🔗 Share this article

An experienced Pentagon journalist remembers many occasions throughout their career reporting on the Department of Defense when the actual narrative differed substantially from the official account.

Following the fall of Baghdad in 2003, the then head of the Pentagon was publicly overjoyed, claiming it signaled the triumph of the military campaign. Yet, through unofficial conversations with military officers, the journalist quickly discovered a more complicated reality: additional American troops were needed to protect supply lines under attack by loyalists of the deposed government.

“Did I as a reporter solicit information?” the reporter wrote. “Of course. It’s called journalism. Finding out the actual events away from public view and not accepting completely official statements claims.”

This journalist is among many defense correspondents confronting the loss of their official access after refusing to agree to a controversial policy from the Pentagon leadership. The requirement would mandate reporters to sign an pledge stating they will publish only information “officially approved” 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 former chairman of a prominent journalism organization and ex- editor of a international wire service.

This journalist is in good company. News organizations including major newspapers, news agencies, and online platforms – even some with right-leaning audiences – are rejecting the ultimatum.

Predictably, a outlet known as a state-friendly broadcaster has consented to comply.

Broadcast Networks Join the Protest

In a major move, the major TV networks – including those seen as friendly to the government – issued a joint statement stating their opposition.

“The policy is unprecedented and endangers fundamental press freedoms,” the statement declared. “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 vast majority stance is correct – and it is encouraging to witness such solidarity. This kind of press unity is powerful – and society could benefit from more of it, especially when journalists are frequently under siege.

Journalism vs. Stenography

No matter how much the Pentagon leadership might wish it, journalism is not mere transcription, and the government-sanctioned story is often only a beginning for deeper investigation that uncovers the truth.

The directive has been characterized as a “assault on facts” that obviously imperils the purpose of constitutional protections and undermines the citizens' ability to understand what their government is undertaking.

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

Escalation of Press Restrictions

This latest effort represents an escalation in restrictive measures. Not only does the Department of Defense rarely hold media availabilities these days, but previously it also prohibited reporters from most of the building without an minder. This deviation from past practice hindered the ability of correspondents to gather nuanced information through routine contacts.

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

Determination of Journalistic Mission

It is clear that journalists and their organizations will persist to report on the activities of the Pentagon, informing the citizens about their government's decisions.

Credentials is not paramount. In fact, the journalistic quest for access to powerful people and organizations – and the impulse to maintain that access – may hinder truthful reporting.

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

“Reporting of the military can be pursued through unauthorized disclosures, public records requests, and other cooperative means harnessing the protections of the law,” they noted. And they can continue to do so, they added, “until this misguided administration sees out its days.”