🔗 Share this article

An experienced military reporter recalls numerous instances during their years covering the defense establishment when the actual story diverged significantly from the official account.

After the fall of Baghdad in 2003, the then head of the Pentagon was publicly overjoyed, claiming it demonstrated the triumph of the US invasion. Yet, via unofficial discussions with personnel, the journalist quickly learned a more complicated situation: additional American troops were required to protect supply lines under attack by supporters of the former government.

“Was I, as a journalist, seeking out information?” the reporter wrote. “Of course. It’s called journalism. Uncovering the actual events away from public view and refusing to accept wholesale official statements says.

This journalist is among many defense correspondents facing the revocation of their official access after refusing to agree to a new policy from the defense chief. The requirement would force reporters to endorse an pledge asserting they will publish only information “explicitly authorized” by the military establishment.

Shift from Watchdogs to Government Agents

Signing such an agreement would essentially transform reporters “from watchdogs into state functionaries”, according to a previous head of a prominent journalism organization and ex- editor of a international wire service.

This journalist is not alone. Media outlets such as leading publications, news agencies, and digital outlets – including some with conservative audiences – are rejecting the demand.

Unsurprisingly, a network known as a state-friendly broadcaster has consented to sign.

Television Outlets Join the Protest

In a major development, the major broadcasters – even those seen as friendly to the government – released a unified message stating their opposition.

“The policy is without precedent and threatens core journalistic protections,” the statement declared. “We will continue to report on the US military as we has done for generations, maintaining the values of a independent media.”

This vast majority stance is justified – and it is encouraging to witness such solidarity. This kind of journalistic cohesion is powerful – and society could benefit from much more of it, especially when journalists are frequently under siege.

Journalism vs. Stenography

No matter how much the Pentagon leadership might desire it, journalism is not stenography, and the officially approved story is often only a starting point for more thorough reporting that uncovers the facts.

The directive has been characterized as a “assault on facts” that obviously threatens the purpose of constitutional protections and erodes the citizens' ability to know what their government is undertaking.

The defense chief's response to this widespread defiance was marked by a childish display of digital icons on online platforms, dismissing outlets that declined to comply.

Escalation of Press Restrictions

This latest effort constitutes an escalation in controls. Not only does the Pentagon rarely hold media availabilities now, but previously it also prohibited reporters from the majority of the building without an official escort. This deviation from past practice hindered the ability of reporters to collect nuanced information through everyday interactions.

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

Determination of The Press

It is clear that reporters and their news outlets will continue to cover the operations of the military, educating the citizens about their government's decisions.

Credentials isn’t paramount. In fact, the professional pursuit for proximity to powerful people and institutions – and the desire to protect that access – may impede truthful journalism.

As a former reporter observed, the press can keep doing their jobs through methods other than transmitting officially approved information to the public.

“Reporting of the military can be pursued through leaks, freedom of information petitions, and other collaborative methods utilizing the legal system’s protections,” the journalist stated. And they can continue to do so, they added, “till this misguided administration sees out its days.”