🔗 Share this article

An experienced military reporter remembers many instances during his years reporting on the defense establishment when the real narrative differed significantly from the official version.

Following the capture of Baghdad in 2003, the then head of the Pentagon was publicly ecstatic, claiming it signaled the triumph of the military campaign. However, through unofficial conversations with military officers, the reporter quickly learned a more complicated reality: more forces were required to secure supply lines being targeted by loyalists of the former regime.

“Was I, as a journalist, seeking out information?” they stated. “Of course. It’s called journalism. Finding out what’s really going on away from public view and refusing to accept wholesale official statements claims.”

This reporter is one of many defense correspondents confronting the revocation of their credentials after refusing to accept a controversial directive from the Pentagon leadership. The requirement would force journalists to sign an agreement asserting they will publish only information “officially approved” by the defense department.

Transformation from Overseers to Government Agents

Signing such an document would effectively convert reporters “from watchdogs into state functionaries”, according to a former chairman of a major journalism organization and former senior editor of a international wire service.

This individual is in good company. News organizations such as leading publications, news agencies, and digital outlets – even some with right-leaning viewership – are refusing the ultimatum.

Predictably, a network known as a propaganda outfit has consented to comply.

Television Outlets Support the Protest

In a significant development, the major TV networks – including those seen as supportive of the current administration – issued a unified message expressing their rejection.

“The policy is without precedent and threatens core journalistic protections,” the statement declared. “We will persist to cover the US military as each of our organizations has done for many decades, upholding the principles of a independent media.”

This vast majority stance is justified – and it is heartening to see such unity. This kind of press unity is powerful – and society could use more of it, particularly when the press are often targeted.

Journalism vs. Stenography

No matter how much the defense chief might wish it, journalism is not stenography, and the officially approved narrative is frequently only a beginning for more thorough reporting that reveals the facts.

The directive has been described as a “assault on facts” that obviously threatens the purpose of free press guarantees and erodes the public’s right to know what their leaders is doing.

The official's response to this near-universal rejection was characterized by a juvenile display of emojis on online platforms, waving goodbye organizations that refused to submit.

Escalation of Press Restrictions

This newest action represents an increase in restrictive measures. Not only does the Pentagon seldom hold media availabilities now, but previously it also prohibited journalists from the majority of the building without an minder. This departure from past practice hindered the capacity of reporters to gather detailed information through everyday interactions.

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

Persistence of Journalistic Mission

It is clear that journalists and their organizations will persist to report on the operations of the military, educating the public about their government's decisions.

Access is not paramount. In fact, the journalistic quest for access to influential figures and institutions – and the desire to protect that access – may impede accurate reporting.

As a previous journalist observed, reporters can keep doing their jobs through means besides transmitting officially approved information to the public.

“Coverage of the military can be pursued through leaks, freedom of information petitions, and other collaborative means utilizing the legal system’s protections,” they noted. And they can continue to do so, it was noted, “until this benighted regime sees out its days.”