Retreat from the corridors of power in a democracy is NOT how "they win". Giving up privilege for the sake of your values is a key element of integrity and your own freedom.
A responsible journalist reports what he thinks is the important story. When the stories of the War Dept become less important than the lack of transparency of the War Dept as the government conducts the "people's business", which do you endeavor to report? The War Dept propaganda? Or do you confer and coordinate with others to determine what's important and about the visible edge of policy as it relates to what's important?
If you are confused about what's important, or don't know, then no sense in lamenting anything but your own lack of clarity.
Can you connect with someone who is closer to the clarity you need?
Ultimately, your society is as good you are; if you believe it can be better, do so, otherwise what's the point of your travail?
So is you think the WH Presscorp are becoming factotums or automatons (which they are and become by design) and you can no longer work as such, then meet people who are a step away from the presscorp and report on them.
Freedom is building the story at whatever proximity to power and depth that you can muster.
Determined creativity and insight will find a home, and if not, you died trying.
Maybe along the way you will discover that contrary to all the cultural hyperbole that you are not free?
Or maybe that you are freer than you can manage?
Try ordinary existential reasoning: work with what's at hand, take responsibility for your work, hold yourself to account, stand up for your values. Such orientation was once core a conservative principle.
Unfortunately, it seems that due to a combination new media, inter generational confusion, intellectual laziness, and childish greed, what once was common sense conservative principle has been abandoned for the spoils of reactionary political mania.
It may take another generation or so to rediscover a value system.
> In previous administrations, Defense Department officials — including the acerbic Rumsfeld — would hold regular press briefings, often twice a week.
> In the 10 months that the Trump administration has been in office, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has given just two briefings.
Even setting aside policy differences, it cannot be understated how lazy the current administration is. A "day at work" is writing sending some text messages and looking at yourself on camera for a few hours. Anyone seen doing actual work is seen as nerd who is making them look bad.
Kicking out journalists is such a stupid move - you have access to tell them anything you want them to hear! But that would require, you know, work. This administration would literally just rather kick them out.
This is America's first "influencer" administration.
From what I understand, these press pools (specifically the White House press pool) began as what the author describes as "stenographers parroting press releases, not watchdogs holding government officials accountable". It seems like the administration is trying to mandate what was once the unstated agreement (that has since changed to some debatable degree).
I am personally unsure of the value of these press pools in the face of modern 'PR'; as far as I can tell, all they do is generate 'clippable' videos.
> I am personally unsure of the value of these press pools in the face of modern 'PR'; as far as I can tell, all they do is generate 'clippable' videos.
Very much the opposite - the press pool generates a massive amount of cross-verified content for distribution to all news agencies. The agencies then clip and edit and nip and tuck the press pool coverage as they see fit.
Obviously the press pool only gets all the talking points they want them to, but also the press pool is literally there following around the president all day, so it's also really hard to hide things from the press pool.
For example, the press pool knew of Obama's smoking or FDR's wheelchair or RFK's... indulgences. As part of the unwritten gentleman's agreement they never broke news on this stuff, but they were also witness to it and recorded it for later.
>I've held my Pentagon press pass for 28 years. For most of that time, when I wasn't overseas in combat zones embedding with troops, I walked the halls, talking to and getting to know officers from all over the globe, at times visiting them in their offices.
Without press credentials, the above becomes impossible.
You seem to be under the impression that these folks sit in waiting areas until a "press conference" is announced, then copy down whatever some talking head says and publishes that and only that.
There may well be some who do so, but that's not journalism, friend.
The question is how choreographed the rest of their ‘access’ is. This author seems to think they were getting ‘real dirt’, but I suspect that the officers they were talking to were actually walking a highly political tightrope in hopes of advancing their own careers.
My suspicions are based on listening to many podcasts with ex-military officer guests, and what they’ve said about serving ‘pentagon tours’, being publicity/public affairs/media officers for their units, and speaking with the press in general.
>My suspicions are based on listening to many podcasts with ex-military officer guests, and what they’ve said about serving ‘pentagon tours’, being publicity/public affairs/media officers for their units, and speaking with the press in general.
Which podcasts? Which ex-military officers?
That's not a "gotcha," I want to listen to those myself.
The Fighter Pilot Podcast is probably the best of them, both in terms of production and content, though recent episodes have drifted away from the ‘core content’ where it really shone. War on the Rocks has had some good ones as well, but not as interesting (in my opinion). There are many other military-focused and leadership-focused podcasts where you can glean something interesting every once in a while, but not really enough that I’d actually recommend following them.
edit: some NASA astronaut interviews contain interesting info about (retired) military astronauts’ careers, which tend to be interesting as well.
And these podcasts prominently feature ex-military officers saying they lied to reporters on a regular basis?
Can you be just slightly more specific? The two podcasts you actually named have ~650 episodes between them. Heaven knows how many are in the podcasts you didn't name.
I never said that I'd heard any officer state that they'd lied to a reporter. I said that I believe that access is/was choreographed (to present a certain narrative to the reporter), and that I don't think the reporters get the 'real dirt' from Pentagon access that they think they do (because most officers doing a desk tour there know they are walking a political tightrope).
There are definitely counter-examples (of officers who do spill real dirt to reporters), such as United States Air Force Colonel James G. Burton, but they are uncommon, don't seem exclusive to Pentagon-pool reporters, and there don't seem to be many these days.
I don't take notes on the podcasts I listen to, so I don't have episode-specific citations for you.
>I never said that I'd heard any officer state that they'd lied to a reporter. I said that I believe that access is/was choreographed (to present a certain narrative to the reporter), and that I don't think the reporters get the 'real dirt' from Pentagon access that they think they do (because most officers doing a desk tour there know they are walking a political tightrope).
>[...]
>I don't take notes on the podcasts I listen to, so I don't have episode-specific citations for you.
Fair enough and thank you for the references.
Like I said, this wasn't some kind of "gotcha" exercise.
Exactly. There was a story a few weeks back about a lot of the CDC top brass basically resigning in protest. I'm just thinking "yeah go ahead and pat yourself on the back with your NYT OpEd about your pyrrhic victory while RFK instills more whackos at the upper levels."
In this particular case, not even the bad guys (regardless of which side you consider them to be on) will take the job:
> No reputable news organization signed the new rule — not mainstream outlets like NPR, The Washington Post, CNN, and The New York Times, nor the conservative Washington Times or the right-wing Newsmax, run by a noted ally of President Trump.
"Stenographers of power"
Retreat from the corridors of power in a democracy is NOT how "they win". Giving up privilege for the sake of your values is a key element of integrity and your own freedom.
A responsible journalist reports what he thinks is the important story. When the stories of the War Dept become less important than the lack of transparency of the War Dept as the government conducts the "people's business", which do you endeavor to report? The War Dept propaganda? Or do you confer and coordinate with others to determine what's important and about the visible edge of policy as it relates to what's important?
If you are confused about what's important, or don't know, then no sense in lamenting anything but your own lack of clarity.
Can you connect with someone who is closer to the clarity you need?
Ultimately, your society is as good you are; if you believe it can be better, do so, otherwise what's the point of your travail?
So is you think the WH Presscorp are becoming factotums or automatons (which they are and become by design) and you can no longer work as such, then meet people who are a step away from the presscorp and report on them.
Freedom is building the story at whatever proximity to power and depth that you can muster.
Determined creativity and insight will find a home, and if not, you died trying.
Maybe along the way you will discover that contrary to all the cultural hyperbole that you are not free?
Or maybe that you are freer than you can manage?
Try ordinary existential reasoning: work with what's at hand, take responsibility for your work, hold yourself to account, stand up for your values. Such orientation was once core a conservative principle.
Unfortunately, it seems that due to a combination new media, inter generational confusion, intellectual laziness, and childish greed, what once was common sense conservative principle has been abandoned for the spoils of reactionary political mania.
It may take another generation or so to rediscover a value system.
Related:
New York Times, AP, Newsmax and others say they won't sign new Pentagon rules
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45575755
> In previous administrations, Defense Department officials — including the acerbic Rumsfeld — would hold regular press briefings, often twice a week.
> In the 10 months that the Trump administration has been in office, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has given just two briefings.
Even setting aside policy differences, it cannot be understated how lazy the current administration is. A "day at work" is writing sending some text messages and looking at yourself on camera for a few hours. Anyone seen doing actual work is seen as nerd who is making them look bad.
Kicking out journalists is such a stupid move - you have access to tell them anything you want them to hear! But that would require, you know, work. This administration would literally just rather kick them out.
This is America's first "influencer" administration.
This is how they win. The good guys leave, they get replaced by bad guys. Pretty soon no good guys are left.
From what I understand, these press pools (specifically the White House press pool) began as what the author describes as "stenographers parroting press releases, not watchdogs holding government officials accountable". It seems like the administration is trying to mandate what was once the unstated agreement (that has since changed to some debatable degree).
I am personally unsure of the value of these press pools in the face of modern 'PR'; as far as I can tell, all they do is generate 'clippable' videos.
> I am personally unsure of the value of these press pools in the face of modern 'PR'; as far as I can tell, all they do is generate 'clippable' videos.
Very much the opposite - the press pool generates a massive amount of cross-verified content for distribution to all news agencies. The agencies then clip and edit and nip and tuck the press pool coverage as they see fit.
Obviously the press pool only gets all the talking points they want them to, but also the press pool is literally there following around the president all day, so it's also really hard to hide things from the press pool.
For example, the press pool knew of Obama's smoking or FDR's wheelchair or RFK's... indulgences. As part of the unwritten gentleman's agreement they never broke news on this stuff, but they were also witness to it and recorded it for later.
From TFA:
>I've held my Pentagon press pass for 28 years. For most of that time, when I wasn't overseas in combat zones embedding with troops, I walked the halls, talking to and getting to know officers from all over the globe, at times visiting them in their offices.
Without press credentials, the above becomes impossible.
You seem to be under the impression that these folks sit in waiting areas until a "press conference" is announced, then copy down whatever some talking head says and publishes that and only that.
There may well be some who do so, but that's not journalism, friend.
The question is how choreographed the rest of their ‘access’ is. This author seems to think they were getting ‘real dirt’, but I suspect that the officers they were talking to were actually walking a highly political tightrope in hopes of advancing their own careers.
>I suspect that the officers they were talking to were actually walking a highly political tightrope in hopes of advancing their own careers.
Upon what evidence do you base your suspicions?
I'd note that Tom Bowman (the author of TFA) has been publishing stories based upon such details for nearly three decades.
Can you point to any stories that he published, based on such information from Pentagon-based military personnel, that turned out not to be factual?
If so, please share that information. We'd all like to know.
My suspicions are based on listening to many podcasts with ex-military officer guests, and what they’ve said about serving ‘pentagon tours’, being publicity/public affairs/media officers for their units, and speaking with the press in general.
>My suspicions are based on listening to many podcasts with ex-military officer guests, and what they’ve said about serving ‘pentagon tours’, being publicity/public affairs/media officers for their units, and speaking with the press in general.
Which podcasts? Which ex-military officers?
That's not a "gotcha," I want to listen to those myself.
The Fighter Pilot Podcast is probably the best of them, both in terms of production and content, though recent episodes have drifted away from the ‘core content’ where it really shone. War on the Rocks has had some good ones as well, but not as interesting (in my opinion). There are many other military-focused and leadership-focused podcasts where you can glean something interesting every once in a while, but not really enough that I’d actually recommend following them.
edit: some NASA astronaut interviews contain interesting info about (retired) military astronauts’ careers, which tend to be interesting as well.
And these podcasts prominently feature ex-military officers saying they lied to reporters on a regular basis?
Can you be just slightly more specific? The two podcasts you actually named have ~650 episodes between them. Heaven knows how many are in the podcasts you didn't name.
I never said that I'd heard any officer state that they'd lied to a reporter. I said that I believe that access is/was choreographed (to present a certain narrative to the reporter), and that I don't think the reporters get the 'real dirt' from Pentagon access that they think they do (because most officers doing a desk tour there know they are walking a political tightrope).
There are definitely counter-examples (of officers who do spill real dirt to reporters), such as United States Air Force Colonel James G. Burton, but they are uncommon, don't seem exclusive to Pentagon-pool reporters, and there don't seem to be many these days.
I don't take notes on the podcasts I listen to, so I don't have episode-specific citations for you.
>I never said that I'd heard any officer state that they'd lied to a reporter. I said that I believe that access is/was choreographed (to present a certain narrative to the reporter), and that I don't think the reporters get the 'real dirt' from Pentagon access that they think they do (because most officers doing a desk tour there know they are walking a political tightrope). >[...] >I don't take notes on the podcasts I listen to, so I don't have episode-specific citations for you.
Fair enough and thank you for the references.
Like I said, this wasn't some kind of "gotcha" exercise.
Exactly. There was a story a few weeks back about a lot of the CDC top brass basically resigning in protest. I'm just thinking "yeah go ahead and pat yourself on the back with your NYT OpEd about your pyrrhic victory while RFK instills more whackos at the upper levels."
In this particular case, not even the bad guys (regardless of which side you consider them to be on) will take the job:
> No reputable news organization signed the new rule — not mainstream outlets like NPR, The Washington Post, CNN, and The New York Times, nor the conservative Washington Times or the right-wing Newsmax, run by a noted ally of President Trump.