🔗 Share this article

An experienced military journalist remembers numerous instances during his years covering the defense establishment when the actual story diverged substantially from the official account.

Following the capture of Baghdad in 2003, the then defense secretary was openly ecstatic, claiming it signaled the triumph of the US invasion. However, via unofficial discussions with military officers, the journalist quickly learned a more complex situation: more forces were needed to secure supply lines under attack by supporters of the deposed government.

“Was I, as a journalist, seeking out information?” the reporter wrote. “Naturally. It’s called journalism. Finding out what’s really going on away from public view and refusing to accept completely official statements says.

This journalist is among many Pentagon reporters facing the loss of their official access after declining to agree to a new directive from the defense chief. The rule would force reporters to sign an agreement stating they will solely report information “explicitly authorized” by the defense department.

Transformation from Watchdogs to Government Agents

Signing such an document would essentially transform journalists “from independent observers into government mouthpieces”, according to a former chairman of a major press association and former editor of a international wire service.

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

Unsurprisingly, a outlet widely regarded as a propaganda outfit has agreed to comply.

Broadcast Networks Support the Protest

In a major move, the leading TV networks – including those considered supportive of the current administration – issued a joint statement expressing their rejection.

“The policy is without precedent and endangers fundamental press freedoms,” the statement declared. “We will continue to report on the US military as we has done for generations, upholding the values of a free and independent press.”

This vast majority stance is correct – and it is encouraging to witness such solidarity. This kind of journalistic cohesion is powerful – and the public could benefit from more of it, particularly when the press are often targeted.

Journalism vs. Stenography

No matter how much the defense chief might desire it, journalism is not mere transcription, and the government-sanctioned narrative is frequently only a beginning for deeper investigation that reveals the truth.

The policy has been characterized as a “assault on facts” that obviously threatens the intent of free press guarantees and undermines the public’s right to know what their government is undertaking.

The official's reaction to this widespread defiance was characterized by a childish use of emojis on social media, waving goodbye outlets that declined to comply.

Escalation of Press Restrictions

This newest action constitutes an escalation in restrictive measures. Not only does the Department of Defense seldom hold press briefings these days, but earlier it also prohibited reporters from the majority of the facility without an official escort. This departure from past practice impeded the capacity of correspondents to collect detailed information through everyday interactions.

Under the revised rules, journalists could be labeled a security risk simply for asking Pentagon employees for sensitive information.

Persistence of The Press

It is certain that reporters and their organizations will continue to report on the operations of the military, informing the citizens about their government's actions.

Access isn’t everything. In fact, the journalistic quest for proximity to powerful people and institutions – and the impulse to protect that access – may impede truthful journalism.

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

“Reporting of the armed forces can be pursued through unauthorized disclosures, public records requests, and additional collaborative methods harnessing the protections of the law,” they noted. And they can persist in this work, it was noted, “till this misguided administration sees out its days.”