In Front of Our Noses: Controlling the Press
Restricting those who report on the Pentagon.
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”-George Orwell.
For previous entries, click here.
Via NPR: Defense Secretary Hegseth requires new ‘pledge’ for reporters at the Pentagon.
The Pentagon will drastically change its rules for journalists who cover the Department of Defense, two U.S. officials who are not authorized to speak publicly confirmed to NPR Friday.
Going forward, journalists must sign a pledge not to gather any information, including unclassified reports, that hasn’t been authorized for release.
The Pentagon says those who fail to obey the new policy will lose their press credentials, cutting off access to the headquarters of the largest department in the U.S. Government.
It should be obvious, on its face, that having reporters sign pledges that dictate what they can report is a clear violation of the spirit and the letter of the First Amendment.
This is just another example of the authoritarian disrespect this administration has for free speech and the press in a week that has been replete with serious attacks on this foundational principle.
The pledge issue has not been officially announced. However, a series of other restrictions, including changes to preexisting access with the Pentagon, have been announced. Writing about new restrictions on physical access in the Pentagon, Hegseth tweeted the following.
On one level, yes, the press doesn’t run the Pentagon. Further, yes, the people do.
But one of the main ways in which we, the people, can understand what is being done in our name is via a free press.
I would also note that when singular political actors start proclaiming in very specific and restrictive ways that they are speaking for “the people,” I am put in the mind of various kinds of communist rule.
You know, “The People‘s Republic of China.”
When authoritarians pretend like they are speaking for “the people,” they most assuredly are using that phrase as a cover for their own power. Put another way, if a policy announcement is about how power or access is being restricted, it is antithetical to the notion that it is being done “for the people.”
Forcing reporters to sign pledges about what they will report on is not democratic. Rather, it is autocratic to the core.
And this is not just about wearing a credential. The story that Hegseth is linking includes what appears to me to be significant new restrictions on where reporters can go in the Pentagon, and therefore with whom they can speak.
ABC News reports this as follows: Hegseth unveils new restrictions on Pentagon press access.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Friday unveiled unprecedented new restrictions on building access for Pentagon reporters that prompted worries among media outlets that the policy would be used to crack down on independent reporting and limit the flow of information on military operations.
The sweeping new rules to access the building prohibit “unprofessional conduct that might serve to disrupt Pentagon operations,” as well as “attempts to improperly obtain” classified or unclassified information deemed “controlled,” according to a memo released to reporters.
Reporters who decline to agree to the terms or are found violating the rules would lose access to the building, the memo states.
The document sent to press outlets also notes: “DoW [Department of War] information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified.”
To be clear: I understand that some areas and information should be restricted. But all of this is designed to control information in a manner that will decrease, not increase, access to information that American citizens are entitled to.
You know, “The People’s Republic of America” is a very solid phrase. I think it can be deployed to describe the current state of affairs.
For instance, “We call it the Gulf of America here in the People’s Republic of America, which is a republic, not a democracy”
Can’t the reporters do what Hegseth does, lie. Sign the pledges and continue to report as usual. Isn’t a contract signed under duress invalid? Of course there’s always the risk the Originalist Roberts Court will see the law differently than everyone else has for the last two hundred and fifty years.
Apologies for making light of a serious situation. In Steven’s recent post he noted the best way to not be called a fascist is to not act like a fascist. But I’m sure Hegseth would object to me pointing out he’s acting like a fascist. When can we expect a DoD, sorry, DoW, Signal magazine?
I would be fine with a policy that reporters who publish classified information that has been leaked to them will lose access. But pre-clearance is several bridges too far.
@Jay L. Gischer:
Given their penchant for triplespeak an doubleunthink, the result would be more like Democratic Peoples Republic of America
What’s the point of signing? Reporters aren’t breaking into the Pentagon at night and rifling through the servers and loose paperwork. They’re doing their jobs: talking to sources and getting passed info from the inside. They can keep on doing the same reporting, getting access to information not being released by the War Department. If you want to quote a dumb spokesperson’s lies, just look up what they said to whatever right-wing hack reporter.
I get the point being made, but I’m an old guy. The news business has reported items favorable to the regime almost always. It took years of mismanagement of the war in Vietnam to start seeing critical reports. No one pointed out that nothing actually happened at the Bay of Tonkin. Our strategy during the war in Vietnam was idiotic *. We intervened to recover the satrap of Kuwait for Saudi Arabia. We attacked Iraq after 9/11. There many more examples where the news media were the compliant voice of the government. Hegseth is simply being callous in telling the old whores to keep turning tricks.
* The individual fighters did their best and were often gallant and brave, but the top leadership was wrong, wrong, wrong.
I get the Defense News delivered to my email every morning. While most of that is non Pentagon defense news, it will be interesting to see if there is any change in the coverage.
@Scott:
If nothing else, it should be the War News.
Forcing the supposedly independent media to become nothing but a propaganda outlet for the regime is an elementary measure to create a totalitarian state. No doubt Hegseth’s method will become a template for all agencies, with heavy punishment meted out on any journalists who defy it.
The National Press Club has issued a statement summarising the dangers. https://www.press.org/newsroom/national-press-club-statement-pentagon-restrictions-threaten-independent-reporting