🔗 Share this article

An experienced Pentagon journalist recalls many instances throughout his career covering the defense establishment when the actual story diverged significantly from the approved account.

Following the fall of Baghdad in 2003, the then defense secretary was openly overjoyed, insisting it demonstrated the triumph of the US invasion. Yet, via informal conversations with personnel, the reporter quickly learned a more complicated reality: additional American troops were needed to protect logistical routes being targeted by loyalists of the deposed regime.

“Did I as a reporter solicit information?” the reporter wrote. “Naturally. That is the essence of journalism. Finding out the actual events away from public view and not accepting wholesale official statements says.

This reporter is one of numerous Pentagon reporters facing the loss of their credentials after declining to accept a controversial policy from the defense chief. The requirement would force reporters to endorse an pledge stating they will solely report information “explicitly authorized” by the defense department.

Shift from Overseers to State Functionaries

Signing such an document would essentially convert reporters “from independent observers into government mouthpieces”, as noted by a former head of a major press association and former senior editor of a global news agency.

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

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

Television Outlets Join the Movement

In a major development, the leading broadcasters – including those seen as friendly to the government – issued a joint statement expressing their opposition.

“The directive is unprecedented and endangers core press freedoms,” the statement declared. “We will persist to cover the US military as each of our organizations has done for many decades, maintaining the principles of a free and independent press.”

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

Reporting vs. Transcription

No matter how much the Pentagon leadership might desire it, reporting is not mere transcription, and the government-sanctioned narrative is frequently only a beginning for more thorough reporting that uncovers the facts.

The directive has been characterized as a “assault on facts” that obviously imperils the purpose of free press guarantees and erodes the public’s right to understand what their leaders is undertaking.

The defense chief's reaction to this near-universal rejection was characterized by a childish use of emojis on online platforms, dismissing outlets that declined to submit.

Escalation of Media Controls

This latest action constitutes an increase in restrictive measures. Not only does the Department of Defense seldom hold press briefings these days, but earlier it also banned reporters from most of the building without an official escort. This deviation from historical precedent hindered the capacity of reporters to collect nuanced information through everyday interactions.

Under the revised rules, reporters could be designated a threat simply for asking defense personnel for confidential information.

Determination of Journalistic Mission

It is clear that journalists and their organizations will continue to cover the operations of the military, 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 impulse to maintain that privilege – may hinder accurate reporting.

As a former journalist noted, the press can keep performing their duties through methods besides transmitting government-sanctioned information to the audience.

“Coverage of the military can be conducted through unauthorized disclosures, freedom of information petitions, and additional cooperative means harnessing the legal system’s protections,” they noted. And they can continue to do so, they added, “till this misguided administration reaches its conclusion.”