghdad in 2003, the then defense secretary was openly ecstatic, insisting it demonstrated the success of the military campaign. Yet, via informal conversations with military officers, the reporter quickly learned a more complicated reality: additional forces were needed to secure logistical routes being targeted by supporters of the former regime.

“Did I as a reporter solicit information?” the reporter wrote. “Naturally. It’s called journalism. Finding out what’s really going on behind the scenes and not accepting completely official statements claims.”

This reporter is among numerous Pentagon reporters confronting the revocation of their official access after refusing to agree to a new directive from the Pentagon leadership. The rule would mandate journalists to endorse an pledge asserting they will solely report information “explicitly authorized” by the military establishment.

Shift from Watchdogs to Government Agents

Agreeing to such an document would essentially convert reporters “from independent observers into government mouthpieces”, according to a previous chairman of a prominent press association and ex- editor of a international wire service.

This individual is in good company. News organizations such as major publications, news agencies, and online platforms – including some with right-leaning viewership – are rejecting the demand.

Predictably, a outlet known as a propaganda outfit has consented to sign.

Broadcast Networks Join the Protest

In a significant development, the leading broadcasters – even those considered supportive of the government – released a joint statement stating their rejection.

“The policy is without precedent and threatens core press freedoms,” they announced. “We will persist to cover the US military as we has done for generations, maintaining the principles of a free and independent press.”

This near-unanimous position is correct – and it is encouraging to see such solidarity. This kind of press unity is powerful – and the public could use 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 officially approved narrative is often only a beginning for more thorough reporting that reveals the facts.

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

The official's reaction to this near-universal rejection was characterized by a childish use of digital icons on social media, waving goodbye organizations that declined to comply.

Intensification of Press Restrictions

This newest effort represents an escalation in restrictive measures. Not only does the Department of Defense seldom hold media availabilities these days, but earlier it also banned reporters from the majority of the building without an minder. This departure from historical precedent impeded the ability of reporters to gather detailed information through everyday interactions.

Under the revised rules, journalists could be designated a threat simply for asking Pentagon employees for confidential information.

Persistence of Journalistic Mission

It is clear that reporters and their organizations will continue to report on the activities of the Pentagon, educating the public about their government's decisions.

Credentials is not everything. In fact, the professional pursuit for access to influential figures and organizations – and the desire to protect that privilege – may impede accurate reporting.

As a former journalist noted, the press can continue doing their jobs through means besides relaying government-sanctioned information to the audience.

“Reporting of the armed forces can be conducted through unauthorized disclosures, public records requests, and other collaborative means utilizing the legal system’s protections,” the journalist stated. And they can persist in this work, it was noted, “till this misguided administration reaches its conclusion.”