🔗 Share this article

A veteran Pentagon reporter remembers numerous occasions during their career covering the Department of Defense when the real story differed significantly from the official account.

Following the fall of Baghdad in 2003, the at that time defense secretary was publicly ecstatic, claiming it demonstrated the success of the US invasion. Yet, via unofficial discussions with personnel, the reporter soon discovered a more complicated reality: more forces were required to protect supply lines being targeted by loyalists of the former government.

“Did I as a reporter solicit information?” the reporter wrote. “Naturally. It’s called journalism. Uncovering the actual events away from public view and not accepting wholesale what any government says.

This journalist is one of numerous defense correspondents facing the revocation of their official access after refusing to accept a new directive from the Pentagon leadership. The rule would mandate journalists to sign an agreement asserting they will solely report information “explicitly authorized” by the defense department.

Shift from Overseers to Government Agents

Agreeing to such an document would effectively transform reporters “from watchdogs into state functionaries”, according to a previous chairman of a major journalism organization and ex- senior editor of a global news agency.

This individual is in good company. Media outlets including major publications, wire services, and digital outlets – even some with right-leaning audiences – are rejecting the ultimatum.

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

Television Outlets Support the Movement

In a major development, the leading TV networks – even those seen as friendly to the current administration – released a joint statement stating their opposition.

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

This near-unanimous stance is correct – and it is encouraging to see such unity. This type of press unity is formidable – and the public could use much more of it, particularly when the press are often under siege.

Reporting vs. Transcription

No matter how much the Pentagon leadership might desire it, reporting is not mere transcription, and the officially approved story is frequently only a beginning for more thorough investigation that reveals the truth.

The policy has been characterized as a “war on truth” that clearly threatens the intent of constitutional protections and undermines the public’s right to understand what their leaders is doing.

The defense chief's response to this widespread defiance was marked by a childish use of digital icons on online platforms, dismissing outlets that refused to submit.

Escalation of Press Restrictions

This latest effort represents an increase in restrictive measures. Not only does the Pentagon rarely hold media availabilities these days, but previously it also banned journalists from the majority of the building without an official escort. This deviation from past practice hindered the ability of correspondents to collect detailed information through routine interactions.

Under the new policy, journalists could be designated a threat simply for inquiring Pentagon employees for sensitive information.

Persistence of Journalistic Mission

It is clear that journalists and their organizations will continue to cover the activities of the Pentagon, informing the public about their government's actions.

Credentials isn’t everything. In fact, the journalistic quest for proximity to powerful people and organizations – and the desire to protect that access – may hinder truthful reporting.

As a previous journalist noted, reporters can keep doing their jobs through means besides transmitting officially approved information to the public.

“Coverage of the military can be conducted through leaks, public records requests, and additional collaborative means utilizing the protections of the law,” they noted. And they can persist in this work, it was noted, “until this misguided administration reaches its conclusion.”