US News Outlets Refuse To Sign New Pentagon Rules To Report Only Official Information (theguardian.com)
- Reference: 0179797714
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/10/15/0942218/us-news-outlets-refuse-to-sign-new-pentagon-rules-to-report-only-official-information
- Source link: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/13/defense-department-media-news-rules
> 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.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/13/defense-department-media-news-rules
[2] https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/09/20/0255254/pentagon-demands-journalists-pledge-to-not-obtain-unauthorized-material
We Are Gonna Have To Deport This Motherfucker (Score:1, Informative)
And all of its' followers. This isn't a republic, its a democracy. We don't have Tories anymore and we damn sure don't need nazi wanna-be republicunts.
Re: We Are Gonna Have To Deport This Motherfucker (Score:1)
The Ministry of Peace can go fuck themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
"This isn't a republic, its a democracy."
Where do you get this? Certainly not from understanding how our nation actually works.
Almost like (Score:2)
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:2)
Did trying to ban and arrest him just make him stronger and angrier?
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it did, that's not a reason to give in.
Makes sense (Score:3)
It makes sense for news agencies to not sign the agreement and not have their reporters in the hallways in the pentagon. This way they are free to do whatever investigative reporting they want âoefrom the outsideâ. 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. That doesnâ(TM)t make sense. If I were in the press, do not sign the agreement, and get out of the pentagon, and do your own investigative reporting finding your own sources and whistleblowers and expose whatever you find, being a real âoejournalistâ.
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, 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 [1]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 - [2]unlike some people [wikipedia.org] - and will protect sources, methods, and live intel - [3]unlike some people [wikipedia.org] - because they recognize that it can get people killed.
[1] https://x.com/SecWar/status/1889073059413594547
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_(classified_documents_case)&oldid=1312676421
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_government_group_chat_leaks&oldid=1316906531
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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 Ameri
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:2)
Remind me what the second amendment was for again? Oh yeah the right to shoot up schools, nevermind, carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
Related to this article, how?
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.”
[1]https://time.com/5184160/trump... [time.com]
[1] https://time.com/5184160/trump-guns-due-process/?xid=homepage
Re: (Score:1)
[1]Pondering the 2nd... [reddit.com]
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldPoliticalLaughs/comments/1ms4z61/maybe_trump_is_a_plot_by_the_nra_to_bring_us_over/
Don't kid yourselves (Score:3)
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.
1984 (Score:2)
Orwell's
Seems like a black and white issue (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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 " PR opaganda".
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.
Noting that OAN (One America News Network) signed it. From [1]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.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/us-news-outlets-reject-pentagon-press-access-policy-2025-10-14/
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
> 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" ... :-)
Pravda (Score:2)
Due to democrats trying to ruin our country with their evil thoughts of democracy and freedom, real and accurate news about our government will now come from our state run, officially recognized, Pravda Sotsial'naya...err Truth Social.
Thank you for your loyalty, komrade.
Re:Seems like a black and white issue (Score:4, Informative)
Tom Bowman, who has covered the Pentagon for NPR for the past 28 years , [1]turned in his press pass [npr.org] with the simple argument: "we're journalists, not stenographers."
Hell, even Fox News and Newsmax have refused to go along with this.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2025/10/14/nx-s1-5574184/news-organizations-refuse-to-comply-with-restrictive-new-pentagon-policy