By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A protest against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s new policy restricting press access at the Pentagon, which journalists and media advocates deem criminalization of routine reporting, unfolded with a “journalism is not a crime” flyer and reporters surrendering press passes. News outlets are refusing to comply, choosing to report on Hegseth and the military from outside the Pentagon. While the policy undermines principles of the “free flow of information,” Hegseth controls access, leading to the policy’s implementation, and drawing criticism from press freedom advocates, military officers, and a professional organization who see this as an attack on the First Amendment and the American public.
Read the original article here
Journalists turn in press passes as Pentagon clamps down on access in ‘unprecedented’ move. This is a situation that has a lot of people talking, and frankly, it feels like we’re navigating some pretty murky waters right now. It seems like the Pentagon is tightening its grip on media access, and the response from many journalists has been to hand back their press passes. It’s an action that speaks volumes about the current state of affairs and the relationship between the government and the press. The overall sentiment is a mix of concern, frustration, and a slight sense of “here we go again.”
This isn’t just about limiting access, it is fundamentally a question of trust. If the Pentagon is restricting journalists’ ability to report freely, what exactly are they trying to hide? It raises questions about transparency and the public’s right to know. Some have pointed out that getting information has always been a game of sorts, where reporters cultivate sources and navigate a complex web of information to get the story. But now, it appears the game has changed, and the rules are less clear. Instead of open access, the new game seems designed to make the press into just another propaganda tool, a mouthpiece for the government’s narrative.
The notion that this could be a new standard, a textbook example of how a regime operates, is a chilling thought. We’ve seen similar moves in the past, but the speed and intensity with which this is happening is different. The idea of the military “controlling” reporting by embedding journalists and curating access to information is not a new one. Books like “Media at War” have explored how the military uses this method to sway public opinion and create a more favorable image. But to see this strategy implemented so aggressively now raises alarms.
Interestingly, this time the usual suspects, like the more liberal news networks, rejected the new rules. It’s almost surprising to see Fox News and NewsMax, often associated with a different political perspective, also refuse to comply with the Pentagon’s chokehold. This creates a fascinating dynamic, and it’ll be important to watch how these media outlets cover the story. It shows the extent of the chokehold by the regime on the media, and shows that this is an across the board issue, not specific to political leaning.
There’s a clear sense that the press is being pushed to become a propaganda outlet, and the pushback is understandable. Why would any credible news organization willingly become a mouthpiece? The incentive, of course, is money, survival, and the ability to continue operating. The alternative is to be shut out, to be marginalized, and to lose all influence. It’s a tough spot to be in, and the choices are far from ideal.
Some commentators have mentioned that the press should refuse access to the White House. But the problem is not a simple one. The media is exactly how America sank so low, as they lost integrity and sold out for the benefit of their owners. The billionaire ownership built bunkers to hide from the world they created. The idea of refusing access to the White House, although intriguing, it’s not a law. It’s the ultimate double edged sword, on the one hand, a stand of integrity, on the other, a loss of access and a subsequent weakening of the role of the free press.
And, of course, there’s a segment of the population that seems to embrace this kind of control. The people that seek it are the ones that are likely being told what to think by outlets like OANN. Fascism is appealing to millions of people, but that is not the answer. Democracy means working together, not dictating.
Looking ahead, it’s hard to predict what will happen next. Will the Pentagon reverse course? Will they try something else? One can only hope that the collective voices of those who believe in a free press will be heard.