US News Outlets Refuse To Sign New Pentagon Rules To Report Only Official Information (theguardian.com) 105
Several leading news organizations with access to Pentagon briefings have formally said they will not agree to a new defense department policy that requires them to pledge they will not obtain unauthorized material and restricts access to certain areas unless accompanied by an official. The Guardian: The policy, presented last month by the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has been widely criticized by media organizations asked to sign the pledge by Tuesday at 5pm or have 24 hours to turn in their press credentials.
The move follows a shake-up in February in which long-credentialed media outlets were required to vacate assigned workspaces which was cast as an "annual media rotation program." A similar plan was presented at the White House where some briefing room spots were given to podcasters and other representatives of non-traditional media.
On Monday, the Washington Post joined the New York Times, CNN, the Atlantic, the Guardian, Reuters, the Associated Press, NPR, HuffPost and trade publication Breaking Defense in saying it would not sign on to the agreement.
The move follows a shake-up in February in which long-credentialed media outlets were required to vacate assigned workspaces which was cast as an "annual media rotation program." A similar plan was presented at the White House where some briefing room spots were given to podcasters and other representatives of non-traditional media.
On Monday, the Washington Post joined the New York Times, CNN, the Atlantic, the Guardian, Reuters, the Associated Press, NPR, HuffPost and trade publication Breaking Defense in saying it would not sign on to the agreement.
Seems like a black and white issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seems like a black and white issue (Score:5, Insightful)
*propaganda
PR is acting to foster goodwill.
Dictating the narrative is the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Given ethics and mandates of journalism, I would argue that signing such an agreement makes the information no longer news. So they have to choose, do news or do PR.
Well, you have the first two letters right:
It's spelled "PRopaganda".
Re:Seems like a black and white issue (Score:5, Informative)
Given ethics and mandates of journalism, I would argue that signing such an agreement makes the information no longer news. So they have to choose, do news or do PR.
Noting that OAN (One America News Network) signed it. From US news outlets reject Pentagon press access policy [reuters.com]
Reuters is among the outlets that have refused to sign, citing the threat posed to press freedoms. Others that have announced their refusal to accept the new press access rules in statements or their own news stories are: the Associated Press, Bloomberg News, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, CNN, Fox News, CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, Axios, Politico, The Guardian, The Atlantic, The Hill, Newsmax, Breaking Defense and Task & Purpose.
Conservative cable news outlet One America News signed on to the new policy.
"After thorough review of the revised press policy by our attorney, OAN staff has signed the document," Charles Herring, the president of OAN parent company Herring Networks, said in a statement. Reuters could not immediately ascertain if other organizations had also signed it.
The Pentagon has apparently backtracked a bit, saying organizations don't have to agree, just acknowledge they understand it. Not sure that's any better...
Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement on Monday: "The policy does not ask for them to agree, just to acknowledge that they understand what our policy is.
Re:Seems like a black and white issue (Score:5, Insightful)
It's nice to see both conservative and left wing news networks on the list of non signatories as this shouldn't be a partisan issue. Everyone should care about freedom of the press and government transparency.
Re:Seems like a black and white issue (Score:5, Funny)
It's nice to see both conservative and left wing news networks on the list of non signatories as this shouldn't be a partisan issue.
Agreed.
Everyone should care about freedom of the press and government transparency.
Especially the guy whose oath is literally to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". Didn't Trump repeatedly promise to be "the most transparent President" and have "the most transparent administration" in history? Maybe he and his minions were frightened off by the word "trans" ... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Dude, they hold a press briefing open to hundreds of media outlets 2-3x a week, visits with foreign leaders are usually televised live, cabinet meetings are televised live... just because you are watching media that won't cover it and slices and dices it up for anti-trump sound bites instead doesn't mean it isn't there to cover.
The networks are trash, look for independents posting on youtube and social who are covering these events. OR if it's a livestream instead of a talking head show then Fox's coverage
Re: (Score:2)
He is the most transparently corrupt president the U.S. has ever had. Everything he touches is suspect from his alleged companies, his trade "deals", etc. As always with him, follow the bread crumb trail back to his pockets. Pleasing the Qataris and their billions would make any deal in the mideast look inviting to him. Too bad for him the Qataris are a bunch of two-timing sharks who have bought a U.S. president and will be expecting a payout.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Trump repeatedly promise ...
Some say Trump tells fibs
Re: Seems like a black and white issue (Score:1)
I just want to know if they are going to completely remove my TOP SECRET:PRESS access. What will I do for entertainment?
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed, but you haven't given Trump a chance to generate more money for the American people by offering news agency "golden Trump press passes". Allowing them access to official publications early. It would have been Huuuuuge!!!!!
I mean as long as he controls the narrative we have s\o\m\e\t\h\i\n\g nothing to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
One thing the left and the right have in common in this day is waking up every morning and saying, "Oh my god I can't believe Donald Trump is president... again."
Re: (Score:1)
At the same time it is a perfectly reasonable policy for the war department to have.
Not only have there been some famously misleading and/or false leaks spread by many of these same networks in the past year but if they ever managed to get some legitimate information that wasn't just spun out of context to paint the administration in the negative light it would be a serious threat to national security.
We aren't talking about general white house briefings or just some area of government... obtaining and repo
Re: (Score:2)
At the same time it is a perfectly reasonable policy for the war department to have.
So transparency and oversite over what the government is doing is bad? I couldn't disagree more and I think if you had someone in the White House you didn't like or trust you'd be agreeing with me right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Transparency is maintained by providing the information to the public and oversight is performed by the leadership structure in the executive and checks and balances by other branches of our government. Neither is harmed by taking priority access from MSNBC because they try to undermine the orderly functioning of our elected officials and threaten national security.
If MSNBC wants to report fake 'leaks' or classified information or otherwise be a threat to nation, our military, or the administration in gener
Re: (Score:3)
Transparency is maintained by providing the information to the public and oversight is performed by the leadership structure in the executive and checks and balances by other branches of our government.
I cant even begin to count the number of government scandals in US history we would have known nothing about if the only oversite on government was government which is exactly what this is. This is not the recipe for transparency, this is a recipe for complete ignorance of anything objectionable our government might be doing.
Re: (Score:1)
Me "Transparency is maintained by providing the information to the public... hundreds of diverse outlets report the message and consumers aggregate it"
You "This is not the recipe for transparency, this is a recipe for complete ignorance of anything objectionable our government might be doing"
Transparency and oversight are two distinct things. So yes, the recipe our nation has for oversight is not a recipe for transparency.... it's a recipe for oversight.
Re: (Score:2)
How does media do this though if they can only report on what the government authorizes? You're not thinking this through, transparency is impossible under such conditions.
Re: (Score:1)
Our disagreement may be partially semantics. You seemed to be using transparency as some kind of blanket term for all information discovery.
Transparency is authorizing disclosure of as much material as possible and acting out in the open, it's voluntary. When a restaurant has an open air kitchen that is visible to patrons, that is transparency. Transparency is putting things on display in a live and uncensored fashion so that people KNOW the reality because it is on display, as if through a transparent wind
Re: (Score:2)
When an employee of a restaurant leaks that they have an insect problem that is information but it is a leak of NON-TRANSPARENT information.
No, that is in fact what transparency is. Without that information the public would never know of the insect problem. In other words with out that information we are in a state of informational opacity in regards to a health issue we may be interested in, not transparency.
The claim the government required them to commit to not reported unauthorized material instead of acknowledging the policy was itself false information.
No, in the context of the Pentagon it is in fact true https://www.pbs.org/newshour/s... [pbs.org] . This is literally what the article you're posting under is about.
Re: (Score:2)
If MSNBC wants to report fake 'leaks' or classified information or otherwise be a threat to nation, our military, or the administration in general there is no reason to contribute to their success.
An organization willing to do that is still free to do that from outside the Pentagon, they just won't have a "reporter" inside the building.
Pretty sure a news organization without reporters "in the room" can get unfettered access to the pool feed/cspan coverage of all press events.
Re: (Score:1)
In other words you have no logical argument so you are going to simply slander KenH and the policy?
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably the news organizations are smart enough not to trust anything the alleged administrations says. Sure, just sign here that you understand, and expect a suebomb next month when you publish something we don't like. No one with any brain trusts that alleged administration even if it says the sun will probably come up tomorrow.
Pravda (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you for your loyalty, komrade.
Re: (Score:2)
It is absolutely *normal* for candidates in democracies to have to meet qualifying criteria to be able to stand in elections. Everything from age, where they were born, citizenship, to their criminal record. These criteria are *good* and *sensible*, and that is exactly why you want them tossed aside for your team, but will want them enforced for the other team.
Re:Seems like a black and white issue (Score:5, Informative)
Hell, even Fox News and Newsmax have refused to go along with this.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I'm so very confused. I thought NPR was the fakest of fake news, a left wing Pravda outfit deliberately spreading misinformation to hurt Donald Trump... and thus America.
It's almost as if MAGA is comprised of morons and liars, who literally said anything to get Trump back into office, and deflect from his, and their, lies.
Re: Seems like a black and white issue (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If anyone had been listening to what he was saying, they would have had no idea what he was saying? The grandiosity masked the complete deficit not merely of ideas, but even of reason and coherence? They elected a mean-spirited moron.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of people voted on projected believes on what he would do. They stopped listening to, what he was actually saying, and are now very surprised, that he is actually trying to do much of it. They thought it was just blabbering.
They watched him do his double hand-job dance for 45 minutes... and cheered.
Trump fans are the ones who listen to Trump the least.
Re:Seems like a black and white issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Even PR outfits couldn't bring themselves to sign the agreement, which amounts to "we can't ask any questions or write anything that makes you mad". If FOX balks, you know it's gotta be really, rreeaallyyy bad.
Almost like (Score:3, Interesting)
A bunch of people said electing this guy was a bad idea. This is so fucked up that not even NewsMax agreed to sign.
Re: Almost like (Score:1)
Did trying to ban and arrest him just make him stronger and angrier?
Re: Almost like (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if it did, that's not a reason to give in.
Re: (Score:2)
You have already surrendered almost all of your power to others. You don't have to give in, they do... and they have. Enjoy the results.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think actually charging him and putting him in prison would have been better. But the Biden administration, and Garland in particular, were cowards and were afraid of creating a civil war. While Trump behind bars may have been able to win an election, and his imprisonment may have caused some sort of general MAGA uprising, the US Government has literally crushed and burned to the ground entire states that were in rebellion, so this all comes down to Biden, Garland and the DOJ being cowards, and not meanin
Re: (Score:2)
this all comes down to Biden, Garland and the DOJ being cowards
Cowards or complicit.
Democrats talk a good game but then vote for corporate interests and the MIC in almost every case. It's easy to believe that they were unwilling to do anything that would bring real substantive change. Biden is responsible for the student loan crisis since he led the charge to prevent We The People from being able to discharge those debts through bankruptcy like you can gambling debts, then he campaigned on student loan forgiveness and delivered it for a tiny fraction of student loan h
Re: (Score:2)
I’m 100% with you on this. They created a predictable disaster by enabling impunity for sedition for the instigators while locking up some of the mob. Stupid. They should have cleaned house.
Any doubters still out there? (Score:2)
I got some pushback on a comment a couple of weeks ago suggesting Trump was following China's and dictators' playbooks, saying America is totally different and I was mad to make the comparison.
How's that going for you?
Not even hiding it anymore (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not even hiding it anymore (Score:3, Insightful)
The Onion ran a headline a while back:
"NRA accidentally forgets to rise up against tyrannical government"
A government that demands obedience from journalists is a government that wants to do things that it knows it shouldn't do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
“I like taking the guns early,” Trump said during a televised meeting on gun laws at the White House on Wednesday. “To go to court would have taken a long time.”
https://time.com/5184160/trump... [time.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Pondering the 2nd... [reddit.com]
Don't kid yourselves (Score:3, Insightful)
There is very large and politically active and potent percentage of our population who will cheer this move. Finally! A STRONG president who won't be pushed around by the press anymore. We only want to hear GOOD things because True Americans are the GOOD GUYS. Anything counter to that is a lie. So why doesn't this make perfect sense?
They definitely think that way.
The people I feel the most bad for are the large percentage of officers and enlisted who understand and believe in constitutional and democratic ideals, and who have been totally suppressed by Trump's pet drunk and cohorts. Want to end your military career? All you have to do these days is say you will uphold your oath and refuse to pronounce fealty to the Baron Harkonnen.
Re: (Score:2)
And who is Glossu? In the spirit of DEI, maybe Noem? lol Or switch them around?
it would be interesting to do all the characters, Education Secretary Linda McMahon as Mentat Piter De Vries, Dr. Yueh played by RFK.
Re: (Score:2)
Hegseth is actually Joseph Goebbels....
Re: (Score:2)
There is very large and politically active and potent percentage of our population who will cheer this move.
What does this mean objectively? Does very large mean 90% of our population? Does it mean 5%?
Finally! A STRONG president who won't be pushed around by the press anymore. We only want to hear GOOD things because True Americans are the GOOD GUYS. Anything counter to that is a lie. So why doesn't this make perfect sense?
They definitely think that way.
There are always people who definitely think in some batshit crazy way.
Re: (Score:2)
What does this mean objectively? Does very large mean 90% of our population? Does it mean 5%?
I don't know what you are driving at but objectively:
A big enough percentage to elect a convicted felon, a known sexual predator, fraudster, con-man, gibbering moron, an outright threat to national security, and most likely the most corrupt figure to appear in centuries. What percentage would you assign to that? Because they did it and that is not subjective.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what you are driving at but objectively:
I asked a question and noted you didn't answer it. What percentage of the population do you believe is "very large"?
A big enough percentage to elect a convicted felon, a known sexual predator, fraudster, con-man, gibbering moron, an outright threat to national security, and most likely the most corrupt figure to appear in centuries. What percentage would you assign to that? Because they did it and that is not subjective.
What you said was "There is very large and politically active and potent percentage of our population who will cheer this move." now you are talking about everyone who voted for Trump, do you believe the two statements to be equivalent? Does a vote for Trump mean cheering this move?
1984 (Score:2)
Orwell's
Finally Some Backbone (Score:2)
Fake News, Inc. (Score:2)
I guess we'll see who is a part of the fake news industrial complex.
Follow the rules or hit the fucking road (Score:1)
It's about time somebody slapped those arrogant bastards.
There are no Walter Cronkites or Edward Murrows in their numbers. There's nothing left but puppet heads mouthing what the corp owner tells them to say.
Official Information (Score:2)
Aka. "good facts". Too bad "real facts" aren't the alternative of choice for most media/news outlets.
How long before south park gets removed from the a (Score:2)
How long before south park gets removed from the air?
On the positive side (Score:2)
We will all be dead soon, but won't know it's coming.
Step by step into the abyss... (Score:3)
The Onion ran a headline a while back:
"NRA accidentally forgets to rise up against tyrannical government"
It amazes me how few people on the right understand what's happening.
A government that demands obedience from journalists is a government that intends to do things that it knows it shouldn't do.
Re: (Score:2)
It amazes me how few people on the right understand what's happening.
Nothing is less surprising than Reich wingers not understanding 1) that they are promoting fascism, i.e. they are fascists or 2) fascism is bad even when it's in America, not only when it's in Italy.
Share or be spied upon. (Score:1)
Discussions have already begun within the upper tiers of editorial staff around enabling reporters access to technologies formerly reserved for intelligence agencies.
I mean, technically if you canâ(TM)t secure your communications the listener isnâ(TM)t at fault. And we know Hegsethâ(TM)s track record when it comes to sigint.
fake news (Score:2)
Authoritarian regime (Score:1)
Dinner Guests (Score:1)
If you do not promise to stop stealing my stuff, I am not going to invite you back to my house for dinner.
We all appreciate a free press, but free press is not the same as a press that is party to a crime by receiving and publishing illegally obtained material.
The real problem, however, is when the press claims to have obtained inside info and publishes inflammatory articles with the intent to influence policy and elections and that information is later proven to be false. Just a few examples are Dan Rather
Simple (Score:2)
Not even half true (Score:2)
The headline is not even half true. The Pentagon is asking reporters not to solicit the commission of a crime. If someone gives them unauthorized information they can report it all they want. That issue was settled in the Pentagon Papers case more than fifty years ago. The previous article and the linked articles have this right.
Re: We Are Gonna Have To Deport This Motherfucker (Score:2)
The Ministry of Peace can go fuck themselves.
Re:We Are Gonna Have To Deport This Motherfucker (Score:5, Informative)
"This isn't a republic, its a democracy."
Where do you get this? Certainly not from understanding how our nation actually works.
Re: (Score:3)
Another victim of public schools removing government and civics classes maybe?
Re: We Are Gonna Have To Deport This Motherfucker (Score:2)
Bear in mind that the 'muh democracy's is an old meme, people complain about the Electoral College and forget Article 10. Federalism is confusing to modern, poorly educated voters who think our nation should be a monolith. 'Their' monolith, of course. Montana would not work under California rules. The 17th Amendment was intended to address corruption, but it's somewhat ruined the Federalist model. And of course you don't prevent corruption with law, you only expose and punish it. Punishment might limit corr
Re:We Are Gonna Have To Deport This Motherfucker (Score:4, Insightful)
This has been a trite phrase uttered by republicans for decades to excuse the fact that they don't believe in democracy at all and that voting is a privilege reserved only for them, as the god-appointed ruling class. The phrase is meaningless in every way and designed to shut down discussion and debate. They often utter it when they are rationalizing the rollout of an unpopular policy such as restricting voting rights, or when rolling back supreme court rulings from the past.
I can see evidence that the founding fathers feared democracy and as such designed a system that would mitigate popular voting somewhat (electoral college for one). But to say "we're not a democracy" is ignorant and malicious on their part.
Re: (Score:2)
By definition, Democracy = Mob Rule - when 50% plus one vote = majority, that is mob rule.
Re: (Score:3)
By definition hitler's Germany was a republic and so is North Korea.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes we I said, Republicans don't believe in democracy in any form. Interesting thought you have but I didn't think history supports your supposition. My ancestors were driven from their homes in the United States by mobs in the 19th century but then as now, mobs are not the majority, not even 50%+1. They are a minority who yell loudly and carry guns to enforce their will on others.
Besides that if you don't want majority rules what do you want? A king that sees things your the way no matter what most othe
Re: We Are Gonna Have To Deport This Motherfucker (Score:2)
This is the nature of a Republic. We are the United STATES of America. States elect the President. That's how it was constituted. Hence our Constitution. Wanna change it? That's a fundamental change. Often accomplished by revolution. It, ignore the Constitution, as recent Presidents and political parties have been doing. Sorry, I believe our nation was well conceived, and should ensure as intended.
Re: (Score:2)
Has Trump ever produced his own birth certificate? If he hasn't then I'm going to report to ICE that his is a Muslim from Kenya.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Informative)
It doesnâ(TM)t make sense to allow moles walking around that that could compromise security. When I worked in a highly sensitive environment that involved sensitive information I was bound by law what I could and could not say. And this is for good reason. Just because someone gets a press pass doesnâ(TM)t mean they should get privileges behind closed doors and able to leak whatever they find.
You seem to have a misconception of what access the press pass actually provided. It allowed them to be on site, yes, but didn't give them unlimited access to the whole building. Secure areas were still secure. Journalistic ethics prevent them from soliciting classified information. No one in the building has to talk to them. (Sounds a lot like "don't ask, don't tell", come to think of it.) On the other hand, if some fifth tier staffer or a 4-star general feels compelled to provide an unfiltered opinion about something, well, that's one difference between democracy and autocracy. The journalists at the Pentagon exist to keep an eye on how our military is being run. Hegseth said he wanted the most transparent Pentagon ever [x.com], then clammed up and stopped providing press conferences and answering questions, and now is kicking out the very people to provide that window for the American people. Sounds like sour grapes to me.
Journalists might indeed be given classified info by motivated leakers, but the Pentagon Papers case indicates that can be permissibile under our Constitution. But they aren't "moles" feeding all the goods to foreign adversaries. Journalists careful vet the information they receive, and are choosy about what they report. The tend to be protect classified information - unlike some people [wikipedia.org] - and will protect sources, methods, and live intel - unlike some people [wikipedia.org] - because they recognize that it can get people killed.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose of this agreement isn't to actually restrict access in the Pentagon. Its main purpose is to provide a plausible legal means to prosecute journalists who write things that the administration disapproves of. It is meant as a threat, not as a restriction.
Re: (Score:2)
Help me understand - if this is true:
You seem to have a misconception of what access the press pass actually provided. It allowed them to be on site, yes, but didn't give them unlimited access to the whole building. Secure areas were still secure. Journalistic ethics prevent them from soliciting classified information.
Then reporters are fine being restricted to certain areas of the Pentagon and they would never solicit classified information, then what's the problem with agreeing to stay in certain areas of the pentagon and to not solicit classified information? I mean, according to you these things never happen, so why not agree to not do these things?
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how under Trump the entire pentagon became instantly fill with morons that disregarded security and just answered journalist questions.
Because under the Democrats (and all previous Republican administrations), reporters just could not managed to trick American Military officers to compromise security.
America has existed for over 200 years and the Pentagon for more than 80. Throughout that time what you are concerned about has not been a problem.
So could it possibly be that instead of protecting American security, you are actually attempting to prevent not security leaks, but instead political leaks that embarrass a liar?
Re: Makes sense (Score:1)
This is not about politics. I would say the same thing no matter who is in office. Being trusted with privileged access or information comes with restrictions. If you do not want those privileges, and the restrictions that come with them, then exercise your freedom of speech without privileged access.
Reporters had an unnecessary amount of access inside the Pentagon, one of the most information-sensitive environments in the world. Unescorted movement through the building, casual hallway conversations, exposu
Re: (Score:2)
Journalists make choices like this all the time. They sign embargoes to review unreleased tech or books, choosing to agree or disagree to terms in exchange for early access.
Those are agreements between private citizens or parties. We are talking about the Federal government here, these are not the same, the laws apply differently and our ethical rules should be different as well.
There are already security protocols everyone knows and how the government is supposed to operate; classification system and that's supposed to be the responsibility of the government itself not an honor system with the reporters to "pwetty please don't report when we fuck up" because if the governmen
Re: (Score:2)
If Fox News agreed to it, then you would have a point. But even they did not.
I trust the experts when they say this is NOT similar to other things they sign. This goes above and beyond. It is not about access to information it is about agreeing to publish. They want people to only print what the government says to print. This is outright censorship.
I am wondering if you are simply not fully informed about what is being asked and are assuming that of course the administration would be reasonable.
Or y
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not that funny. Purges of the military and government are pretty standard practice when taking over a country. You kick out anybody who can't be relied upon to support you. The problem is there tend not to be a big pool of both qualified and politically reliable replacements so by emphasizing the latter the former suffers.
Examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Pete Hegseth has accidentally leaked more classified information than any news reporter. And that drunkard still has his job.
Re: (Score:1)
It doesnâ(TM)t make sense to allow moles walking around that that could compromise security.
That's not happening. Press pass != License to roam.
Is Whiskey Pete afraid the press will go into his makeup room [militarytimes.com] and use his makeup?