🔗 Share this article

An experienced Pentagon journalist recalls numerous instances throughout his career reporting on the Department of Defense when the real narrative differed substantially from the official account.

Following the fall of Baghdad in 2003, the at that time defense secretary was publicly overjoyed, claiming it demonstrated the triumph of the US invasion. However, via unofficial discussions with military officers, the reporter quickly discovered a more complex reality: more forces were required to secure logistical routes under attack by supporters of the former regime.

“Did I as a reporter solicit information?” they stated. “Of course. It’s called journalism. Uncovering what’s really going on away from public view and refusing to accept wholesale what any government claims.”

This reporter is one of many defense correspondents confronting the revocation of their official access after declining to accept a new policy from the Pentagon leadership. The requirement would mandate reporters to sign an pledge asserting they will solely report information “explicitly authorized” by the military establishment.

Shift from Watchdogs to State Functionaries

Agreeing to such an agreement would essentially convert journalists “from independent observers into government mouthpieces”, according to a previous chairman of a prominent press association and former senior editor of a global news agency.

This journalist is in good company. Media outlets such as leading publications, wire services, and online platforms – including some with conservative audiences – are refusing the ultimatum.

Unsurprisingly, a network widely regarded as a propaganda outfit has consented to comply.

Broadcast Networks Support the Protest

In a significant development, the major broadcasters – even those seen as supportive of the current administration – released a joint statement stating their rejection.

“The directive is unprecedented and threatens fundamental journalistic protections,” they announced. “We will continue to report on the armed forces as each of our organizations has done for many decades, upholding the principles of a free and independent press.”

This near-unanimous stance is justified – and it is encouraging to witness such solidarity. This kind of press unity is powerful – and society could benefit from much more of it, particularly when journalists are frequently under siege.

Reporting vs. Transcription

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

The policy has been described as a “war on truth” that obviously imperils the purpose of constitutional protections and undermines the public’s right to know what their government is undertaking.

The defense chief's response to this widespread defiance was marked by a childish display of emojis on online platforms, dismissing outlets that declined to submit.

Intensification of Media Controls

This newest action constitutes an increase in controls. Not only does the Department of Defense rarely hold media availabilities these days, but previously it also prohibited journalists from most of the facility without an minder. This deviation from historical precedent hindered the ability of reporters to gather detailed information through routine interactions.

Under the revised rules, reporters could be labeled a threat simply for asking defense personnel for sensitive information.

Persistence of Journalistic Mission

It is clear that reporters and their news outlets will continue to report on the activities of the military, educating the citizens about their leaders' actions.

Access isn’t everything. In fact, the professional pursuit for proximity to influential figures and institutions – and the impulse to protect that privilege – may impede truthful reporting.

As a former reporter observed, reporters can continue performing their duties through means other than transmitting government-sanctioned information to the audience.

“Reporting of the armed forces can be conducted through leaks, freedom of information petitions, and additional collaborative means utilizing the protections of the law,” they noted. And they can continue to do so, they added, “till this benighted administration sees out its days.”