🔗 Share this article

A veteran military journalist remembers many occasions during their years reporting on the Department of Defense when the real narrative diverged substantially from the approved account.

Following the capture of Baghdad in 2003, the at that time head of the Pentagon was openly ecstatic, insisting it demonstrated the triumph of the military campaign. However, through unofficial discussions with personnel, the reporter soon learned a more complicated reality: additional American troops were required to protect logistical routes being targeted by loyalists of the deposed government.

“Was I, as a journalist, seeking out information?” they stated. “Of course. It’s called journalism. Finding out the actual events away from public view and not accepting completely official statements says.

This reporter is among numerous defense correspondents facing the loss of their credentials after declining to agree to a controversial directive from the Pentagon leadership. The requirement would force journalists to sign an pledge asserting they will publish only information “officially approved” by the military establishment.

Transformation from Overseers to Government Agents

Signing such an document would essentially convert journalists “from watchdogs into state functionaries”, according to a former chairman of a prominent journalism organization and ex- editor of a global news agency.

This individual is in good company. Media outlets including major publications, news agencies, and online platforms – including some with right-leaning viewership – are refusing the demand.

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

Television Outlets Join the Protest

In a significant development, the major broadcasters – including those seen as supportive of the current administration – issued a joint statement stating their opposition.

“The policy is unprecedented and endangers core journalistic protections,” they announced. “We will continue to cover the armed forces as each of our organizations has done for generations, upholding the values of a free and independent press.”

This vast majority stance is justified – and it is heartening to witness such solidarity. This kind of journalistic cohesion is formidable – and society could benefit from much more of it, particularly when the press are often under siege.

Reporting vs. Transcription

No matter how much the defense chief might wish it, journalism is not mere transcription, and the government-sanctioned narrative is often only a starting point for deeper investigation that uncovers the facts.

The policy has been described as a “war on truth” that obviously threatens the purpose of constitutional protections and erodes the citizens' ability to know what their government is undertaking.

The defense chief's response to this widespread defiance was characterized by a juvenile display of emojis on online platforms, waving goodbye outlets that declined to comply.

Escalation of Press Restrictions

This latest effort constitutes an increase in restrictive measures. Not only does the Department of Defense rarely hold media availabilities now, but previously it also prohibited journalists from most of the building without an official escort. This departure from historical precedent impeded the ability of correspondents to gather detailed information through routine interactions.

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

Persistence of Journalistic Mission

It is certain that reporters and their news outlets will persist to cover the activities of the military, educating the citizens about their leaders' decisions.

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

As a former reporter noted, the press can continue performing their duties through means other than relaying officially approved information to the public.

“Coverage of the armed forces can be conducted through unauthorized disclosures, public records requests, and other collaborative methods harnessing the legal system’s protections,” the journalist stated. And they can continue to do so, they added, “till this benighted regime reaches its conclusion.”