🔗 Share this article

A veteran military journalist remembers numerous instances throughout his years covering the Department of Defense when the actual narrative diverged substantially from the official version.

Following the capture of Baghdad in 2003, the then head of the Pentagon was publicly overjoyed, claiming it signaled the triumph of the US invasion. Yet, through unofficial discussions with personnel, the reporter quickly discovered a more complicated situation: additional American troops were needed to secure supply lines being targeted by loyalists of the former regime.

“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 refusing to accept completely official statements says.

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

Shift from Overseers to State Functionaries

Agreeing to such an agreement would essentially transform reporters “from watchdogs into state functionaries”, according to a previous head of a prominent journalism organization and former senior editor of a international wire service.

This journalist is not alone. Media outlets such as major publications, wire services, and digital outlets – including some with right-leaning viewership – are refusing the demand.

Predictably, a outlet known as a state-friendly broadcaster has consented to sign.

Broadcast Networks Join the Protest

In a significant move, the major TV networks – including those seen as friendly to the current administration – issued a joint statement expressing their opposition.

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

This vast majority stance is correct – and it is heartening to witness such unity. This type of journalistic cohesion is powerful – and society could use more of it, especially when journalists are frequently targeted.

Reporting vs. Transcription

No matter how much the defense chief might desire it, reporting is not mere transcription, and the government-sanctioned story is often only a beginning for deeper reporting that uncovers the truth.

The directive has been described as a “assault on facts” that clearly threatens the purpose of constitutional protections and undermines the citizens' ability to understand what their government is undertaking.

The official's reaction to this near-universal rejection was marked by a childish use of emojis on online platforms, waving goodbye organizations that declined to comply.

Intensification of Media Controls

This newest action constitutes an escalation in restrictive measures. Not only does the Pentagon seldom hold press briefings now, but earlier it also banned reporters from most of the building without an official escort. This deviation from past practice impeded the ability 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 confidential information.

Determination of The Press

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

Credentials is not paramount. In fact, the journalistic quest for access to powerful people and institutions – and the desire to protect that access – may impede truthful journalism.

As a previous journalist noted, reporters can continue performing their duties through methods other than relaying government-sanctioned information to the public.

“Coverage of the armed forces can be conducted through leaks, freedom of information petitions, and additional collaborative means utilizing the protections of the law,” the journalist stated. And they can continue to do so, it was noted, “until this misguided regime sees out its days.”