🔗 Share this article

An experienced military journalist recalls many instances during their career covering the defense establishment when the actual story differed substantially from the official account.

Following the capture of Baghdad in 2003, the then head of the Pentagon was openly overjoyed, insisting it demonstrated the success of the military campaign. Yet, via informal discussions with military officers, the reporter soon discovered a more complicated situation: additional forces were required to protect supply lines being targeted by supporters of the deposed government.

“Was I, as a journalist, seeking out information?” the reporter wrote. “Of course. That is the essence of journalism. Uncovering what’s really going on away from public view and refusing to accept completely official statements says.

This reporter is among many defense correspondents confronting the revocation of their credentials after refusing to agree to a controversial policy from the defense chief. The rule would mandate reporters to sign an pledge asserting they will publish only information “officially approved” by the military establishment.

Transformation from Overseers to State Functionaries

Agreeing to such an agreement would essentially transform reporters “from independent observers into government mouthpieces”, as noted by a previous head of a major journalism organization and ex- senior editor of a international wire service.

This journalist is in good company. News organizations including leading newspapers, news agencies, and digital outlets – even some with conservative audiences – are refusing the demand.

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

Television Outlets Support the Movement

In a major development, the leading TV networks – even those seen as supportive of the current administration – issued a unified message stating their rejection.

“The policy is unprecedented and threatens fundamental journalistic protections,” the statement declared. “We will continue to report on the armed forces as we has done for many decades, maintaining the principles 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 the public could benefit from more of it, especially when journalists are frequently targeted.

Journalism vs. Stenography

No matter how much the Pentagon leadership might desire it, reporting is not mere transcription, and the government-sanctioned story is frequently only a beginning for more thorough reporting that uncovers the facts.

The directive has been characterized as a “assault on facts” that obviously threatens the intent of constitutional protections and erodes the citizens' ability to understand what their leaders is doing.

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

Intensification of Media Controls

This latest action represents an increase in restrictive measures. Not only does the Pentagon rarely hold media availabilities these days, but earlier it also prohibited reporters from the majority of the facility without an official escort. This deviation from historical precedent impeded the capacity of correspondents to gather detailed information through routine contacts.

Under the new policy, journalists could be designated a threat simply for inquiring Pentagon employees for confidential information.

Determination of Journalistic Mission

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

Access isn’t paramount. In fact, the professional pursuit for proximity to powerful people and organizations – and the desire to maintain that privilege – may impede truthful journalism.

As a previous journalist observed, reporters can continue doing their jobs through methods other than relaying government-sanctioned information to the audience.

“Coverage of the military can be pursued through leaks, freedom of information petitions, and additional collaborative methods utilizing the legal system’s protections,” they noted. And they can continue to do so, they added, “till this benighted regime reaches its conclusion.”