First amendment speakers should not become Pentagon publicity outlets
An important set of circumstances is playing out at the Department of Defense these days that many readers either may not be aware of or know about it f but haven’t thought it through.
On Oct. 15, Defense Department officials — read Secretary Peter Hegseth and others in his orbit — said they wanted media organizations to sign onto new Department of Defense media policies that would limit access and information. At least 30 news organizations refused to agree to the policy.
The reason given was the same one federal officials always give when clamping down on the press: Hegseth is concerned about classified information, either national security or national defense, being leaked to the media. Put another way, it’s national security.
But here’s the thing. Because there are a load of laws already in place to prevent such leaks, and everyone involved knows about these laws, one has to wonder what is really going on here. The inevitable conclusion is that Hegseth seeks all-but complete control over what first amendment speakers write, or say, about Pentagon workings.
In the business, they call that narrative management. We call it blatant censorship.
And it should worry everyone.
The trust between the general public and the U.S. military is built on a foundation of transparency. We pay the taxes that underwrite the Pentagon and we, in turn, get to know what they are doing with the money. It’s a process that has worked for literally centuries.
That’s not to say media outlets should report on every detail of military operations, especially those where security is essential to the success of the mission and lives may be at stake. They don’t. But the ability to report on policy, budget, personnel and equipment, without official sanction or censure, is an absolute necessity. Without it, and without civilian oversight, it isn’t hard to see things going south fast.
We congratulate the 30 or so media outlets that refused to sign off on this new policy and urge them to stick to their guns, so to speak. Fighting this battle now will likely pay dividends in the future.
