🔗 Share this article

An experienced military reporter remembers numerous occasions throughout his years covering the Department of Defense when the real story differed significantly from the official version.

After the fall of Baghdad in 2003, the then head of the Pentagon was openly overjoyed, claiming it demonstrated the triumph of the military campaign. Yet, via informal discussions with military officers, the reporter soon discovered a more complex situation: additional American troops were needed to secure supply lines being targeted by supporters of the deposed government.

“Was I, as a journalist, seeking out information?” the reporter wrote. “Naturally. It’s called journalism. Uncovering the actual events away from public view and not accepting completely official statements claims.”

This journalist is one of many defense correspondents confronting the revocation of their credentials after refusing to agree to a controversial policy from the Pentagon leadership. The rule would force reporters to sign an agreement stating they will solely report information “officially approved” by the defense department.

Shift from Overseers to Government Agents

Signing such an document would effectively transform journalists “from watchdogs into state functionaries”, according to a former chairman of a prominent journalism organization and ex- editor of a international wire service.

This individual is not alone. Media outlets such as leading newspapers, news agencies, and online platforms – including some with conservative viewership – are refusing the ultimatum.

Predictably, a outlet known as a propaganda outfit has agreed to sign.

Television Outlets Join the Movement

In a major move, the major TV networks – including those considered friendly to the government – released a unified message stating their rejection.

“The directive is unprecedented and endangers core journalistic protections,” the statement declared. “We will persist to cover the armed forces as we has done for many decades, maintaining the values of a independent media.”

This near-unanimous stance is justified – and it is heartening to see such unity. This type of journalistic cohesion is formidable – and society could use more of it, especially when journalists are frequently targeted.

Reporting vs. Transcription

No matter how much the defense chief might desire it, journalism is not stenography, and the officially approved story is often only a beginning for more thorough investigation that uncovers the truth.

The policy has been described as a “assault on facts” that obviously threatens the purpose of constitutional protections and undermines the citizens' ability to know what their leaders is undertaking.

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

Intensification of Press Restrictions

This latest action represents an escalation in controls. Not only does the Department of Defense seldom hold media availabilities these days, but previously it also prohibited journalists from the majority of the building without an minder. This departure from past practice impeded the ability of reporters to collect detailed information through routine contacts.

Under the revised rules, journalists could be designated a security risk simply for asking defense personnel for confidential information.

Determination of The Press

It is clear that journalists and their news outlets will continue to report on the activities of the Pentagon, informing the public about their leaders' decisions.

Access isn’t paramount. In fact, the professional pursuit for proximity to powerful people and organizations – and the impulse to protect that privilege – may impede truthful journalism.

As a previous reporter noted, the press can keep doing their jobs through means besides relaying government-sanctioned information to the public.

“Reporting of the military can be conducted through leaks, public records requests, and other cooperative methods harnessing the protections of the law,” they noted. And they can persist in this work, they added, “until this misguided regime reaches its conclusion.”