🔗 Share this article

An experienced Pentagon reporter remembers many occasions throughout their years covering the Department of Defense when the real story diverged significantly from the official version.

Following the fall of Baghdad in 2003, the at that time defense secretary was openly ecstatic, claiming it demonstrated the triumph of the US invasion. Yet, through informal discussions with military officers, the reporter soon discovered a more complex reality: more American troops were required to protect logistical routes under attack by supporters of the former government.

“Was I, as a journalist, seeking out information?” they stated. “Naturally. It’s called journalism. Finding out the actual events behind the scenes and refusing to accept wholesale what any government claims.”

This reporter is one of many Pentagon reporters facing the revocation of their official access after refusing to accept a controversial policy from the Pentagon leadership. The rule would force journalists to sign an pledge stating they will solely report information “officially approved” by the defense department.

Transformation from Overseers to State Functionaries

Agreeing to such an agreement would essentially transform reporters “from independent observers into government mouthpieces”, as noted by a former chairman of a major journalism organization and ex- senior editor of a international wire service.

This journalist is not alone. Media outlets such as major newspapers, wire services, and online platforms – including some with right-leaning audiences – are rejecting the ultimatum.

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

Television Outlets Support the Protest

In a significant development, the major TV networks – including those seen as friendly to the government – issued a unified message stating their opposition.

“The directive is unprecedented and endangers fundamental press freedoms,” the statement declared. “We will persist to cover the armed forces as each of our organizations has done for many decades, upholding the values of a independent media.”

This near-unanimous stance is correct – and it is encouraging to see such unity. This type of journalistic cohesion is powerful – and society could benefit from more of it, particularly when the press are often targeted.

Reporting vs. Transcription

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

The policy has been described as a “war on truth” that obviously threatens the intent of constitutional protections and erodes the citizens' ability to understand what their government is undertaking.

The official's reaction to this widespread defiance was marked by a juvenile display of digital icons on social media, dismissing outlets that declined to comply.

Intensification of Press Restrictions

This latest action constitutes an escalation in restrictive measures. Not only does the Department of Defense seldom hold media availabilities these days, but previously it also prohibited journalists from most of the building without an minder. This departure from historical precedent impeded the capacity of reporters to collect nuanced information through routine contacts.

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

Persistence of The Press

It is clear that journalists and their organizations will persist to report on the operations of the military, informing the public about their leaders' decisions.

Credentials is not everything. In fact, the professional pursuit for access to powerful people and organizations – and the impulse to protect that access – may hinder accurate reporting.

As a former journalist observed, the press can keep performing their duties through methods other than transmitting government-sanctioned information to the audience.

“Reporting of the armed forces can be conducted through unauthorized disclosures, freedom of information petitions, and other collaborative methods utilizing the legal system’s protections,” the journalist stated. And they can continue to do so, they added, “till this benighted regime reaches its conclusion.”