The Pentagon's Effort to Silence The Press Meets Resounding Failure

An experienced military journalist remembers many instances throughout his career covering the Department of Defense when the real narrative differed significantly from the official version.

After the capture of Baghdad in 2003, the then defense secretary was publicly overjoyed, claiming it demonstrated the triumph of the military campaign. Yet, via unofficial discussions with personnel, the journalist soon discovered a more complicated situation: additional forces were required to protect supply lines being targeted by loyalists of the deposed regime.

“Did I as a reporter solicit information?” they stated. “Naturally. That is the essence of journalism. Finding out what’s really going on away from public view and not accepting wholesale what any government says.

This reporter is one of numerous defense correspondents confronting the loss of their official access after refusing to agree to a controversial policy from the Pentagon leadership. The rule would mandate journalists to endorse an pledge stating they will solely report information “explicitly authorized” by the defense department.

Shift from Overseers to State Functionaries

Signing such an document would essentially convert reporters “from independent observers into government mouthpieces”, as noted by a previous chairman of a prominent journalism organization and former senior editor of a international wire service.

This journalist is not alone. Media outlets such as major publications, wire services, and online platforms – even some with right-leaning viewership – are refusing the ultimatum.

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

Broadcast Networks Support the Protest

In a major development, the major broadcasters – including those seen as friendly to the government – issued a joint statement expressing their rejection.

“The policy is unprecedented and threatens core press freedoms,” they announced. “We will continue to cover the armed forces as we has done for generations, maintaining the values of a independent media.”

This near-unanimous position is correct – and it is heartening to witness such solidarity. This kind of journalistic cohesion is powerful – and society could benefit from much more of it, particularly when the press are frequently targeted.

Reporting vs. Transcription

No matter how much the defense chief might desire it, journalism is not stenography, and the government-sanctioned narrative is frequently only a starting point for more thorough reporting that uncovers the truth.

The directive has been characterized as a “assault on facts” that clearly threatens the purpose of constitutional protections and undermines the public’s right to know what their government is doing.

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

Escalation of Press Restrictions

This newest action represents an escalation in restrictive measures. Not only does the Pentagon rarely hold press briefings now, but previously it also banned journalists from the majority of the building without an official escort. This deviation from past practice hindered the ability of reporters to gather nuanced 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 The Press

It is clear that journalists and their organizations will persist to report on the activities of the military, educating the public about their leaders' decisions.

Access is not paramount. In fact, the journalistic quest for proximity to powerful people and organizations – and the desire to maintain that privilege – may impede truthful reporting.

As a former journalist observed, reporters can keep doing their jobs through methods other than relaying officially approved information to the audience.

“Coverage of the military can be pursued through leaks, freedom of information petitions, and additional cooperative means harnessing the protections of the law,” they noted. And they can persist in this work, they added, “till this benighted regime sees out its days.”