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.

  • Shay20@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    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.

    • cdf12345@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      The problem is that this has a chilling effect on reporters using anonymous sources for fear being blackballed by the govt.

      • Shay20@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        6 hours ago

        “Chilling effect”

        Yes, the UCMJ tends to make people think twice about breaking the law.

    • Deacon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Why would a reporter need security clearance? Their entire function is to report information. I don’t understand your point.

      • Shay20@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 hours ago

        “I don’t understand your point”

        Then re-read my comment. I didn’t say the reporter needed a security clearance.

        • Deacon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 hours ago

          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.

          • Shay20@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            6 hours ago

            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.

            • Deacon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 hours ago

              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.

              • Shay20@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 hours ago

                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.

                • Deacon@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 hours ago

                  You have been consistent from the start but that isn’t something I would brag about if I were you. You haven’t made any kind of argument - even at this late and belabored stage - because you likely are not capable of forming one. It’s how I know to block you after this, because parsing your ‘arguments’ is literally not worth the calories.

                  The press are not military personnel. I wish you the best of luck in stringing two thoughts together in the future but I won’t be checking in.

                  • Shay20@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    6 hours ago

                    “Press are not military personnel”

                    Correct and I’ve never said otherwise.