🔗 Share this article

An experienced Pentagon journalist remembers many instances during his years reporting on the Department of Defense when the actual narrative differed significantly from the official account.

Following the capture of Baghdad in 2003, the at that time defense secretary was publicly ecstatic, insisting it demonstrated the triumph of the US invasion. Yet, through informal discussions with military officers, the reporter soon discovered a more complex situation: more American troops were needed to protect logistical routes under attack by supporters of the former regime.

“Was I, as a journalist, seeking out information?” they stated. “Of course. It’s called journalism. Uncovering what’s really going on away from public view and refusing to accept completely what any government claims.”

This reporter is among numerous Pentagon reporters facing the loss of their official access after refusing to accept a controversial directive from the defense chief. The rule would mandate journalists to sign an agreement asserting they will solely report information “officially approved” by the defense department.

Shift from Watchdogs to Government Agents

Agreeing to such an agreement would effectively convert reporters “from independent observers into government mouthpieces”, according to a former chairman of a prominent press association and former senior editor of a international wire service.

This individual is in good company. News organizations including leading publications, wire services, and online platforms – even some with conservative viewership – are rejecting the demand.

Predictably, a network widely regarded as a propaganda outfit has consented to sign.

Broadcast Networks Support the Protest

In a major development, the leading TV networks – even those considered supportive of the current administration – issued a unified message stating their opposition.

“The directive is unprecedented and threatens core press freedoms,” they announced. “We will continue to report on the US military as each of our organizations has done for generations, upholding the values of a independent media.”

This vast majority position is justified – and it is heartening to see such solidarity. This kind of journalistic cohesion is powerful – and the public could use much more of it, particularly when journalists are often targeted.

Journalism vs. Stenography

No matter how much the defense chief might wish it, reporting is not mere transcription, and the government-sanctioned narrative is often only a starting point for more thorough investigation that uncovers the truth.

The policy has been described as a “assault on facts” that obviously threatens the purpose of constitutional protections and erodes the public’s right to understand what their leaders is undertaking.

The official's response to this widespread defiance was marked by a childish display of digital icons on social media, waving goodbye outlets that declined to submit.

Intensification of Media Controls

This newest effort represents an escalation in restrictive measures. Not only does the Department of Defense rarely hold press briefings these days, but previously it also banned journalists from most of the building without an official escort. This deviation from past practice impeded the ability of correspondents to gather nuanced information through everyday contacts.

Under the revised rules, journalists could be designated a threat simply for asking Pentagon employees for confidential information.

Persistence of Journalistic Mission

It is clear that reporters and their organizations will continue to cover the operations of the military, informing the citizens about their leaders' actions.

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 truthful journalism.

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

“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 persist in this work, it was noted, “till this benighted administration sees out its days.”