🔗 Share this article

A veteran Pentagon reporter remembers many instances during their career covering the defense establishment when the real story differed substantially from the official version.

After the fall of Baghdad in 2003, the at that time defense secretary was openly ecstatic, insisting it demonstrated the success of the military campaign. Yet, via unofficial conversations with military officers, the journalist quickly discovered a more complex situation: more American troops were needed to secure logistical routes being targeted by loyalists of the deposed regime.

“Was I, as a journalist, seeking out information?” they stated. “Naturally. It’s called journalism. Uncovering the actual events away from public view and not accepting wholesale what any government claims.”

This journalist is one of many defense correspondents facing the loss of their credentials after declining to accept a new policy from the Pentagon leadership. The requirement would mandate reporters to sign an pledge stating they will solely report information “officially approved” by the military establishment.

Transformation from Watchdogs to State Functionaries

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

This individual is not alone. News organizations including leading publications, wire services, and digital outlets – even some with right-leaning viewership – are rejecting the demand.

Predictably, a network widely regarded as a state-friendly broadcaster has consented to comply.

Television Outlets Support the Protest

In a significant move, the leading broadcasters – including those considered friendly to the current administration – issued a unified message stating their opposition.

“The directive is unprecedented and threatens core journalistic protections,” they announced. “We will continue to cover the armed forces as each of our organizations has done for many decades, maintaining the values of a free and independent press.”

This vast majority stance is correct – and it is encouraging to witness such solidarity. This type of press unity is formidable – and society could benefit from much more of it, especially when the press are frequently under siege.

Journalism vs. Stenography

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

The directive has been characterized as a “war on truth” that obviously imperils the intent of constitutional protections and erodes the citizens' ability to know what their leaders is doing.

The official's response to this near-universal rejection was marked by a childish display of emojis on online platforms, waving goodbye outlets that declined to submit.

Escalation of Media Controls

This latest action constitutes an increase in controls. Not only does the Pentagon seldom hold media availabilities these days, but earlier it also banned reporters from the majority of the facility without an official escort. This deviation from historical precedent hindered the capacity of correspondents to collect nuanced information through everyday contacts.

Under the new policy, reporters could be labeled a threat simply for inquiring defense personnel for sensitive information.

Persistence of Journalistic Mission

It is clear that journalists and their organizations will continue to cover the activities of the Pentagon, educating the citizens about their government's actions.

Credentials is not paramount. In fact, the professional pursuit for access to powerful people and institutions – and the impulse to maintain that privilege – may impede truthful journalism.

As a previous journalist observed, reporters can continue performing their duties through means other than transmitting officially approved information to the public.

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