🔗 Share this article

A veteran military journalist recalls many instances throughout their years covering the defense establishment when the real narrative diverged significantly from the approved account.

After the capture of Baghdad in 2003, the then defense secretary was publicly ecstatic, insisting it demonstrated the triumph of the US invasion. Yet, via unofficial conversations with personnel, the reporter quickly discovered a more complicated situation: additional forces were needed to protect logistical routes being targeted by supporters of the former regime.

“Did I as a reporter solicit information?” they stated. “Naturally. It’s called journalism. Finding out the actual events away from public view and refusing to accept wholesale what any government says.

This journalist is among numerous Pentagon reporters facing the loss of their credentials after refusing to accept a controversial policy from the Pentagon leadership. The requirement would force reporters to endorse an agreement asserting they will publish only information “officially approved” by the military establishment.

Shift from Watchdogs to Government Agents

Signing such an document would effectively convert reporters “from watchdogs into state functionaries”, according to a former head of a prominent press association and ex- editor of a international wire service.

This individual is in good company. News organizations such as leading newspapers, wire services, and online platforms – including some with conservative audiences – are rejecting the demand.

Unsurprisingly, a network known as a propaganda outfit has consented to sign.

Television Outlets Join the Protest

In a major development, the major broadcasters – including those seen as supportive of the government – released a unified message expressing their rejection.

“The policy is unprecedented and endangers core press freedoms,” they announced. “We will persist to cover the US military as we has done for generations, upholding the principles of a free and independent press.”

This near-unanimous position is correct – and it is encouraging to witness such solidarity. This kind of journalistic cohesion is powerful – and the public could benefit from more of it, especially when journalists are frequently under siege.

Journalism vs. Stenography

No matter how much the Pentagon leadership might wish it, journalism is not mere transcription, and the government-sanctioned narrative is often only a starting point for deeper investigation that uncovers the facts.

The policy has been described as a “assault on facts” that obviously imperils the intent of constitutional protections and erodes the public’s right to know what their leaders is doing.

The defense chief's response to this near-universal rejection was marked by a juvenile display of emojis on social media, waving goodbye outlets that declined to submit.

Escalation of Press Restrictions

This newest action constitutes an increase in restrictive measures. Not only does the Department of Defense seldom hold media availabilities these days, but previously it also prohibited journalists from the majority of the facility without an official escort. This deviation from past practice impeded the ability of reporters to gather detailed information through routine interactions.

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

Determination of Journalistic Mission

It is clear that reporters and their organizations will continue to cover the operations of the Pentagon, educating the citizens about their government's actions.

Access isn’t paramount. In fact, the professional pursuit for access to influential figures and organizations – and the desire to maintain that privilege – may impede accurate reporting.

As a previous reporter observed, reporters can continue performing their duties through means besides relaying officially approved information to the audience.

“Reporting of the military can be pursued through leaks, freedom of information petitions, and other collaborative means harnessing the protections of the law,” the journalist stated. And they can persist in this work, it was noted, “until this misguided administration sees out its days.”