🔗 Share this article

An experienced Pentagon journalist recalls numerous instances during his years reporting on the Department of Defense when the real narrative diverged substantially from the official version.

Following the capture of Baghdad in 2003, the then head of the Pentagon was openly overjoyed, claiming it signaled the success of the US invasion. Yet, via unofficial conversations with military officers, the journalist quickly discovered a more complex reality: more American troops were needed to protect supply lines being targeted by supporters of the deposed government.

“Did I as a reporter solicit information?” the reporter wrote. “Naturally. That is the essence of journalism. Finding out the actual events away from public view and not accepting completely official statements says.

This reporter is among numerous Pentagon reporters facing the revocation of their credentials after refusing to accept a controversial policy from the defense chief. The rule would force reporters to endorse an agreement asserting they will solely report information “officially approved” by the military establishment.

Transformation from Watchdogs to Government Agents

Signing such an document would effectively transform reporters “from independent observers into government mouthpieces”, according to a former head of a prominent journalism organization and former editor of a global news agency.

This journalist is not alone. Media outlets including major publications, news agencies, and digital outlets – including some with right-leaning viewership – are refusing the ultimatum.

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

Broadcast Networks Support the Protest

In a major move, the leading broadcasters – including those considered friendly to the current administration – released a joint statement stating their opposition.

“The policy is without precedent and threatens fundamental journalistic protections,” the statement declared. “We will continue to report on the US military as we has done for generations, maintaining the principles of a free and independent press.”

This near-unanimous position is justified – and it is heartening to witness such unity. This kind of press unity is powerful – and society could benefit from more of it, particularly when the press are frequently under siege.

Reporting vs. Transcription

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

The policy has been described as a “war on truth” that clearly threatens the intent of constitutional protections and erodes the citizens' ability to understand what their government is undertaking.

The defense chief's response to this widespread defiance was marked by a childish use of emojis on social media, waving goodbye outlets that refused to comply.

Escalation of Press Restrictions

This latest effort constitutes an escalation in restrictive measures. Not only does the Department of Defense rarely hold media availabilities now, but earlier it also banned journalists from the majority of the building without an official escort. This deviation from historical precedent impeded the ability of reporters to collect detailed information through everyday interactions.

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

Persistence of Journalistic Mission

It is clear that reporters and their organizations will persist to report on the operations of the military, educating the citizens about their government's decisions.

Credentials isn’t everything. In fact, the journalistic quest for proximity to powerful people and organizations – and the desire to protect that access – may hinder truthful reporting.

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

“Coverage of the military can be conducted through leaks, freedom of information petitions, and additional collaborative methods harnessing the legal system’s protections,” they noted. And they can continue to do so, they added, “till this benighted administration reaches its conclusion.”