By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Several prominent news organizations, including The New York Times, The Associated Press, and Newsmax, have refused to sign a new Defense Department document outlining press rules, potentially leading to the eviction of their reporters from the Pentagon. These outlets argue the policy infringes upon First Amendment rights by restricting access and threatening to punish routine news gathering. The new rules require journalists to acknowledge the policy, which bars access to significant areas of the Pentagon without an escort and allows the Defense Secretary to revoke press access for unauthorized information requests. Pentagon officials maintain the policy establishes “common sense media procedures,” while journalists counter that signing the document implies reporting on unapproved information harms national security, a claim they refute.
Read the original article here
The New York Times, the Associated Press, and even Newsmax – a diverse collection of news outlets – are reportedly refusing to sign new Pentagon rules. This is a significant development, especially considering the varied political leanings of these organizations. It raises some serious questions about the nature of the rules themselves and the potential impact on press freedom and the flow of information.
This resistance to the Pentagon’s new requirements is viewed by many as a stand against authoritarian tactics. If the Pentagon’s aim is simply to establish proper media procedures, as they claim, then a formal signature seems unnecessary. The fact that it *is* a requirement suggests something more, something that might curtail the ability of journalists to report freely and independently. The fear, seemingly, is that by signing these documents, news organizations would effectively be handing over control of their reporting to the government, a step towards a state-controlled media landscape akin to what you might see in North Korea.
One of the most striking aspects of this situation is that even Newsmax, a media outlet generally aligned with certain political views, is balking at these new rules. This hesitation speaks volumes. It suggests that the requirements are so overreaching, so potentially damaging to journalistic independence, that even organizations with a history of favorable coverage of the Pentagon are hesitant to comply. It underscores the idea that the Pentagon’s rules go too far, potentially jeopardizing the fundamental principles of a free press.
The implications of this situation are far-reaching. If major news organizations are unwilling to cooperate, it could lead to a chilling effect on reporting about the Pentagon and military affairs. News outlets might become more reliant on official sources and less willing to pursue independent investigations, a situation that would undermine the public’s right to know and hold those in power accountable. There’s a sentiment that the government has already been caught in misinformation, and these rules only seem to exacerbate that issue. The goal is to cultivate a North Korean state style of media, one that doesn’t challenge the establishment.
For those news outlets who do choose to capitulate, many speculate that they might be losing their ability to report news as they would normally want to. Some feel they’d become state owned rather than privately owned. If these new rules do get signed, who will be reporting?
The core issue here is the preservation of independent journalism. True journalism, the type that holds power accountable, requires access to information and the freedom to report it without fear of censorship or reprisal. The refusal of these news outlets to sign the Pentagon’s rules can be seen as a defense of this crucial principle. It is, in essence, a statement that the press will not be complicit in its own demise. The creation of an investigative desk should be created. This would hopefully promote a free flow of information.
Some have suggested that the media should take a similar approach to the Pentagon as they do with Russia and China – treat them as hostile entities in need of deep investigation and thorough reporting. The refusal from these major outlets is a sign that things aren’t working as hoped, as some see the wheels of potential fascism getting closer to the door. The government is attempting to control what is being reported, and to whom.
The reality of the situation is that these news outlets are simply protecting themselves. The source of their success is licensing from AP, and if AP doesn’t sign, neither do they. It’s simply a self-preservation move, but it’s a move that aligns with the principles of a free press. These outlets, in refusing to sign, are helping to preserve the integrity of the news and prevent the government from dictating what the public can and cannot know. The cracks are showing, and the press is fighting back, even if it’s just for their own survival. The rules are “unnecessary and onerous” and hopefully the Pentagon will review them again. The news wire is, essentially, what allows many of these niche organizations to survive. This is a positive step, but a cautious one.