🔗 Share this article

A veteran military reporter remembers many occasions during his years covering the defense establishment when the actual story diverged substantially from the approved account.

Following the capture of Baghdad in 2003, the at that time defense secretary was publicly ecstatic, claiming it demonstrated the success of the military campaign. Yet, via unofficial conversations with military officers, the reporter soon learned a more complicated reality: additional American troops were required to protect logistical routes being targeted by loyalists of the former government.

“Did I as a reporter solicit information?” they stated. “Of course. That is the essence of journalism. Uncovering the actual events away from public view and not accepting wholesale what any government says.

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

Shift from Watchdogs to Government Agents

Signing such an agreement 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 journalist is in good company. News organizations including leading newspapers, news agencies, and digital outlets – even some with conservative viewership – are rejecting the ultimatum.

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

Television Outlets Support the Movement

In a significant development, the major TV networks – including those considered supportive of the government – issued a joint statement stating their rejection.

“The policy is without precedent and endangers core press freedoms,” they announced. “We will persist to cover the armed forces as each of our organizations has done for many decades, upholding the values of a free and independent press.”

This vast majority position is correct – and it is heartening to witness such unity. This kind of journalistic cohesion is formidable – and society could use much more of it, especially when the press are frequently targeted.

Reporting vs. Transcription

No matter how much the Pentagon leadership might wish it, reporting is not mere transcription, and the officially approved story is frequently only a beginning for deeper reporting that reveals the facts.

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

The defense chief's reaction to this near-universal rejection was marked by a childish display of digital icons on social media, waving goodbye outlets that refused to comply.

Intensification of Media Controls

This latest effort represents an increase in controls. Not only does the Department of Defense seldom hold media availabilities these days, but earlier it also prohibited journalists from most of the building without an minder. This departure from historical precedent impeded the ability of reporters to collect detailed information through routine contacts.

Under the revised rules, journalists could be designated a threat simply for asking defense personnel for sensitive information.

Determination of Journalistic Mission

It is clear that journalists and their organizations will persist to report on the activities of the military, informing the citizens about their government's decisions.

Credentials isn’t paramount. In fact, the journalistic quest for access to influential figures and organizations – and the desire to protect that access – may impede accurate journalism.

As a former reporter observed, reporters can continue doing their jobs through means other than transmitting government-sanctioned information to the audience.

“Coverage of the armed forces can be conducted through leaks, freedom of information petitions, and other cooperative means utilizing the legal system’s protections,” the journalist stated. And they can persist in this work, they added, “until this misguided regime reaches its conclusion.”