🔗 Share this article

An experienced Pentagon reporter remembers many instances throughout their years covering the Department of Defense when the real narrative diverged substantially from the approved version.

After the fall of Baghdad in 2003, the then defense secretary was openly overjoyed, claiming it signaled the triumph of the military campaign. However, through unofficial conversations with personnel, the reporter quickly discovered a more complex reality: more forces were needed to secure supply lines under attack by supporters of the former government.

“Did I as a reporter solicit information?” they stated. “Naturally. That is the essence of journalism. Uncovering the actual events away from public view and refusing to accept completely official statements claims.”

This journalist is among many defense correspondents facing the loss of their credentials after declining to accept a controversial directive from the defense chief. The requirement would mandate journalists to sign an pledge stating they will solely report information “explicitly authorized” by the defense department.

Transformation from Watchdogs to Government Agents

Agreeing to such an agreement would essentially convert reporters “from independent observers into government mouthpieces”, as noted by a former head of a major journalism organization and former editor of a global news agency.

This journalist is not alone. Media outlets including major newspapers, news agencies, and digital outlets – including some with right-leaning audiences – are rejecting the demand.

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

Broadcast Networks Join the Protest

In a major development, the leading broadcasters – even those considered friendly to the government – issued a unified message expressing their opposition.

“The directive is unprecedented and threatens core journalistic protections,” they announced. “We will persist to cover the US military as we has done for many decades, maintaining the values of a free and independent press.”

This near-unanimous stance is correct – and it is encouraging to witness such solidarity. This type of press unity is formidable – and society could use more of it, especially when the press are frequently targeted.

Journalism vs. Stenography

No matter how much the defense chief might wish it, reporting is not stenography, and the officially approved story is frequently only a beginning for more thorough reporting that reveals the truth.

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

The official's response to this widespread defiance was characterized by a juvenile use of digital icons on social media, dismissing organizations that declined to submit.

Intensification of Media Controls

This newest effort constitutes an escalation in restrictive measures. Not only does the Pentagon seldom hold press briefings now, but previously it also banned journalists from most of the facility without an official escort. This departure from historical precedent impeded the capacity of correspondents to collect nuanced information through everyday interactions.

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

Persistence of Journalistic Mission

It is certain that journalists and their news outlets will continue to report on the activities of the military, informing the citizens about their leaders' actions.

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

As a former journalist noted, the press can keep doing their jobs through methods other than relaying officially approved information to the audience.

“Reporting of the armed forces can be pursued through leaks, public records requests, and additional collaborative means utilizing the protections of the law,” they noted. And they can persist in this work, it was noted, “until this misguided regime sees out its days.”