🔗 Share this article

An experienced Pentagon reporter remembers many instances during his career covering the defense establishment when the actual narrative diverged substantially from the official account.

Following the capture of Baghdad in 2003, the then defense secretary was openly overjoyed, claiming it signaled the triumph of the military campaign. However, via informal conversations with personnel, the journalist quickly learned a more complicated situation: more American troops were required to protect logistical routes under attack by supporters of the deposed government.

“Did I as a reporter solicit information?” the reporter wrote. “Of course. It’s called journalism. Finding out the actual events behind the scenes and refusing to accept wholesale official statements claims.”

This reporter is one of many Pentagon reporters confronting the revocation of their official access after declining to agree to a new directive from the defense chief. The requirement would force reporters to endorse an agreement asserting they will publish only information “explicitly authorized” by the defense department.

Shift from Overseers to State Functionaries

Signing such an agreement would effectively transform journalists “from watchdogs into state functionaries”, according to a previous head of a prominent journalism organization and ex- senior editor of a global news agency.

This individual is not alone. News organizations such as major publications, wire services, and digital outlets – including some with right-leaning audiences – are rejecting the demand.

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

Television Outlets Support the Movement

In a significant development, the leading broadcasters – including those considered supportive of the government – released a unified message stating their opposition.

“The policy is without precedent and endangers fundamental press freedoms,” they announced. “We will continue to report on the armed forces as we has done for generations, upholding the principles of a independent media.”

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

Reporting vs. Transcription

No matter how much the Pentagon leadership might desire it, journalism is not stenography, and the officially approved narrative is often only a starting point for more thorough investigation that reveals the truth.

The policy has been described as a “assault on facts” that clearly threatens the purpose of free press guarantees and undermines the citizens' ability to know what their government is doing.

The official's reaction to this near-universal rejection was marked by a childish display of emojis on online platforms, waving goodbye outlets that refused to submit.

Intensification of Media Controls

This latest effort represents an increase in restrictive measures. Not only does the Department of Defense rarely hold press briefings these days, but earlier it also prohibited reporters from most of the facility without an official escort. This deviation from past practice impeded the capacity of reporters to collect nuanced information through everyday contacts.

Under the new policy, reporters could be labeled a security risk simply for asking Pentagon employees for sensitive information.

Persistence of The Press

It is certain that reporters and their news outlets will persist to cover the operations of the Pentagon, informing the public about their leaders' actions.

Credentials is not everything. In fact, the journalistic quest for proximity to influential figures and institutions – and the desire to maintain that privilege – may hinder truthful reporting.

As a previous reporter observed, the press can keep doing their jobs through methods other than transmitting government-sanctioned information to the public.

“Coverage of the military can be pursued through leaks, freedom of information petitions, and other collaborative methods harnessing the protections of the law,” they noted. And they can continue to do so, they added, “till this misguided administration reaches its conclusion.”