🔗 Share this article

An experienced military reporter remembers numerous instances during his career reporting on the Department of Defense when the actual narrative differed substantially from the approved account.

Following the fall of Baghdad in 2003, the then head of the Pentagon was openly ecstatic, insisting it demonstrated the triumph of the US invasion. However, through informal conversations with personnel, the journalist soon learned a more complicated reality: more forces were required to protect supply lines under attack by loyalists of the former regime.

“Did I as a reporter solicit information?” they stated. “Of course. That is the essence of journalism. Uncovering what’s really going on away from public view and refusing to accept wholesale official statements says.

This reporter is one of numerous Pentagon reporters confronting the loss of their credentials after declining to agree to a controversial policy from the Pentagon leadership. The rule would force journalists to sign an pledge asserting they will solely report information “officially approved” by the military establishment.

Transformation from Watchdogs to Government Agents

Signing such an agreement would essentially transform journalists “from watchdogs into state functionaries”, as noted by a former chairman of a prominent journalism organization and former editor of a international wire service.

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

Unsurprisingly, a outlet widely regarded as a state-friendly broadcaster has agreed to comply.

Broadcast Networks Support the Protest

In a major development, the leading broadcasters – even those considered supportive of the current administration – released a joint statement stating their opposition.

“The directive is without precedent and endangers core press freedoms,” the statement declared. “We will continue to report on the armed forces as each of our organizations has done for many decades, upholding the principles of a free and independent press.”

This near-unanimous stance is correct – and it is heartening to witness such solidarity. This type of press unity is powerful – and the public could use much more of it, especially when journalists are often targeted.

Journalism vs. Stenography

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

The policy has been characterized as a “assault on facts” that obviously threatens the intent of constitutional protections and undermines the citizens' ability to understand 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, waving goodbye organizations that declined to submit.

Escalation of Media Controls

This latest action constitutes an increase in restrictive measures. Not only does the Pentagon seldom hold press briefings these days, but earlier it also banned reporters from the majority of the building without an official escort. This departure from historical precedent impeded the ability of reporters to gather nuanced information through everyday interactions.

Under the new policy, reporters could be labeled a threat simply for inquiring Pentagon employees for confidential information.

Persistence of The Press

It is clear that journalists and their news outlets will continue to report on the operations of the Pentagon, educating the public about their leaders' decisions.

Credentials isn’t paramount. In fact, the journalistic quest for access to powerful people and organizations – and the impulse to protect that access – may hinder accurate journalism.

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

“Coverage of the military can be conducted through leaks, freedom of information petitions, and other cooperative means harnessing the legal system’s protections,” they noted. And they can continue to do so, they added, “till this benighted administration sees out its days.”