It's a great thing they are not backing down. Given how many institutions have complied in advance, we need as many exemplars of better behaviour as possible.
> Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reacted by posting the Times’ statement on X and adding a hand-waving emoji.
> Hegseth also reposted a question from a follower who asked, “Is this because they can’t roam the Pentagon freely? Do they believe they deserve unrestricted access to a highly classified military installation under the First Amendment?”
> Hegseth answered, “yes.”
I know this is old man yelling at the clouds these days but good lord if we could have government officials that aren't terminally online...
The only notable outlet that has stated it does intend to sign the new rules is One America News Network, the network for people that think that Fox News has excessive left-wing bias.
Can they sue, and if they do are they likely to win? My laymans gut feeling is they will lose because the constitution says nothing about the government being required to provide press access to facilities. However, if they allow access to one organization but not another seems there could be an argument that they're policing speech? Would be great to hear a more informed take.
Economically this makes sense. Those companies that sign are relegated to essentially just republishing press releases, so there's little value in employing someone just to do that.
The quantity and intensity of stupidity exhibited in the linked tweet thread is truly exasperating. They want freedom of speech for themselves and a neutered press.
It honestly feels like they're trying to speedrun autocracy, but it's not clear to me the game plan here. Assuming the voting and election situation doesn't change, they won't be in office forever, possibly even the next term. They've just weakened oversight and standards of decency that surely they will be crying about later. To be honest it's exhausting just listening to the adults supposedly running the strongest country in the world like a Twitter trolling session.
I feel like the GOP will eventually just have their own news media wing that will have exclusives to all their pressers. (And no, it won't be Fox News). They'll call it something similar to TruthSocial / Pravda. It's from the old Soviet playbook.
the press, the proxy of the elite and wealthy have waged an all out war on americans for decades. They've long lost their status as a 4th pillar of government and instead are complicit in a long list of crimes.
by "The Press" we're not talking about newswriters but organizations who are large, evil, and morally bankrupt.
Anyone is free to start up a paper and write what they please
Great example of Newspeak you have there. "the press, the proxy of the elite and wealthy" will have no problem signing this, so this is not an attack on them. You even acknowledge this by saying
> by "The Press" we're not talking about newswriters but organizations who are large, evil, and morally bankrupt
So the logical conclusion must be that the GP meant something else than your self-serving redefinition. Yet, you still choose to attack the post as if it is completely wrong, and the attack on the press is fully justified?
This will likely be an unpopular opinion, but American press outlets could stand to be a little less close to the Pentagon. They were given this access for a reason that was useful to the DoD / war department, which is something the Trump administration seems not to understand.
> Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said (...) "This has caused reporters to have a full blown meltdown, crying victim online."
Interesting use of language... seems like the mask is coming off everywhere now, not just where I live (Hungary).
I've been intentionally skipping on a lot of our local political reporting, so I was really quite surprised to see recently how lowbrow the language used by politicians, specifically those in power, has gotten these days. Especially how flagrant they are about it too.
This is a very meta, and to many I'm sure trivial, thing to take issue with, yes, but if those in authority are this unashamedly drunk on power, and look down on those they rule over so openly, I'd really question how fit they are to represent people's collective best interest.
I've observed the same, but it's not one sided. Journalism has become decidedly lowbrow as well. Almost every exchange plays out as an attack and a defense rather than a discussion in good faith seeking mutual understanding and compromise.
About effing time! Anyone else have a security clearance? It's ridiculous that on the front page of literally every major newspaper there are least a handful of examples of felonious leaks of literally Confidential military intelligence from "unnamed sources". Literally each instance of that is a potential & likely felony.
Those leakers are committing actual crimes. People here need a healthy dose of reality.
To be fair modern media companies (virtually every single one of them) has long been a weapon in someone’s hands.
Only idiot these days really goes to bbc or whatever your acronym of choice for “the truth”.
They all push some sort of agenda down our throats and already lick ass to some authority or sponsor. What difference does it make if they got just +1 little constraint.
Does anyone have a link to the actual rules/document they are asked to sign? I clicked on the "new rules" link in the article linked here, and it doesn't actually show all the rules.
While it's nice to see the reaction from one side, I'd like to be able to balance that against the actual text of the document myself.
If all they can parrot is the company line there's no point in having more than one press agency show up.
Just incorporate "propaganda inc" have them show up, then parrot the company line and no one else need bother show up. The other reporters can then spin that.
This is a ruse and a manufactured 'much to do about nothing"... the real source of power in America is the CIA & associated Think Tanks and Wall Street law firms - not the Pentagon, especially as far as domestic policy is concerned.
Pentagon and the Media are owned and controlled by the same military-industrial complex and always agree to disagree with each other in public.
33 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 55.5 ms ] thread> Hegseth also reposted a question from a follower who asked, “Is this because they can’t roam the Pentagon freely? Do they believe they deserve unrestricted access to a highly classified military installation under the First Amendment?”
> Hegseth answered, “yes.”
I know this is old man yelling at the clouds these days but good lord if we could have government officials that aren't terminally online...
Sounds like a real question from a real person.
by "The Press" we're not talking about newswriters but organizations who are large, evil, and morally bankrupt.
Anyone is free to start up a paper and write what they please
> by "The Press" we're not talking about newswriters but organizations who are large, evil, and morally bankrupt
So the logical conclusion must be that the GP meant something else than your self-serving redefinition. Yet, you still choose to attack the post as if it is completely wrong, and the attack on the press is fully justified?
That’s what you want, right?
Interesting use of language... seems like the mask is coming off everywhere now, not just where I live (Hungary).
I've been intentionally skipping on a lot of our local political reporting, so I was really quite surprised to see recently how lowbrow the language used by politicians, specifically those in power, has gotten these days. Especially how flagrant they are about it too.
This is a very meta, and to many I'm sure trivial, thing to take issue with, yes, but if those in authority are this unashamedly drunk on power, and look down on those they rule over so openly, I'd really question how fit they are to represent people's collective best interest.
Those leakers are committing actual crimes. People here need a healthy dose of reality.
Only idiot these days really goes to bbc or whatever your acronym of choice for “the truth”.
They all push some sort of agenda down our throats and already lick ass to some authority or sponsor. What difference does it make if they got just +1 little constraint.
While it's nice to see the reaction from one side, I'd like to be able to balance that against the actual text of the document myself.
Just incorporate "propaganda inc" have them show up, then parrot the company line and no one else need bother show up. The other reporters can then spin that.
Pentagon and the Media are owned and controlled by the same military-industrial complex and always agree to disagree with each other in public.