Social Pete Hegseth futher limits press' abilities to report on the Pentagon raising transparency concerns
- Thread starter Hit-N-Run
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2010
- Messages
- 10,650
- Reaction score
- 7,807
Feel free to start a podcast or go stand on a corner to complain about it. Your "tyrannical" government will allow it. Youre not oppressed pal.
- Joined
- May 27, 2010
- Messages
- 8,472
- Reaction score
- 4,711
This. All day long. I have been thinking this exact same thing. Does the MAGA movement and the Republicans' need to win at all costs mean complete and utter subservience? They're perfectly content to be lorded over and ruled as long as their team is winning?
What will be the straw that breaks the camel's back? For science, of course. What would it actually take for the Republican party to sit down and say... "Hey now, maybe that's going too far!".
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 63,954
- Reaction score
- 29,001
Alright, I'm going to be that guy but I'm just going to ask it:
Do you guys really want this sort of thing to be public information? Like, I totally get wanting transparency in how your money is spent, but do you really want that sort of information to be as accessible as it is?
I'm an amateur in this arena, but wouldn't it be strategically stupid to just divulge that sort of information especially to an already antagonistic media outlet?
Is there a real reason why the public needs to know how a government deliberates in this realm other than to quench their insatiable curiosity?
Alright......GO!
Not as the generic default.
Ideally speaking, every government everywhere would do things honestly and transparently. That isn't, nor will it ever be, the world we live in. Every nation does bad things in service of defense, choosing to be the only nation to completely open the books to domestic and foreign scrutiny would be an enormous handicap.
I'd argue that the Epstein "files" fall unpleasantly into this. I've long assumed we were never going to know more about them. Most people assume they know why, but everyone is assuming. I've tried to avoid speculation because often with issues this incendiary, there's a lot more going on than we could possibly know.
In my opinion the best we can hope for are solid administrations keeping letter agencies as close to clean as possible. Unfortunately, I would imagine operations that would cause international inconvenience are probably cloaked with layers of "need to know" for deniability.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 61,842
- Reaction score
- 42,462
Even Trump said this was a bad idea, what are the people that reflexively defended this going to say now?
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 54,226
- Reaction score
- 33,958
I said this before but this kind of compliance relies on "the friend/enemy distinction." We already have seen that they'll vote away their own rights, vote away their own economic viability, vote in favor of harsher policing and even military occupation...all as long as they think all that stuff will be aimed at people they don't like. And this is largely because they're subject to media algorithms which feeds them grifting idiots who whip them up all day into thinking it's the "undesirables" who want to do it to them. And more and more inflammatory rhetoric is becoming normal. Pretty soon it wont just be rhetoric, it will be full on totalitarianism. Miller has already made it clear he thinks the Democratic party should be outlawed. And you'll see apologists in here say something like "well, I mean he didnt say the Green Party or the Libertarian Party" with a straight face.
The FCC chair openly bragged on a podcast that HE is directly responsible for Kimmel's firing. Hegseth is saying the Pentagon has to approve of any reporting on it. Trump said any egregious criticism of him that he thinks is excessive is not free speech. Pretty clear what this is. Its fascism, plain and simple.
If only there was some sort of document the Republicans made that openly said they were going to do this. Like...even specific to this year. Something they wrote about the year 2025, like...an outline of the Project or something.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 49,811
- Reaction score
- 34,124
[Insert:]whynotboth.gif
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 49,811
- Reaction score
- 34,124
There is no such thing as too far for people who would vote for a fraud who attempted a coup and who only managed to evade prosecution for multiple serious crimes by running for office.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2006
- Messages
- 28,885
- Reaction score
- 17,192
Ever since they broke the story on his makeup room, he has been extra cautious.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 13,366
- Reaction score
- 6,611
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 54,226
- Reaction score
- 33,958
I don't have a link but it was Benny Johnson he was bragging to.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 12,096
- Reaction score
- 15,049
- So thats the trannie make-up dude?
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 12,096
- Reaction score
- 15,049
US news outlets refuse to sign new Pentagon rules to report only official information
Defense department policy requires outlets to vow not to obtain unauthorized files and restricts access to some areasEdward Helmore
Several leading news organizations with access to Pentagon briefings have formally said they will not agree to a new defense department policy that requires them to pledge they will not obtain unauthorized material and restricts access to certain areas unless accompanied by an official.
The policy, presented last month by the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has been widely criticized by media organizations asked to sign the pledge by Tuesday at 5pm or have 24 hours to turn in their press credentials.
The move follows a shake-up in February in which long-credentialed media outlets were required to vacate assigned workspaces which was cast as an “annual media rotation program”. A similar plan was presented at the White House where some briefing room spots were given to podcasters and other representatives of non-traditional media.
On Monday, the Washington Post joined the New York Times, CNN, the Atlantic, the Guardian and trade publication Breaking Defense in saying it would not sign on to the agreement.
Matt Murray, the Post’s executive editor, said the policy runs counter to constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press.
“The proposed restrictions undercut First Amendment protections by placing unnecessary constraints on gathering and publishing information,” Murray wrote in a statement published on X. “We will continue to vigorously and fairly report on the policies and positions of the Pentagon and officials across the government.”
The Atlantic, which became embroiled in a dispute with Pentagon and White House officials earlier this year after editor Jeffrey Goldberg was accidentally added to a group chat on Signal, said it “fundamentally” opposes the new restrictions.
The new policy “constrains how journalists can report on the U.S. military, which is funded by nearly $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars annually,” a New York Times statement said. “The public has a right to know how the government and military are operating,” wrote the Times Washington bureau chief, Richard Stevenson.
Hegseth responded on social media to statements from the Atlantic, the Post and the Times by posting a single emoji of a hand waving goodbye.
Righ-leaning outlets have also declined to sign the document. “Newsmax has no plans to sign the letter,” the network told the New York Times reporter Erik Wemple. “We are working in conjunction with other media outlets to resolve the situation. We believe the requirements are unnecessary and onerous and hope that the Pentagon will review the matter further.”
Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell told the Washington Post that media outlets had “decided to move the goal post”, saying that the policy doesn’t require reporters to agree, but just acknowledge they understand it.
Parnell said that request had “caused reporters to have a full-blown meltdown, crying victim online.” He added: “We stand by our policy because it’s what’s best for our troops and the national security of this country.”
The Pentagon Press Association, which represents the press corps covering the defense department, said last week that a revised policy that seeks to prohibit journalists from soliciting unauthorized information in addition to accessing it, appeared to be “designed to stifle a free press and potentially expose us to prosecution for simply doing our jobs”.
The PPA noted that the revised policy “conveys an unprecedented message of intimidation to everyone within the DoD, warning against any unapproved interactions with the press and even suggesting it’s criminal to speak without express permission – which plainly, it is not”.
The new rules were accepted by the far-right cable channel One America News, whose White House correspondent is frequently invited by the president to ask him questions. One of the channel’s hosts, former Florida congressman Matt Gaetz, said the pro-Trump outlet “is happy to follow these reasonable conditions”.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/13/defense-department-media-news-rules
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 12,096
- Reaction score
- 15,049
- Because even thought that Hegseth is good looking, theres a chance he is also gay.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2012
- Messages
- 25,251
- Reaction score
- 49,181
Being too Fascist for Newsmax is pretty damn Fascist.US news outlets refuse to sign new Pentagon rules to report only official information
Defense department policy requires outlets to vow not to obtain unauthorized files and restricts access to some areas
Edward Helmore
Several leading news organizations with access to Pentagon briefings have formally said they will not agree to a new defense department policy that requires them to pledge they will not obtain unauthorized material and restricts access to certain areas unless accompanied by an official.
The policy, presented last month by the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has been widely criticized by media organizations asked to sign the pledge by Tuesday at 5pm or have 24 hours to turn in their press credentials.
The move follows a shake-up in February in which long-credentialed media outlets were required to vacate assigned workspaces which was cast as an “annual media rotation program”. A similar plan was presented at the White House where some briefing room spots were given to podcasters and other representatives of non-traditional media.
On Monday, the Washington Post joined the New York Times, CNN, the Atlantic, the Guardian and trade publication Breaking Defense in saying it would not sign on to the agreement.
Matt Murray, the Post’s executive editor, said the policy runs counter to constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press.
“The proposed restrictions undercut First Amendment protections by placing unnecessary constraints on gathering and publishing information,” Murray wrote in a statement published on X. “We will continue to vigorously and fairly report on the policies and positions of the Pentagon and officials across the government.”
The Atlantic, which became embroiled in a dispute with Pentagon and White House officials earlier this year after editor Jeffrey Goldberg was accidentally added to a group chat on Signal, said it “fundamentally” opposes the new restrictions.
The new policy “constrains how journalists can report on the U.S. military, which is funded by nearly $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars annually,” a New York Times statement said. “The public has a right to know how the government and military are operating,” wrote the Times Washington bureau chief, Richard Stevenson.
Hegseth responded on social media to statements from the Atlantic, the Post and the Times by posting a single emoji of a hand waving goodbye.
Righ-leaning outlets have also declined to sign the document. “Newsmax has no plans to sign the letter,” the network told the New York Times reporter Erik Wemple. “We are working in conjunction with other media outlets to resolve the situation. We believe the requirements are unnecessary and onerous and hope that the Pentagon will review the matter further.”
Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell told the Washington Post that media outlets had “decided to move the goal post”, saying that the policy doesn’t require reporters to agree, but just acknowledge they understand it.
Parnell said that request had “caused reporters to have a full-blown meltdown, crying victim online.” He added: “We stand by our policy because it’s what’s best for our troops and the national security of this country.”
The Pentagon Press Association, which represents the press corps covering the defense department, said last week that a revised policy that seeks to prohibit journalists from soliciting unauthorized information in addition to accessing it, appeared to be “designed to stifle a free press and potentially expose us to prosecution for simply doing our jobs”.
The PPA noted that the revised policy “conveys an unprecedented message of intimidation to everyone within the DoD, warning against any unapproved interactions with the press and even suggesting it’s criminal to speak without express permission – which plainly, it is not”.
The new rules were accepted by the far-right cable channel One America News, whose White House correspondent is frequently invited by the president to ask him questions. One of the channel’s hosts, former Florida congressman Matt Gaetz, said the pro-Trump outlet “is happy to follow these reasonable conditions”.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/13/defense-department-media-news-rules
- Joined
- May 8, 2011
- Messages
- 51,982
- Reaction score
- 29,786
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 1,832
- Reaction score
- 3,064
again, as so often, as ever, just imagine the freeze peach warriors if Biden was behind a directive like this.
