🔗 Share this article

A veteran military journalist recalls many occasions throughout their career reporting on the defense establishment when the actual narrative differed significantly from the approved version.

Following the capture of Baghdad in 2003, the at that time defense secretary was openly overjoyed, insisting it demonstrated the triumph of the military campaign. Yet, through informal discussions with personnel, the reporter quickly discovered a more complex reality: more American troops were needed to protect logistical routes under attack by loyalists of the deposed government.

“Was I, as a journalist, seeking out information?” the reporter wrote. “Naturally. It’s called journalism. Uncovering the actual events behind the scenes and not accepting wholesale official statements claims.”

This reporter is among numerous defense correspondents confronting the loss of their credentials after declining to accept a new directive from the defense chief. The requirement would mandate reporters to sign an pledge asserting they will solely report information “officially approved” by the military establishment.

Transformation from Watchdogs to State Functionaries

Signing such an agreement would essentially convert reporters “from independent observers into government mouthpieces”, according to a former chairman of a major journalism organization and former editor of a international wire service.

This journalist is not alone. Media outlets including leading newspapers, wire services, and online platforms – even some with right-leaning viewership – are refusing the demand.

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

Television Outlets Join the Protest

In a major development, the leading broadcasters – including those seen as friendly to the government – released a unified message expressing their rejection.

“The directive is without precedent and endangers core journalistic protections,” the statement declared. “We will continue to report on the US military as we has done for generations, maintaining the principles of a free and independent press.”

This near-unanimous stance is correct – and it is heartening to witness such solidarity. This kind of press unity is formidable – and the public could use more of it, particularly when the press are frequently under siege.

Journalism vs. Stenography

No matter how much the defense chief might desire it, journalism is not mere transcription, and the government-sanctioned story is frequently only a starting point for more thorough investigation that reveals the truth.

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

The defense chief's reaction to this near-universal rejection was characterized by a juvenile use of digital icons on online platforms, dismissing organizations that refused to comply.

Escalation of Press Restrictions

This latest effort constitutes an escalation in restrictive measures. Not only does the Pentagon rarely hold media availabilities now, but previously it also banned journalists from most of the building without an minder. This deviation from historical precedent impeded the capacity of correspondents to collect detailed information through everyday contacts.

Under the new policy, reporters could be labeled a threat simply for inquiring defense personnel for sensitive information.

Persistence of Journalistic Mission

It is clear that reporters and their organizations will continue to report on the operations of the Pentagon, informing the public about their leaders' decisions.

Credentials is not everything. In fact, the professional pursuit for access to powerful people and institutions – and the impulse to maintain that privilege – may hinder accurate reporting.

As a former reporter observed, the press can keep performing their duties through means besides transmitting officially approved information to the audience.

“Reporting of the armed forces can be conducted through leaks, freedom of information petitions, and other cooperative methods utilizing the legal system’s protections,” they noted. And they can persist in this work, they added, “till this benighted administration sees out its days.”