4 ms·

I think people are being slightly hyperbolic. It's basically stating that if a news outlet publishes unauthorized information then they won't be allowed access

I think people are being slightly hyperbolic. It's basically stating that if a news outlet publishes unauthorized information then they won't be allowed access to the Pentagon. In general I think this is a good thing but not because I think it's a good idea. Rather, I think that the government, regardless of who happens to be in power, and the press should have an adversarial relationship, but the deep intertwining of the government and the press undermines this, even without corruption. You're generally going to be reluctant to frame entities that you have a positive relationship with in a negative way. And this agreement is essentially formalizing adversarialness. I just have this feeling that in modern times if the Pentagon Papers were leaked to the NYTimes - but in the context of Ukraine, and especially if the previous administration was still in power, they very possibly might have instead alerted US intelligence instead of publishing them. WaPo repeatedly pat themselves on the back for playing a key role in tracking down the person who leaked the Pentagon documents in 2023. They mostly ignored what was leaked and instead framed everything as a story of tracking down the source and why he might do such a thing. We have a very broken media system, and this, probably unintentionally, might be a big first step in fixing it.

croes 1y ago
>if they sought to report on information — classified or otherwise — that had not been approved by Hegseth for release. Any information that isn't approved by Hegseth is unauthorized. In other words, only what Hegseth allows could be written. To call the bad would be an understatement.
- DeepSeaTortoise 1y ago
  There is an updated draft of the rules from october 6th that rectifies this and some other prior issues. I'm honestly not sure which rules the media outlets actually want changed.
ben_w 1y ago
I get the same feeling, but I don't think I can justify the feeling. IMO at best this is frogs* jumping out of water that was boiled too fast. * an idiom based on a stupid truth, as the real frogs were sans-brain at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
matwood 1y ago
> I think people are being slightly hyperbolic. People are not being hyperbolic. This is reducing the transparency of Pentagon to the American people. See also the Whitehouse banning the AP earlier this year. > It's basically stating that if a news outlet publishes unauthorized information then they won't be allowed access to the Pentagon. Without access it's going to be very hard to do good reporting, adversarial or otherwise. This is the government working to control what is said. > You're generally going to be reluctant to frame entities that you have a positive relationship with in a negative way. And this agreement is essentially formalizing adversarialness. The world is built on relationships. One of the keys of being a good journalist/reporter is being able to have relationships which help to build stories while also staying objective.
- Terr_ 1y ago
  > See also the Whitehouse banning the AP Yeah, any "benefit of the doubt" burned away months ago. The administration is trying to control published opinions and value-judgements, as opposed to concealing sensitive military data.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- somenameforme 1y ago
  The Pentagon Papers are one of the biggest leaks that the corporate media has ever published. Its effect on the military industrial complex and the government in general cannot really be overstated. It was published in 1971. [1] In 1972 the Pentagon created the 'Correspondents' Corridor' where journalists could 'embed' with the Pentagon effectively permanently. From your worldview, do you not find the timing odd? The media releases one of the biggest ever leaks, completely embarrassing the government, and then the government welcomes them in, with privileged access no less, to one of the most sensitive locations in the entirety of the country? And this all happened under Nixon, a man who wasn't exactly known for his benevolence. There was a time, not that long ago, when embedded war reporters were looked upon negatively. The reason is that it's impossible to remain impartial. This is not only because of the relationships you form in such a location, but also because if "imparial" ends up being negative, you're getting 'unembedded' quite quickly. So it ends up being defacto propaganda. Think about what "transparency" we've gained from the media being embedded with the Pentagon since 1972. It mostly doesn't exist. Even if somebody wants to leak something it's not like they're going to walk up to a journalist in the Pentagon to do it. On the contrary, the media seems to have become ever more ingrained into the military industrial complex ever since this date, to the point that in 2023 WaPo spent more time trying to track down a leaker and assess his possible motives, than covering what was leaked. Government and media should be kept separated, and this act is, probably unintentionally, helping to do exactly that. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers [2] - https://nation.time.com/2012/09/27/pentagons-correspondents-corridor-renamed/ https://nation.time.com/2012/09/27/pentagons-correspondents-...

croes 1y ago

>if they sought to report on information — classified or otherwise — that had not been approved by Hegseth for release. Any information that isn't approved by Hegseth is unauthorized. In other words, only what Hegseth allows could be written. To call the bad would be an understatement.

DeepSeaTortoise 1y ago
There is an updated draft of the rules from october 6th that rectifies this and some other prior issues. I'm honestly not sure which rules the media outlets actually want changed.

ben_w 1y ago

I get the same feeling, but I don't think I can justify the feeling. IMO at best this is frogs* jumping out of water that was boiled too fast. * an idiom based on a stupid truth, as the real frogs were sans-brain at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

matwood 1y ago

> I think people are being slightly hyperbolic. People are not being hyperbolic. This is reducing the transparency of Pentagon to the American people. See also the Whitehouse banning the AP earlier this year. > It's basically stating that if a news outlet publishes unauthorized information then they won't be allowed access to the Pentagon. Without access it's going to be very hard to do good reporting, adversarial or otherwise. This is the government working to control what is said. > You're generally going to be reluctant to frame entities that you have a positive relationship with in a negative way. And this agreement is essentially formalizing adversarialness. The world is built on relationships. One of the keys of being a good journalist/reporter is being able to have relationships which help to build stories while also staying objective.

Terr_ 1y ago
> See also the Whitehouse banning the AP Yeah, any "benefit of the doubt" burned away months ago. The administration is trying to control published opinions and value-judgements, as opposed to concealing sensitive military data.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
somenameforme 1y ago
The Pentagon Papers are one of the biggest leaks that the corporate media has ever published. Its effect on the military industrial complex and the government in general cannot really be overstated. It was published in 1971. [1] In 1972 the Pentagon created the 'Correspondents' Corridor' where journalists could 'embed' with the Pentagon effectively permanently. From your worldview, do you not find the timing odd? The media releases one of the biggest ever leaks, completely embarrassing the government, and then the government welcomes them in, with privileged access no less, to one of the most sensitive locations in the entirety of the country? And this all happened under Nixon, a man who wasn't exactly known for his benevolence. There was a time, not that long ago, when embedded war reporters were looked upon negatively. The reason is that it's impossible to remain impartial. This is not only because of the relationships you form in such a location, but also because if "imparial" ends up being negative, you're getting 'unembedded' quite quickly. So it ends up being defacto propaganda. Think about what "transparency" we've gained from the media being embedded with the Pentagon since 1972. It mostly doesn't exist. Even if somebody wants to leak something it's not like they're going to walk up to a journalist in the Pentagon to do it. On the contrary, the media seems to have become ever more ingrained into the military industrial complex ever since this date, to the point that in 2023 WaPo spent more time trying to track down a leaker and assess his possible motives, than covering what was leaked. Government and media should be kept separated, and this act is, probably unintentionally, helping to do exactly that. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers [2] - https://nation.time.com/2012/09/27/pentagons-correspondents-corridor-renamed/ https://nation.time.com/2012/09/27/pentagons-correspondents-...