🔗 Share this article

A veteran military reporter remembers numerous occasions during their years reporting on the Department of Defense when the real narrative diverged significantly from the official account.

After the capture of Baghdad in 2003, the then head of the Pentagon was openly ecstatic, insisting it demonstrated the success of the military campaign. Yet, via unofficial discussions with military officers, the reporter soon discovered a more complicated reality: more American troops were required to secure supply lines under attack by loyalists of the deposed government.

“Was I, as a journalist, seeking out information?” the reporter wrote. “Naturally. That is the essence of journalism. Finding out what’s really going on away from public view and not accepting wholesale official statements says.

This reporter is among numerous defense correspondents confronting the loss of their official access after refusing to agree to a new directive from the Pentagon leadership. The rule would mandate reporters to sign an agreement asserting they will publish only information “explicitly authorized” by the military establishment.

Transformation from Watchdogs to Government Agents

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

This journalist is in good company. Media outlets such as major newspapers, news agencies, and digital outlets – including some with right-leaning viewership – are rejecting the demand.

Predictably, a network widely regarded as a state-friendly broadcaster has consented to sign.

Television Outlets Support the Protest

In a significant development, the major broadcasters – including those seen as supportive of the government – released a joint statement expressing their opposition.

“The policy is without precedent and threatens fundamental journalistic protections,” they announced. “We will persist to report on the armed forces as each of our organizations has done for generations, maintaining the principles of a free and independent press.”

This vast majority position is correct – and it is heartening to see such unity. This type of journalistic cohesion is powerful – and the public could use much more of it, particularly when journalists are frequently under siege.

Journalism vs. Stenography

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

The directive has been characterized as a “assault on facts” that clearly threatens the intent of free press guarantees and erodes the public’s right to know what their leaders is undertaking.

The defense chief's response to this near-universal rejection was characterized by a childish use of digital icons on social media, dismissing organizations that refused to comply.

Escalation of Media Controls

This latest effort constitutes an escalation in controls. Not only does the Pentagon rarely hold media availabilities now, but earlier it also prohibited reporters from most of the facility without an minder. This departure from historical precedent hindered the ability of correspondents to gather detailed information through everyday interactions.

Under the revised rules, reporters could be designated a security risk simply for inquiring Pentagon employees for confidential information.

Determination of The Press

It is clear that reporters and their news outlets will persist to report on the activities of the Pentagon, informing the citizens about their leaders' decisions.

Access is not everything. In fact, the journalistic quest for proximity to powerful people and organizations – and the impulse to maintain that access – may hinder accurate reporting.

As a former reporter observed, reporters can keep performing their duties through means other than transmitting government-sanctioned information to the public.

“Coverage of the military can be conducted through leaks, public records requests, and other cooperative means utilizing the protections of the law,” the journalist stated. And they can persist in this work, they added, “until this benighted regime reaches its conclusion.”