Fox News Link

Reuters Link


NewsMax

Quote:

---

The new rules bar journalist access to large swaths of the Pentagon without an escort and say Hegseth can revoke press access to reporters who ask anyone in the War Department for information classified or otherwise that he has not approved for release.

News organizations have not disputed restrictions on reporters' access to sensitive areas in the Pentagon. Credentialed reporters have historically been limited to unclassified spaces, according to the Pentagon Press Association.

---

Quote:

---

"It doesn't seem like the whole story is being told to our viewers here," Keane told Fox News' Bret Baier. "What they're really doing they want to spoon-feed information to the journalists, and that would be their story. That's not journalism. Journalism is going out and finding the story and getting all the facts to support it."
"No one's going to walk in and bang on the door of a four-star general or a senior civilian policy leader in the Pentagon. I never had that, but I did have journalists chasing a story or something was going on with the Army, and those things are legitimate," he continued. "If anything, what would frustrate us at times is we didn't beat you to it, and something bad is happening, and we're getting our act together and sometimes 'Let's wait a couple of days before we talk about that' and you guys are on it. And that's journalism."

---

Based on what I can read, this seems like a bad move. Saying news organizations can only release information approved by the Secretary of War seems like an expansion of the power of the government and easily abused. Allowing taxpayers to know where their money is being spent should be a right. This doesn't mean that we need the press leaking secret operational plans, but they number of cases of things like that are very small compared to leaks from other areas. The only network who has agreed is OAN.

Wildmen03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Saying news organizations can only release information approved by the Secretary of War seems like an expansion of the power of the government and easily abused.

---

Making sure classified information doesn't get leaked to the public by overzealous reporters sounds like a good thing to me.

---

I don't think people are calling for classified information to be released in a way that endangers lives. But there should be accountability of public officials as well. Plus this policy applies to unclassified information as well. So the Pentagon could release a statement explaining an action it took and you would only hear the version they want you to hear.

Biden's DOD could have claimed that no soldiers died in the withdrawal from Afghanistan and it would have been against policy for the media to say otherwise.

Keep in mind that every time you expand the government's power it generally doesn't retract back. It's interesting how this board used to be for smaller government.

Wildmen03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Saying news organizations can only release information approved by the Secretary of War seems like an expansion of the power of the government and easily abused.

---

Making sure classified information doesn't get leaked to the public by overzealous reporters sounds like a good thing to me.

---

If you think they're only going to restrict it to classified information, I've got some ocean front property in Nacogdoches I'd like to sell you.

This is pretty rich coming from a guy who was in a signal chat with an unknown number during the bombing of the Iranian nuclear facility. If both Newsmax and the New York Times are on the same side, you can bet that it's a bad policy. To date, I think OAN is the only news org that has signed on.

The government already abuses the amount of information they classify. This will make that worse.

Enforce the laws about handling classified information. Root out the internal leakers. No one not working there should be wandering the halls of the pentagon unrestricted.

This isn't a press problem. It's a deep state problem.

If you can't see how this will backfire you have blinders on.

Wildmen03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Saying news organizations can only release information approved by the Secretary of War seems like an expansion of the power of the government and easily abused.

---

Making sure classified information doesn't get leaked to the public by overzealous reporters sounds like a good thing to me.

---

Every administration will just classify anything that makes them look bad. Droning Americans, Hunter's laptop, regime change attempts, Russia gate, etc.

The Government has been leaking classified info to the press for decades. Some of it is actually factual, but much of it is skewed to make narrative.


"We've obtained unreleased information saying bad guys have plans to release WMDs" a week later we are invading/droning said bad guys.

BusterAg said:

---

Aggie1205 said:

---

Fox News Link

Reuters Link


NewsMax

Quote:

---

The new rules bar journalist access to large swaths of the Pentagon without an escort and say Hegseth can revoke press access to reporters who ask anyone in the War Department for information classified or otherwise that he has not approved for release.

News organizations have not disputed restrictions on reporters' access to sensitive areas in the Pentagon. Credentialed reporters have historically been limited to unclassified spaces, according to the Pentagon Press Association.

---

Quote:

---

"It doesn't seem like the whole story is being told to our viewers here," Keane told Fox News' Bret Baier. "What they're really doing they want to spoon-feed information to the journalists, and that would be their story. That's not journalism. Journalism is going out and finding the story and getting all the facts to support it."
"No one's going to walk in and bang on the door of a four-star general or a senior civilian policy leader in the Pentagon. I never had that, but I did have journalists chasing a story or something was going on with the Army, and those things are legitimate," he continued. "If anything, what would frustrate us at times is we didn't beat you to it, and something bad is happening, and we're getting our act together and sometimes 'Let's wait a couple of days before we talk about that' and you guys are on it. And that's journalism."

---

Based on what I can read, this seems like a bad move. Saying news organizations can only release information approved by the Secretary of War seems like an expansion of the power of the government and easily abused. Allowing taxpayers to know where their money is being spent should be a right. This doesn't mean that we need the press leaking secret operational plans, but they number of cases of things like that are very small compared to leaks from other areas. The only network who has agreed is OAN.

---

Every single publicly traded corporation in America has a similar press policy.

---

When did publicly traded companies become the business of the people of the USA?

TOUCHDOWN! said:

---

It really is surprising how quickly the "Don't tread on me" and the "those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" crowd flipped to "let's give Glorious Leader Trump more power."

---

It's not about giving Trump more power. It's about taking power away from Marxists that they've abused to disenfranchise conservatives. Again, the press has no credibility because of actions they've taken, they have no one to blame but themselves. Unfortunately their irresponsibility has unintended consequences that run deep for both Marxists and Conservatives.

They're the kids that are surprised a parking lot owner bans skateboarding after being frivolously sued by a kid that hurt themselves skateboarding in the parking lot.

What the left doesn't seem to get is that those that support the Trump administrations actions on various issues is not because they worship Trump, it's to stop the abuses of a tyrannical left that has been totally unaccountable for decades thanks to their almost complete control of the bureaucracy and media for decades. Exacerbated by a weak and feckless Republican party terrified of the liberal press. Now that their little propaganda monopoly has ended and conservatives are standing up to their lies and malfeasance, they're throwing a fit because they're not used to not getting their way. It's exactly what the degenerate left deserves and at least temporarily steering this country back in the direction of sanity and the image that our fore fathers imagined. Not the wasteland of idiocracy we were destined to endure under the authoritarian control of Marxists that loathe the successes and perseverance of capitalist America.

Charpie said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Aggie1205 said:

---

Fox News Link

Reuters Link


NewsMax

Quote:

---

The new rules bar journalist access to large swaths of the Pentagon without an escort and say Hegseth can revoke press access to reporters who ask anyone in the War Department for information classified or otherwise that he has not approved for release.

News organizations have not disputed restrictions on reporters' access to sensitive areas in the Pentagon. Credentialed reporters have historically been limited to unclassified spaces, according to the Pentagon Press Association.

---

Quote:

---

"It doesn't seem like the whole story is being told to our viewers here," Keane told Fox News' Bret Baier. "What they're really doing they want to spoon-feed information to the journalists, and that would be their story. That's not journalism. Journalism is going out and finding the story and getting all the facts to support it."
"No one's going to walk in and bang on the door of a four-star general or a senior civilian policy leader in the Pentagon. I never had that, but I did have journalists chasing a story or something was going on with the Army, and those things are legitimate," he continued. "If anything, what would frustrate us at times is we didn't beat you to it, and something bad is happening, and we're getting our act together and sometimes 'Let's wait a couple of days before we talk about that' and you guys are on it. And that's journalism."

---

Based on what I can read, this seems like a bad move. Saying news organizations can only release information approved by the Secretary of War seems like an expansion of the power of the government and easily abused. Allowing taxpayers to know where their money is being spent should be a right. This doesn't mean that we need the press leaking secret operational plans, but they number of cases of things like that are very small compared to leaks from other areas. The only network who has agreed is OAN.

---

Every single publicly traded corporation in America has a similar press policy.

---

When did publicly traded companies become the business of the people of the USA?

---

Um, they are public. They have disclosure policies. They have to tell people what they are doing. They are regulated by the SEC. They just don't have to tell people everything.

But they do organize their messaging to make sure that nothing is taken out of context by malicious press just trying to get clicks. Novel concept, I know.

TOUCHDOWN! said:

---

It really is surprising how quickly the "Don't tread on me" and the "those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" crowd flipped to "let's give Glorious Leader Trump more power."

---

So we should get rid of classified information and make everything public?

I think some of you'll are jumping to conclusions. I see nothing in the articles about the press not being able to report on whatever they want - it seems to suggest that they just can't walk around the Pentagon freely and/or have official access to military personnel without permission. To me this is more about getting away from spoon feeding the journalists intel and more about asking them to be...journalists....who have to actually investigate things.

Teslag said:

---

Anyone leaking classified information to the press should be executed

---

Well, treasonous leaks, sure, but we both know "classified" blankets some things that don't rise to that severity.

Ex1: porn on SIPR. Technically classified because the media was uploaded to a classified network, but not itself a security risk.

Ex2: whistleblower information which embarrasses federal wrongdoing without posing a true security risk.

But regarding those who give F-35 plans to China? Yeah - toss em from the nearest 3+ story roof top.

Quote:

---

What the left doesn't seem to get is that those that support the Trump administrations actions on various issues is not because they worship Trump, it's to stop the abuses of a tyrannical left that has been totally unaccountable for decades thanks to their almost complete control of the bureaucracy and media for decades.

---

Ehhh . . ends justifies the means talk is all this is. You either believe in fundamental rights or you don't. You saying it is ok to step on civil liberties because of your personal grievance is not different than anti-gun folks wanting to squash 2A because they don't like school shootings.

These liberties are enshrined because concentrated federal power has zero interest in the well-being of American citizens and only exists to perpetuate itself over time. Government should be contained, checked, and not expanded to be used as a blunt tool to litigate political conflict.

My issue is the intent, not the material. Inadvertant slips wouldn't rise to execution. But purposely leaking classified material rises to another level. The person knows it's classified, doesn't care, releases it anyway for personal gain, be it a sense of altruism or financial.

Quote:

---

You saying it is ok to step on civil liberties

---

Unfettered access to, and leaking of, classfied information is not and never has been a civil liberty.

When I first heard about this, it seemed like an over-reach.

But the more I read about it, the more it seems like common sense, and I'm shocked it hasn't always been this way.

They press is still free to publish what they want, assuming legal, without repercussion from the government. That shouldn't give them the right to any and all information inside the Pentagon.

KingofHazor said:

---

I worked in the Pentagon years ago and thought that it was extremely strange that the press had unfettered access inside the Pentagon. They even had tiny offices in the building. It was bizarre. Wolf Blitzer worked there then, and it was always strange to see him in line with military officers at the sandwich shop, listening to them as they discussed everything and anything.

My guess is that the original theory was that by allowing reporters to office in the building that DoD would get more sympathetic coverage. That theory is obviously a total failure and resulted only in DoD leaking like a sieve.

---

Makes you wonder how many of those "confidential sources not authorized to release information" were reporters eveasdropping in places they shouldn't have had access to.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

What the left doesn't seem to get is that those that support the Trump administrations actions on various issues is not because they worship Trump, it's to stop the abuses of a tyrannical left that has been totally unaccountable for decades thanks to their almost complete control of the bureaucracy and media for decades.

---

Ehhh . . ends justifies the means talk is all this is. You either believe in fundamental rights or you don't. You saying it is ok to step on civil liberties because of your personal grievance is not different than anti-gun folks wanting to squash 2A because they don't like school shootings.

These liberties are enshrined because concentrated federal power has zero interest in the well-being of American citizens and only exists to perpetuate itself over time. Government should be contained, checked, and not expanded to be used as a blunt tool to litigate political conflict.

---

Nowhere did I say that and I'm talking about all issues, not specifically this one. I'm pointing out the left's flawed narratives describing the motivations of conservatives and/or Trump supporters. It's not about worship of one man, but about their concerns finally being addressed. The right has gotten very little real representation from Republicans over the years because they are seemingly terrified of losing power if they don't bow down to the liberal press.

When a leader comes along that doesn't give a **** what the liberal press thinks about him and actually tries to implement policy changes that align with conservative ideals, then of course he's going to be praised for his willingness to stand up when other's wouldn't. It's not about the worship of one man, but about a group of people that have been starved of real leadership in government for decades and supporting the one person in power that actually seems to be making progressive towards conservative goals. All while watching that leader be needlessly villainized worse than any leader since WWII. That's not to say all criticisms of Trump are undeserved, because many are deserved, but most are just mud slinging by wildly dishonest Democrats, left wing propagandists and brainwashed leftists that aren't used to strong Republican leaders. Conservatives are not stupid, they've been watching the press be overly critical of Republicans while goal tending for Democrats, long before DT came down the escalator. They've noticed and they're fed up with it!

If the left had concentrated on valid criticisms of Donald Trump then they would be more successful. Any objective observer has to admit that the left's overzealous and often dishonest approach to villainizing Donald Trump has backfired in many ways.

Don't take this as me being a blind supporter of Trump, because he was not my first choice and I do not agree with him on every issue. I'm just calling it how I see what Trump supporter's true motivations are. Not the dishonest narratives created by leftists out of hatred.

Furthermore, I don't see cutting off unfettered access to the press (left, right, or objective) in one of our most sensitive military installations as a civil liberty issue. That's just basic OPSEC and National Security. Press contact with these institutions should be directed through press secretaries. For that matter, physical presence of Reporters at the White House press pool also seems unnecessary in 2025.

Quote:

---

I don't think people are calling for classified information to be released in a way that endangers lives.

---

Disagree. The left certainly is calling for that.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

You saying it is ok to step on civil liberties

---

Unfettered access to, and leaking of, classfied information is not and never has been a civil liberty.

---

I don't think anyone here is claiming that. But journalists are usually protected when they publish classified information so long as they didn't participate in the acquisition of the classified information. It's a different story for the person that leaked the information.

aggieforester05 said:

---

Aggie1205 said:

---

Wildmen03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Saying news organizations can only release information approved by the Secretary of War seems like an expansion of the power of the government and easily abused.

---

Making sure classified information doesn't get leaked to the public by overzealous reporters sounds like a good thing to me.

---

I don't think people are calling for classified information to be released in a way that endangers lives. But there should be accountability of public officials as well. Plus this policy applies to unclassified information as well. So the Pentagon could release a statement explaining an action it took and you would only hear the version they want you to hear.

Biden's DOD could have claimed that no soldiers died in the withdrawal from Afghanistan and it would have been against policy for the media to say otherwise.

Keep in mind that every time you expand the government's power it generally doesn't retract back. It's interesting how this board used to be for smaller government.

---

You're surprised that a largely conservative message board has no problem with curtailing the Democrat propaganda machine's previously unfettered access to the Pentagon?

The press has no one to blame but themselves. Maybe if they were objective and tried to do what's best for America instead of advancing the Democrat/Marxist agenda (while hiding behind a facade of impartiality that only leftists that love confirmation bias believe), then they could be trusted a little more.

---

If you looked at the list of all the news organizations that have refused to sign on to the policy, you'd realize this isn't a Democrat/Marxist agenda item.

HTownAg98 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Aggie1205 said:

---

Wildmen03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Saying news organizations can only release information approved by the Secretary of War seems like an expansion of the power of the government and easily abused.

---

Making sure classified information doesn't get leaked to the public by overzealous reporters sounds like a good thing to me.

---

I don't think people are calling for classified information to be released in a way that endangers lives. But there should be accountability of public officials as well. Plus this policy applies to unclassified information as well. So the Pentagon could release a statement explaining an action it took and you would only hear the version they want you to hear.

Biden's DOD could have claimed that no soldiers died in the withdrawal from Afghanistan and it would have been against policy for the media to say otherwise.

Keep in mind that every time you expand the government's power it generally doesn't retract back. It's interesting how this board used to be for smaller government.

---

You're surprised that a largely conservative message board has no problem with curtailing the Democrat propaganda machine's previously unfettered access to the Pentagon?

The press has no one to blame but themselves. Maybe if they were objective and tried to do what's best for America instead of advancing the Democrat/Marxist agenda (while hiding behind a facade of impartiality that only leftists that love confirmation bias believe), then they could be trusted a little more.

---

If you looked at the list of all the news organizations that have refused to sign on to the policy, you'd realize this isn't a Democrat/Marxist agenda item.

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Aggie1205 said:

---

Wildmen03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Saying news organizations can only release information approved by the Secretary of War seems like an expansion of the power of the government and easily abused.

---

Making sure classified information doesn't get leaked to the public by overzealous reporters sounds like a good thing to me.

---

I don't think people are calling for classified information to be released in a way that endangers lives. But there should be accountability of public officials as well. Plus this policy applies to unclassified information as well. So the Pentagon could release a statement explaining an action it took and you would only hear the version they want you to hear.

Biden's DOD could have claimed that no soldiers died in the withdrawal from Afghanistan and it would have been against policy for the media to say otherwise.

Keep in mind that every time you expand the government's power it generally doesn't retract back. It's interesting how this board used to be for smaller government.

---

You're surprised that a largely conservative message board has no problem with curtailing the Democrat propaganda machine's previously unfettered access to the Pentagon?

The press has no one to blame but themselves. Maybe if they were objective and tried to do what's best for America instead of advancing the Democrat/Marxist agenda (while hiding behind a facade of impartiality that only leftists that love confirmation bias believe), then they could be trusted a little more.

---

If you looked at the list of all the news organizations that have refused to sign on to the policy, you'd realize this isn't a Democrat/Marxist agenda item.

---

Non sequitur.

They can't simply target just the Dem/Marxist media outlets, now can they? Everyone's ox has to be gored unfortunately.

Charpie said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Aggie1205 said:

---

Wildmen03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Saying news organizations can only release information approved by the Secretary of War seems like an expansion of the power of the government and easily abused.

---

Making sure classified information doesn't get leaked to the public by overzealous reporters sounds like a good thing to me.

---

I don't think people are calling for classified information to be released in a way that endangers lives. But there should be accountability of public officials as well. Plus this policy applies to unclassified information as well. So the Pentagon could release a statement explaining an action it took and you would only hear the version they want you to hear.

Biden's DOD could have claimed that no soldiers died in the withdrawal from Afghanistan and it would have been against policy for the media to say otherwise.

Keep in mind that every time you expand the government's power it generally doesn't retract back. It's interesting how this board used to be for smaller government.

---

You're surprised that a largely conservative message board has no problem with curtailing the Democrat propaganda machine's previously unfettered access to the Pentagon?

The press has no one to blame but themselves. Maybe if they were objective and tried to do what's best for America instead of advancing the Democrat/Marxist agenda (while hiding behind a facade of impartiality that only leftists that love confirmation bias believe), then they could be trusted a little more.

---

If you looked at the list of all the news organizations that have refused to sign on to the policy, you'd realize this isn't a Democrat/Marxist agenda item.

---

---

Clearly, if you're against this you're just Dem/Marxist lite and don't adequately support the administration (heavy sarcasm). Nobody should be leaking or publicly reporting on classified info. By the same token, restricting the press to only reporting on the government approved narrative is c.s. whether the administration is red or blue.

HTownAg98 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Aggie1205 said:

---

Wildmen03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Saying news organizations can only release information approved by the Secretary of War seems like an expansion of the power of the government and easily abused.

---

Making sure classified information doesn't get leaked to the public by overzealous reporters sounds like a good thing to me.

---

I don't think people are calling for classified information to be released in a way that endangers lives. But there should be accountability of public officials as well. Plus this policy applies to unclassified information as well. So the Pentagon could release a statement explaining an action it took and you would only hear the version they want you to hear.

Biden's DOD could have claimed that no soldiers died in the withdrawal from Afghanistan and it would have been against policy for the media to say otherwise.

Keep in mind that every time you expand the government's power it generally doesn't retract back. It's interesting how this board used to be for smaller government.

---

You're surprised that a largely conservative message board has no problem with curtailing the Democrat propaganda machine's previously unfettered access to the Pentagon?

The press has no one to blame but themselves. Maybe if they were objective and tried to do what's best for America instead of advancing the Democrat/Marxist agenda (while hiding behind a facade of impartiality that only leftists that love confirmation bias believe), then they could be trusted a little more.

---

If you looked at the list of all the news organizations that have refused to sign on to the policy, you'd realize this isn't a Democrat/Marxist agenda item.

---

No journalistic agency is going to sign off on limiting their access to information, that's just self preservation. That being said, 95% of the press is Marxist and they've been known to abuse their access to information to hurt Republican administrations with zero concern for the unintended consequences. That's why you won't hear most conservatives cry over this policy change, even if it restricts their media outlets ability to do the same. I suspect the administrations motivations behind the policy change are for national security concerns, not political, although that's how it will certainly be portrayed by the press. Brainwashed libs will eat it up, while conservatives sit back disturbed over the left's lack of concern about security for political gain.

Quote:

---

Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said the rules establish "common sense media procedures."

"The policy does not ask for them to agree, just to acknowledge that they understand what our policy is," Parnell said. "This has caused reporters to have a full blown meltdown, crying victim online. We stand by our policy because it's what's best for our troops and the national security of this country."

---