By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Pentagon has implemented a new policy requiring credentialed journalists to sign a pledge agreeing not to report any information, even unclassified, that has not been authorized for release. This policy, detailed in a 17-page memo, increases media restrictions and threatens journalists with the loss of access if they violate it. Press freedom advocates and organizations have strongly criticized the non-disclosure agreement, calling it an assault on independent journalism and a form of government censorship. The restrictions include the ban on reporters entering wide areas of the Pentagon without a government escort.
Read the original article here
Pentagon steps up media restrictions, now requiring approval before reporting even unclassified info – and it’s hard not to be concerned. It sounds like we’re moving towards a system where the Pentagon’s view, their version of events, is the only narrative readily available. That’s a dangerous path. What happens to the vital role of journalism, the role of holding those in power accountable? It’s supposed to be a check and balance, ensuring transparency. If the press is just a mouthpiece for the government, merely regurgitating press releases without independent verification, we’ve lost something critical.
When you want to hear the government’s side of the story, you can go to their website. Journalists should be digging deeper, verifying claims, and providing context, not simply repeating what they’re told. This raises serious questions about the future of accurate reporting, and if reporters are not allowed to freely report the truth, where does that leave us? This looks like an attempt to control the narrative, to manipulate what the public knows and, consequently, how it thinks. This has the flavor of an un-American move and certainly feels like a page taken from the authoritarian playbook.
The implications are far-reaching. If the Pentagon controls the flow of information, especially if that control extends to even unclassified material, it’s effectively controlling the press. The phrase “approved propaganda only” comes to mind, and that’s not something that fosters a healthy democracy. This is a clear indication that independent, objective reporting is under attack. The need for investigative journalism becomes even more crucial. If the established media outlets are sidelined, then other avenues for truth-telling, like independent journalists and alternative media sources, will hopefully become more important.
It’s understandable why people are wary. The news media has a responsibility to provide information, verify claims, and inform the public. If their ability to do so is severely restricted, it raises serious concerns about freedom of the press. Think about it: How often do we hear that we’re living in the most transparent administration ever? Maybe we should ask ourselves if the constant need for such pronouncements is an indication that the opposite is true?
There’s a concern that these actions could lead to a chilling effect, where journalists become hesitant to report anything that could be perceived as critical of the Pentagon. This isn’t a small issue. The Pentagon, like any large institution, is subject to missteps and errors. If the press can’t report on these things, how can the public hold them accountable? The government restricting access to even unclassified information raises questions about their motives. Why keep information from the public if it poses no threat?
The timing is interesting. The focus on how news leaks out, rather than on the substance of the information itself, is telling. There’s a sense that the primary concern isn’t national security, but rather controlling the narrative and managing public perception. This shift towards control is a serious concern and it feels like a trend. The question becomes, how far will this go?
This has the potential to further erode trust in the government and the media. If people lose faith in the ability of news outlets to provide accurate and unbiased information, where do they turn? It reinforces the perception that the government is not operating in good faith, and that it’s actively trying to deceive the public. And it is a move that has historical precedence in states that were not considered democracies, rather ones that were ruled by strongmen, or a form of totalitarianism.
The situation underscores the importance of independent journalism, of reporters who are willing to ask tough questions and challenge those in power. It’s the kind of journalism that is necessary to keep any institution in check. But it also highlights the challenges facing these independent news outlets in an environment where the government is trying to control the flow of information.
The concern, ultimately, is the long-term impact on democracy. A free press is essential for a functioning democracy, for holding those in power accountable, and for ensuring that the public is informed. If that freedom is curtailed, if the flow of information is controlled, then democracy itself is weakened. This looks like a move straight out of the authoritarian handbook, and one that could have lasting consequences on the integrity of information. It looks like we’re in the era of America where you are now the enemies of your own state.
It’s hard to look at this and not see echoes of other periods in history where governments sought to control information, often with disastrous results. The hope is that the American public will recognize these moves for what they are and demand transparency and accountability. This trend is not going to end in a way that everyone will be comfortable with.