🔗 Share this article

An experienced military journalist recalls numerous occasions throughout their years reporting on the defense establishment when the actual narrative diverged substantially from the approved version.

Following the capture of Baghdad in 2003, the then defense secretary was openly overjoyed, claiming it demonstrated the success of the military campaign. Yet, via informal discussions with personnel, the reporter quickly learned a more complicated reality: more American troops were needed to secure logistical routes being targeted by loyalists of the deposed government.

“Did I as a reporter solicit information?” the reporter wrote. “Naturally. It’s called journalism. Finding out what’s really going on behind the scenes and not accepting wholesale what any government says.

This journalist is among numerous Pentagon reporters facing the loss of their credentials after refusing to agree to a new directive from the Pentagon leadership. The rule would mandate reporters to sign an pledge stating they will solely report information “officially approved” by the military establishment.

Shift from Watchdogs to Government Agents

Agreeing to such an agreement would essentially convert reporters “from watchdogs into state functionaries”, according to a previous chairman of a prominent press association and ex- editor of a international wire service.

This individual is not alone. News organizations such as leading newspapers, wire services, and online platforms – even some with right-leaning viewership – are rejecting the ultimatum.

Unsurprisingly, a network widely regarded as a propaganda outfit has agreed to sign.

Television Outlets Join the Protest

In a major development, the leading broadcasters – even those considered friendly to the government – issued a joint statement stating their rejection.

“The directive is without precedent and endangers core 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 principles of a free and independent press.”

This vast majority position is correct – and it is heartening to see such solidarity. This kind of journalistic cohesion is formidable – and society could benefit from much more of it, especially when the press are often targeted.

Reporting vs. Transcription

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

The policy has been described as a “assault on facts” that obviously threatens the intent of free press guarantees and erodes the citizens' ability to know what their government is doing.

The defense chief's response to this widespread defiance was characterized by a juvenile display of emojis on social media, waving goodbye outlets that refused to comply.

Escalation of Media Controls

This latest effort represents an escalation in restrictive measures. Not only does the Department of Defense rarely hold press briefings now, but earlier it also prohibited reporters from most of the building without an minder. This departure from historical precedent impeded the capacity of correspondents to gather detailed information through routine contacts.

Under the new policy, reporters could be designated a security risk simply for inquiring Pentagon employees for sensitive information.

Persistence of The Press

It is certain that journalists and their organizations will persist to report on the operations of the military, informing the public about their leaders' decisions.

Access isn’t everything. In fact, the professional pursuit for access to influential figures and institutions – and the impulse to protect that privilege – may hinder accurate reporting.

As a former journalist observed, reporters can keep performing their duties through means other than relaying officially approved information to the audience.

“Coverage of the armed forces can be pursued through leaks, freedom of information petitions, and additional cooperative means utilizing the legal system’s protections,” the journalist stated. And they can persist in this work, it was noted, “till this misguided administration sees out its days.”