🔗 Share this article

A veteran military reporter recalls numerous occasions throughout their years reporting on the defense establishment when the actual story differed significantly from the official version.

After the fall of Baghdad in 2003, the at that time head of the Pentagon was publicly ecstatic, insisting it demonstrated the success of the military campaign. However, through unofficial conversations with personnel, the journalist soon learned a more complicated situation: more American troops were required to protect logistical routes under attack by supporters of the former regime.

“Did I as a reporter solicit information?” the reporter wrote. “Naturally. That is the essence of journalism. Finding out what’s really going on away from public view and not accepting wholesale official statements claims.”

This reporter is one of numerous defense correspondents confronting the revocation of their credentials after declining to accept a controversial directive from the Pentagon leadership. The requirement would force journalists to endorse an pledge asserting they will solely report information “explicitly authorized” by the military establishment.

Shift from Overseers to Government Agents

Agreeing to such an document would essentially convert reporters “from watchdogs into state functionaries”, as noted by a former head of a prominent journalism organization and ex- editor of a global news agency.

This individual is in good company. Media outlets such as leading publications, news agencies, and digital outlets – even some with right-leaning viewership – are refusing the demand.

Predictably, a outlet known as a state-friendly broadcaster has agreed to sign.

Broadcast Networks Join the Protest

In a significant development, the major TV networks – including those considered supportive of the government – released a unified message stating their opposition.

“The policy is unprecedented and endangers core journalistic protections,” they announced. “We will continue to cover the armed forces as we has done for many decades, upholding the principles of a free and independent press.”

This vast majority position is correct – and it is heartening to see such unity. This type of press unity is formidable – and society could benefit from much more of it, particularly when the press are frequently under siege.

Reporting vs. Transcription

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

The directive has been described as a “assault on facts” that clearly imperils the purpose of free press guarantees and undermines the citizens' ability to understand what their leaders is undertaking.

The defense chief's reaction to this widespread defiance was marked by a juvenile use of digital icons on online platforms, dismissing organizations that refused to comply.

Intensification of Press Restrictions

This newest effort constitutes an escalation in controls. Not only does the Department of Defense rarely hold media availabilities now, but previously it also banned reporters from the majority of the facility without an minder. This departure from past practice hindered the ability of correspondents to gather nuanced information through routine contacts.

Under the new policy, reporters could be designated a threat simply for asking Pentagon employees for sensitive information.

Persistence of Journalistic Mission

It is certain that journalists and their organizations will persist to report on the operations of the military, informing the public about their leaders' actions.

Credentials is not everything. In fact, the journalistic quest for access to powerful people and institutions – and the impulse to protect that access – may impede truthful journalism.

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

“Coverage of the armed forces can be pursued through unauthorized disclosures, freedom of information petitions, and other collaborative means harnessing the protections of the law,” they noted. And they can continue to do so, they added, “until this benighted administration sees out its days.”