🔗 Share this article

An experienced military reporter remembers numerous occasions during their years covering the Department of Defense when the real story differed substantially from the approved account.

Following the fall of Baghdad in 2003, the then head of the Pentagon was openly overjoyed, claiming it demonstrated the success of the military campaign. However, via unofficial conversations with military officers, the journalist quickly learned a more complicated reality: additional forces were required to secure supply lines being targeted by loyalists of the former government.

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

This journalist is among numerous defense correspondents facing the revocation of their credentials after refusing to accept a new directive from the defense chief. The requirement would mandate reporters to endorse an agreement stating they will solely report information “explicitly authorized” by the defense department.

Shift from Watchdogs to State Functionaries

Agreeing to such an agreement would essentially transform reporters “from watchdogs into state functionaries”, as noted by a previous chairman of a major press association and ex- senior editor of a global news agency.

This individual is not alone. Media outlets including leading publications, news agencies, and digital outlets – even some with conservative audiences – are refusing the demand.

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

Television Outlets Support the Movement

In a significant development, the major broadcasters – including those seen as supportive of the current administration – released a unified message expressing their opposition.

“The policy is unprecedented and threatens core journalistic protections,” the statement declared. “We will continue to report on the US military as we has done for many decades, maintaining the values of a independent media.”

This near-unanimous stance is correct – and it is encouraging to see such solidarity. This kind of press unity is formidable – and the public could benefit from much more of it, particularly when the press are frequently under siege.

Reporting vs. Transcription

No matter how much the defense chief might desire it, journalism is not mere transcription, and the government-sanctioned narrative is frequently only a beginning for deeper reporting that reveals the facts.

The directive has been characterized as a “war on truth” that obviously imperils the purpose of free press guarantees and erodes the citizens' ability to understand what their leaders is undertaking.

The official's reaction to this near-universal rejection was marked by a juvenile display of emojis on online platforms, dismissing outlets that refused to submit.

Escalation of Press Restrictions

This newest effort represents an escalation in controls. Not only does the Pentagon seldom hold press briefings now, but earlier it also prohibited journalists from most of the facility without an minder. This deviation from past practice hindered the capacity of reporters to collect nuanced information through everyday interactions.

Under the revised rules, reporters could be labeled a security risk simply for asking Pentagon employees for confidential information.

Persistence of The Press

It is certain that journalists and their news outlets will persist to report on the operations of the military, informing the public about their government's decisions.

Credentials isn’t paramount. In fact, the professional pursuit for access to powerful people and institutions – and the desire to maintain that privilege – may hinder accurate reporting.

As a previous journalist noted, reporters can continue performing their duties through methods besides transmitting officially approved information to the public.

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