🔗 Share this article

An experienced Pentagon journalist remembers numerous instances throughout his years reporting on the Department of Defense when the actual narrative diverged significantly from the approved version.

After the capture of Baghdad in 2003, the at that time defense secretary was openly overjoyed, claiming it signaled the success of the US invasion. Yet, through unofficial conversations with military officers, the journalist quickly learned a more complicated reality: additional forces were needed to secure logistical routes under attack by loyalists of the former government.

“Did I as a reporter solicit information?” they stated. “Of course. It’s called journalism. Finding out what’s really going on behind the scenes and refusing to accept wholesale official statements claims.”

This reporter is one of many defense correspondents confronting the loss of their official access after declining to agree to a new policy from the defense chief. The rule would force journalists to endorse an agreement asserting they will solely report information “officially approved” by the defense department.

Transformation from Overseers to State Functionaries

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

This individual is not alone. Media outlets including major newspapers, wire services, and online platforms – even some with right-leaning viewership – are refusing the ultimatum.

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

Television Outlets Support the Movement

In a significant development, the leading broadcasters – including those seen as supportive of the government – released a joint statement expressing their opposition.

“The policy is unprecedented and threatens 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 vast majority stance is correct – and it is heartening to witness such unity. This kind of journalistic cohesion is formidable – and society could use much more of it, especially when journalists are often under siege.

Journalism vs. Stenography

No matter how much the Pentagon leadership might desire it, reporting is not mere transcription, and the officially approved narrative is often only a beginning for deeper reporting that reveals the facts.

The policy has been described as a “assault on facts” that clearly threatens the intent of constitutional protections and undermines the citizens' ability to know what their government is doing.

The official's reaction to this widespread defiance was characterized by a juvenile use of digital icons on social media, waving goodbye outlets that refused to submit.

Intensification of Press Restrictions

This latest effort constitutes an increase in restrictive measures. Not only does the Department of Defense rarely hold press briefings now, but previously it also prohibited reporters from the majority of the facility without an official escort. This deviation from historical precedent hindered the ability of correspondents to gather nuanced information through routine interactions.

Under the new policy, reporters could be designated a threat simply for inquiring Pentagon employees for sensitive information.

Persistence of Journalistic Mission

It is certain that journalists and their organizations will persist to cover the operations of the military, educating the public about their government's actions.

Credentials isn’t everything. In fact, the professional pursuit for access to influential figures and organizations – and the desire to maintain that access – may hinder accurate journalism.

As a former reporter noted, reporters can continue doing their jobs through means besides transmitting officially approved information to the audience.

“Reporting of the armed forces can be pursued through unauthorized disclosures, public records requests, and additional cooperative methods utilizing the legal system’s protections,” they noted. And they can continue to do so, it was noted, “until this misguided administration reaches its conclusion.”