104

New Pentagon credential restrictions send "message of intimidation," DoD press corps says (www.cbsnews.com)

submitted 11 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In September, the Defense Department sent reporters a memo saying that they'd be required to sign a document acknowledging they would not disclose either classified or controlled unclassified information that is not formally authorized for publication. It warned Pentagon reporters they could lose their press credentials for "unauthorized access, attempted unauthorized access, or unauthorized disclosure" of classified information or anything designated as "controlled unclassified information."

Compliance with the directive would mean that journalists would not be able to use unnamed U.S. military sources in much of their reporting without risking loss of access to the Pentagon.

Many media outlets balked at the directive and vowed to push back. The New York Times said in a statement the restrictions were "at stark odds with the constitutional protections of a free press in a democracy."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] riskable@programming.dev 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

They really don't understand reporting if they're being like this. Reporters don't need access inside the Pentagon. They can get whatever TF they want through leaks from trusted sources.

By letting the reporters in, they can keep an eye on them and see who they're talking to. That way, when there's a leak that they don't like they can review the logs and have a slightly higher chance of catching the leaker.

Denying credentials to reporters (en mass) is a one-way ticket to chaos.

[-] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 11 months ago

There's even arguments out there that they don't need that access. The White House/Pentagon can put out whatever they want, and it's just part of the larger box of open source intelligence. IIRC, Bob Woodward (of Watergate investigation fame) didn't bother with trying to get access to specific higher ups at all. Mark Felt (Deepthroat) came to him, and the rest is all out in the open if you're willing to dig.

[-] BigPotato@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

The entire public affairs career field knows this. It's how you can tell VP Bowman sucked at his job - the reporters will show up to a firefight with Special Forces. They don't need to hear it from you.

[-] z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago

These fucks can't even do fascism right.

[-] Almacca@aussie.zone 3 points 11 months ago

I think chaos is the goal.

this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2025

104 points (100.0% liked)

politics

31142 readers

2696 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News