Press at the Pentagon

A spat between the Pentagon and several media outlets that cover defense-related news is escalating this week after a federal judge ruled the Pentagon had overstepped when it set new limitations on the media’s access to the facility. The ruling requires the Pentagon to reinstate several press credentials that were previously revoked. The Department of War is expected to appeal the ruling and, in the meantime, has closed the Pentagon’s media offices and indicated they will be relocated to an annex outside the main building.

Analysis and eternal perspective: This story highlights the natural tension between two revered governing principles: 1) The assurance of a free press as guaranteed by the First Amendment, and 2) The need to protect national security information. These two legitimate needs are nearly always in tension and more than occasionally clash directly, as in this story.

From a governing perspective, the most important question to consider is whether the actions of both sides demonstrate a commitment to both of these ideals. Is the Department of War securing sensitive information or are they seeking favorable media coverage? Are the journalists covering the Pentagon reporting the news or advancing a narrative?

These are difficult questions to pull apart, particularly given that most coverage of the story (including the news link above) is written by an outlet involved in the story (either one that has submitted to the new restrictions or one challenging them). But as Jesus followers, we should endeavor to apply the now-familiar-to-us standard of Proverbs 18:17: “In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines.”

Lay aside your natural inclinations for a moment and consider the following two core assertions:

1) The Department of War has a duty to protect national security information, especially in a time where U.S. service members are in a conflict zone.

2) A free press requires direct access to information and decision makers, and must not be controlled by the decision makers holding the information.

It is highly likely one of those two assertions made you uncomfortable (your default perspective determines which one). The reality is that both principles are critically important, but neither can stand on its own. Both must be tempered by the other. Failure to achieve this balanced tension renders each useless at best, and destructive at worst.

Neither side will want to give the other an advantage by ceding legitimacy to its premise. But you as a Jesus follower can stay level-headed by acknowledging there are legitimate and competing priorities involved.