🔗 Share this article

A veteran military journalist remembers numerous occasions throughout his career reporting on the defense establishment when the real story diverged significantly from the approved account.

Following the fall of Baghdad in 2003, the then defense secretary was openly ecstatic, insisting it signaled the triumph of the military campaign. However, via unofficial discussions with personnel, the journalist soon learned a more complicated situation: additional forces were required to protect supply lines under attack by supporters of the deposed regime.

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

This journalist is among numerous Pentagon reporters confronting the loss of their credentials after refusing to accept a controversial policy from the Pentagon leadership. The requirement would mandate journalists to endorse an pledge stating they will publish only information “explicitly authorized” by the military establishment.

Transformation from Watchdogs to Government Agents

Agreeing to such an agreement would effectively transform journalists “from watchdogs into state functionaries”, according to a previous head of a prominent journalism organization and ex- editor of a global news agency.

This journalist is in good company. News organizations such as leading publications, wire services, and online platforms – including some with conservative viewership – are refusing the demand.

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

Broadcast Networks Support the Protest

In a significant move, the major TV networks – even those seen as supportive of the current administration – issued a unified message expressing their rejection.

“The directive is without precedent and threatens core journalistic protections,” the statement declared. “We will continue to cover the US military as we has done for many decades, upholding the values of a free and independent press.”

This vast majority stance is justified – and it is encouraging to witness such solidarity. This type of journalistic cohesion is powerful – and society could use more of it, especially when journalists are often targeted.

Journalism vs. Stenography

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

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

The defense chief's response to this near-universal rejection was characterized by a juvenile display of emojis on social media, dismissing organizations that refused to comply.

Escalation of Media Controls

This newest action represents an escalation in controls. Not only does the Pentagon seldom hold press briefings now, but previously it also banned journalists from most of the building without an minder. This departure from past practice hindered the capacity of correspondents to collect detailed information through everyday interactions.

Under the new policy, journalists could be designated a security risk simply for asking Pentagon employees for confidential information.

Persistence of The Press

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

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

As a former reporter observed, reporters can keep doing their jobs through means besides relaying government-sanctioned information to the public.

“Coverage of the military can be pursued through unauthorized disclosures, freedom of information petitions, and other cooperative means utilizing the protections of the law,” the journalist stated. And they can continue to do so, it was noted, “till this misguided regime reaches its conclusion.”