🔗 Share this article

A veteran military reporter remembers numerous occasions during their years reporting on the defense establishment when the real narrative differed significantly from the approved version.

After the fall of Baghdad in 2003, the at that time head of the Pentagon was openly ecstatic, claiming it demonstrated the success of the US invasion. Yet, via unofficial discussions with military officers, the reporter quickly discovered a more complex reality: more American troops were needed to secure supply lines under attack by loyalists of the deposed regime.

“Was I, as a journalist, seeking out information?” the reporter wrote. “Of course. It’s called journalism. Uncovering what’s really going on behind the scenes and refusing to accept wholesale official statements claims.”

This journalist is among numerous Pentagon reporters confronting the revocation of their credentials after declining to agree to a new directive from the defense chief. The requirement would mandate journalists to sign an agreement stating they will solely report information “officially approved” by the military establishment.

Transformation from Watchdogs to Government Agents

Signing such an document would essentially transform journalists “from watchdogs into state functionaries”, as noted by a previous head of a prominent press association and ex- senior editor of a global news agency.

This journalist is not alone. News organizations including major newspapers, news agencies, and digital outlets – even some with right-leaning audiences – are refusing the ultimatum.

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

Television Outlets Support the Protest

In a significant move, the leading TV networks – even those seen as friendly to the current administration – released a joint statement expressing their rejection.

“The policy is without precedent and threatens fundamental press freedoms,” they announced. “We will persist to report on the armed forces as each of our organizations has done for generations, maintaining the values of a free and independent press.”

This near-unanimous position is correct – and it is encouraging to see such solidarity. This kind of journalistic cohesion is powerful – and society could use much more of it, especially when the press are often under siege.

Reporting vs. Transcription

No matter how much the defense chief might wish it, journalism is not mere transcription, and the officially approved story is often only a beginning for deeper reporting that uncovers the facts.

The directive has been characterized as a “war on truth” that obviously threatens the intent of constitutional protections and undermines the public’s right to understand what their leaders is undertaking.

The official's response to this near-universal rejection was marked by a childish display of digital icons on social media, dismissing organizations that declined to submit.

Escalation of Press Restrictions

This newest effort represents an escalation in controls. Not only does the Department of Defense seldom hold media availabilities now, but previously it also prohibited reporters from most of the building without an official escort. This departure from historical precedent hindered the ability of reporters to gather nuanced information through everyday contacts.

Under the revised rules, reporters could be designated a security risk simply for inquiring Pentagon employees for sensitive information.

Persistence of The Press

It is certain that reporters and their news outlets will persist to cover the operations of the Pentagon, informing the citizens about their leaders' actions.

Credentials is not everything. In fact, the professional pursuit for proximity to influential figures and organizations – and the impulse to protect that privilege – may impede truthful reporting.

As a former journalist noted, the press can keep doing their jobs through methods other than transmitting government-sanctioned information to the audience.

“Coverage of the military can be conducted through unauthorized disclosures, public records requests, and additional collaborative methods utilizing the legal system’s protections,” they noted. And they can continue to do so, they added, “until this misguided regime reaches its conclusion.”