🔗 Share this article

An experienced Pentagon reporter remembers numerous occasions during their career reporting on the Department of Defense when the actual narrative diverged substantially from the official version.

Following the capture of Baghdad in 2003, the at that time defense secretary was openly overjoyed, claiming it signaled the success of the US invasion. However, through informal discussions with military officers, the journalist quickly learned a more complex situation: more forces were needed to secure supply lines being targeted by loyalists of the deposed regime.

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

This journalist is one of numerous Pentagon reporters confronting the loss of their credentials after declining to accept a controversial policy from the defense chief. The rule would force reporters to sign an pledge asserting they will publish only information “officially approved” by the military establishment.

Transformation from Overseers to Government Agents

Signing such an agreement would effectively transform reporters “from watchdogs into state functionaries”, according to a former head of a prominent journalism organization and ex- editor of a international wire service.

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

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

Television Outlets Join the Movement

In a major development, the leading TV networks – including those seen as supportive of the government – issued a unified message stating their rejection.

“The policy is without precedent and threatens fundamental press freedoms,” the statement declared. “We will persist to cover the armed forces as each of our organizations has done for generations, upholding the principles of a free and independent press.”

This near-unanimous position is justified – and it is heartening to witness such solidarity. This type of journalistic cohesion is formidable – and the public could use more of it, especially when journalists are often under siege.

Journalism vs. Stenography

No matter how much the Pentagon leadership might desire it, reporting is not stenography, and the government-sanctioned story is frequently only a beginning for deeper investigation that reveals the truth.

The directive has been characterized as a “assault on facts” that clearly imperils the intent of free press guarantees and undermines the public’s right to know what their government is doing.

The defense chief's reaction to this near-universal rejection was marked by a childish display of emojis on online platforms, dismissing organizations that refused to submit.

Escalation of Media Controls

This latest effort represents an increase in restrictive measures. Not only does the Pentagon seldom hold press briefings these days, but previously it also prohibited journalists from the majority of the building without an official escort. This deviation from historical precedent impeded the ability of correspondents to collect detailed information through everyday interactions.

Under the new policy, journalists could be designated a security risk simply for asking defense personnel for confidential information.

Determination of Journalistic Mission

It is clear that reporters and their news outlets will persist to cover the activities of the Pentagon, educating the citizens about their government's decisions.

Credentials is not paramount. In fact, the journalistic quest for access to powerful people and organizations – and the impulse to protect that access – may impede accurate reporting.

As a former journalist noted, reporters can keep performing their duties through methods other than transmitting officially approved information to the audience.

“Reporting of the armed forces can be pursued through leaks, public records requests, and additional cooperative methods utilizing the protections of the law,” they noted. And they can continue to do so, it was noted, “until this misguided administration sees out its days.”