Newsmax refuses to sign Trump admin’s new Pentagon press access policy
Newsmax has declined to sign the Pentagon’s revised media credentialing agreement, becoming the first major outlet to publicly reject the Defense Department’s new restrictions on press access, CBS News' Jim LaPorta reports.
The Pentagon Press Association confirmed Wednesday that negotiations over the policy have stalled, warning that the rules could undermine press freedom and expose journalists to legal risk.
https://www.newsweek.com/newsmax-trump-pete-hegseth-pentagon-press-access-10873785Open linkView original on lemmy.world269
Comments23
Wait, Newsmax refused, the media outlet that makes Fox News look normal? Huh.
Washington Post and a few others as well, yes.
I’m also struggling to see the issue:
“News organizations pushed back, and the policy was revised last week to say that members of the media were not required to submit their writings, but that U.S. military personnel could face "adverse consequences" if they make unauthorized disclosures to reporters. Reporters could then be viewed as security risks and have their access revoked“
The military is covered under UCMJ and yes, you CAN get in trouble for leaking information. That’s literally part of the reason you have a security clearance, because you are saying you’re trustworthy enough to not leak shit.
The problem is that this has a chilling effect on reporters using anonymous sources for fear being blackballed by the govt.
“Chilling effect”
Yes, the UCMJ tends to make people think twice about breaking the law.
Why would a reporter need security clearance? Their entire function is to report information. I don’t understand your point.
“I don’t understand your point”
Then re-read my comment. I didn’t say the reporter needed a security clearance.
Okay I re-read it and I still don’t understand why you made a point about security clearance in reference to press credentialing. How many more times should I re read it before it’s okay to ask you to explain it further?
Assume that I am frustratingly stupid.
I didn’t make a point about security clearances regarding the press?
I was referencing security clearances for military personnel.
Security clearances aren’t a joke, you can go break big rocks into little rocks at Leavenworth for violating what you agreed to.
Okay, so as I suspected you made a point about security clearance for no coherent reason since it has precisely fuck all to do with this story. But you know they aren’t a joke so that is pretty cool. Glad I pursued this.
Nope, I literally was consistent from the start, you just didn’t understand my argument.
Military personnel arr expected, and obligated by law, to not “leak shit”.
There’s nothing about this order that’s crazy. Pretty common sense shit.
Holy fuck, when the batshit crazies are opposed then you know it is some absolute un-abashed balls to the wall lunacy.
This feels like a ....
turning point?
Bang
I think more a gurgle.
Noooo CHARLIE
No. It was a simple school shooting. Thuts and prayts for all and move on.
Well I’m pretty sure he had drugs in his system so really it was his fault.
This is about the “you have to get our permission to report anything” policy.
Newsmax is conservative enough to get media access whether they sign it or not; the goal of the policy is ultimately censorship, allowing the Pentagon to selectively enforce it against liberal and moderate publications that don't parrot their fascist propaganda.
Does this mean the others meekly submitted? Or just that they're still running their options through their lawyers