🔗 Share this article

A veteran Pentagon journalist recalls numerous instances during his years reporting on the defense establishment when the actual story diverged substantially from the official account.

After the fall of Baghdad in 2003, the then defense secretary was openly overjoyed, claiming it demonstrated the success of the military campaign. Yet, through informal discussions with military officers, the journalist soon discovered a more complex situation: additional American troops were required to secure supply lines under attack by loyalists of the deposed government.

“Was I, as a journalist, seeking out information?” the reporter wrote. “Of course. That is the essence of journalism. Uncovering what’s really going on away from public view and not accepting wholesale what any government claims.”

This reporter is one of many defense correspondents confronting the loss of their credentials after refusing to accept a controversial directive from the Pentagon leadership. The rule would force reporters to sign an agreement asserting they will solely report information “explicitly authorized” by the defense department.

Shift from Overseers to State Functionaries

Signing such an document would essentially convert reporters “from independent observers into government mouthpieces”, as noted by a previous head of a major press association and ex- senior editor of a international wire service.

This journalist is not alone. News organizations including leading newspapers, news agencies, and digital outlets – including some with conservative audiences – are refusing the demand.

Predictably, a outlet known as a propaganda outfit has agreed to comply.

Television Outlets Join the Protest

In a major move, the major TV networks – including those seen as friendly to the government – issued a joint statement stating their opposition.

“The policy is without precedent and endangers core journalistic protections,” they announced. “We will continue to report on the US military as each of our organizations has done for many decades, maintaining the values of a free and independent press.”

This vast majority position is correct – and it is heartening to see such unity. This kind of journalistic cohesion is formidable – and society could use more of it, particularly when journalists are frequently targeted.

Reporting vs. Transcription

No matter how much the defense chief might wish it, journalism is not mere transcription, and the government-sanctioned story is frequently only a beginning for more thorough investigation that uncovers the facts.

The policy has been characterized as a “assault on facts” that obviously threatens the purpose of free press guarantees and undermines the public’s right to know what their leaders is undertaking.

The official's reaction to this widespread defiance was characterized by a childish use of emojis on social media, dismissing organizations that refused to comply.

Intensification of Press Restrictions

This latest action constitutes an increase in controls. Not only does the Pentagon rarely hold press briefings now, but earlier it also prohibited reporters from most of the building without an official escort. This deviation from historical precedent impeded the ability of reporters to collect nuanced information through everyday interactions.

Under the revised rules, journalists could be labeled a threat simply for asking defense personnel for confidential information.

Persistence of The Press

It is clear that journalists and their organizations will persist to cover the activities of the military, informing the public about their leaders' actions.

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

As a previous reporter observed, reporters can keep performing their duties through means other than relaying officially approved information to the audience.

“Coverage of the armed forces can be pursued through leaks, freedom of information petitions, and other cooperative means harnessing the protections of the law,” they noted. And they can continue to do so, they added, “till this misguided regime reaches its conclusion.”