🔗 Share this article

An experienced Pentagon reporter recalls numerous occasions during their career covering the defense establishment when the actual narrative diverged substantially from the official account.

Following the fall of Baghdad in 2003, the then head of the Pentagon was openly ecstatic, insisting it signaled the success of the US invasion. Yet, via informal conversations with personnel, the reporter quickly learned a more complicated situation: more American troops were required to protect supply lines being targeted by supporters of the deposed government.

“Did I as a reporter solicit information?” they stated. “Naturally. That is the essence of journalism. Finding out the actual events behind the scenes and not accepting completely what any government claims.”

This journalist is one of numerous Pentagon reporters confronting the revocation of their official access after refusing to agree to a new policy from the defense chief. The rule would mandate reporters to sign an pledge stating they will publish only information “officially approved” by the defense department.

Transformation from Watchdogs to State Functionaries

Agreeing to such an document would essentially convert reporters “from watchdogs into state functionaries”, as noted by a former head of a prominent press association and former senior editor of a global news agency.

This individual is in good company. Media outlets such as leading newspapers, wire services, and digital outlets – including some with right-leaning viewership – are refusing the ultimatum.

Predictably, a network widely regarded as a state-friendly broadcaster has consented to comply.

Broadcast Networks Support the Movement

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

“The policy is without precedent and endangers core press freedoms,” they announced. “We will persist to report on the US military as each of our organizations has done for generations, maintaining the values of a independent media.”

This vast majority position is correct – and it is encouraging to witness such solidarity. This type of press unity is powerful – and the public could use more of it, especially when the press are frequently targeted.

Journalism vs. Stenography

No matter how much the defense chief might desire it, reporting is not stenography, and the officially approved narrative is frequently only a starting point for more thorough investigation that reveals the truth.

The directive has been described as a “war on truth” that obviously imperils the intent of free press guarantees and undermines the citizens' ability to understand what their leaders is undertaking.

The defense chief's response to this near-universal rejection was marked by a juvenile display of emojis on social media, dismissing outlets that declined to comply.

Intensification of Press Restrictions

This newest effort represents an increase in controls. Not only does the Department of Defense seldom hold media availabilities now, but previously it also prohibited reporters from the majority of the facility without an official escort. This deviation from historical precedent impeded the capacity of correspondents to collect detailed information through everyday contacts.

Under the revised rules, reporters could be designated a security risk simply for inquiring defense personnel for sensitive information.

Determination of The Press

It is certain that journalists and their news outlets will persist to report on the operations of the military, informing the public about their government's actions.

Credentials isn’t paramount. In fact, the professional pursuit for access to influential figures and institutions – and the desire to protect that privilege – may impede accurate reporting.

As a former journalist observed, reporters can continue performing their duties through means other than relaying officially approved information to the audience.

“Reporting of the military can be pursued through leaks, public records requests, and additional cooperative methods harnessing the legal system’s protections,” they noted. And they can continue to do so, they added, “until this benighted administration sees out its days.”