🔗 Share this article

An experienced Pentagon journalist recalls many instances during their career covering the Department of Defense when the real narrative differed significantly from the approved account.

After the fall of Baghdad in 2003, the at that time defense secretary was publicly overjoyed, claiming it signaled the triumph of the military campaign. Yet, through informal discussions with personnel, the reporter soon learned a more complicated situation: additional forces were required to secure logistical routes under attack by loyalists of the former government.

“Did I as a reporter solicit information?” the reporter wrote. “Naturally. It’s called journalism. Uncovering what’s really going on away from public view and refusing to accept completely what any government claims.”

This journalist is among many Pentagon reporters confronting the loss of their official access after refusing to accept a controversial directive from the Pentagon leadership. The requirement would force reporters to endorse an agreement asserting they will solely report information “explicitly authorized” by the defense department.

Shift from Overseers to Government Agents

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

This individual is in good company. Media outlets such as major publications, wire services, and digital outlets – including some with right-leaning audiences – are refusing the ultimatum.

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

Television Outlets Join the Movement

In a significant development, the major broadcasters – even those seen as friendly to the government – issued a joint statement stating their opposition.

“The directive is unprecedented and endangers core press freedoms,” they announced. “We will persist to cover the US military as each of our organizations has done for many decades, upholding the values of a independent media.”

This near-unanimous position is correct – and it is encouraging to witness such solidarity. This kind of press unity is powerful – and the public could use more of it, especially when journalists are often under siege.

Journalism vs. Stenography

No matter how much the Pentagon leadership might desire it, journalism is not mere transcription, and the government-sanctioned story is often only a beginning for more thorough reporting that uncovers the facts.

The directive has been characterized as a “assault on facts” that obviously imperils the intent of constitutional protections and erodes the citizens' ability to understand what their leaders is undertaking.

The official's response to this widespread defiance was characterized by a childish display of emojis on online platforms, waving goodbye organizations that refused to submit.

Escalation of Media Controls

This latest action constitutes an increase in controls. Not only does the Department of Defense seldom hold media availabilities now, but previously it also prohibited journalists from the majority of the facility without an minder. This deviation from past practice hindered the capacity of correspondents to collect detailed information through routine contacts.

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

Persistence of Journalistic Mission

It is clear that journalists and their organizations will continue to cover the operations of the military, educating the public about their leaders' decisions.

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

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

“Coverage of the military can be pursued through leaks, freedom of information petitions, and other collaborative means utilizing the protections of the law,” they noted. And they can continue to do so, it was noted, “till this misguided administration reaches its conclusion.”