We're setting clear rules at the Pentagon. We're not playing games. We're not allowing anybody to roam around the building. You know, that was the policy before. Peter? Yes, you can. You can be in the press area briefing room. But if you want to move around the building, you're going to have a badge. It's going to be clear. You're going to be escorted when you do so. [00:00:15] And we have expectation that you're not soliciting classified or sensitive information. I think the American people see things like that as absolute common sense. The Pentagon press corps can squeal all they want. We're we're taking these things seriously. They can report. They just need to make sure they're following rules. [00:00:33] The try hard Secretary of war. Secretary of defense, of course. But they like to call the secretary of defense. I'm sorry. The Department of Defense, Department of war, Pete Hegseth is, basically pushing a restrictive press policy. [00:00:50] And anyone in the press who wishes to report from the Pentagon would essentially need to sign on to these restrictions, and I'm happy to report that there is a bipartisan list of news agencies that are not buying it and will not sign it, even though the deadline to do so is today. [00:01:10] Now, the text of the DoD's pledge, which which was released last month, states the following. Department of War remains committed to transparency, to promote accountability and public trust. That's laughable. However, Department of War information must be approved for public release by an [00:01:27] appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified. So let me just be very clear. This is the government, the federal government, telling reporters that if they [00:01:44] want to report from the Pentagon, if they want to be included in the press pool, they have to sign on to a system in which the government has to approve the reporting before the reporting happens. That's insane. That's crazy. [00:02:01] Now, luckily, a lot of them are not buying it. According to the document, journalists who report on news outside of the explicit commands of the Pentagon could be deemed a security or safety risk. What are you going to do? You going to call the reporters terrorists now? And they could have their credentials stripped. [00:02:17] So the move from Hegseth was met with a lot of backlash. A lot of criticism from media corporations who say that this effort goes against the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of the press. Now, CNN is reporting that there are some revisions or there were some revisions [00:02:32] to the pledge after media lawyers met with DoD officials. But the revisions just were not enough for the journalists to feel comfortable signing on to it. And good for them, because they're right. Last week, the Pentagon Press Association stated they appreciated that the revised [00:02:48] policy, issued Monday no longer asked journalists to express agreement to maintain access to Pentagon facilities. But the association said it still has serious concerns about the policy that appears to be designed to stifle a free press and potentially expose us [00:03:05] to prosecution for simply doing our jobs. The revised policy expands the prohibitions on journalists from not just accessing unauthorized information, but also soliciting it. Soliciting or encouraging government employees to break the law [00:03:23] falls outside the scope of protected newsgathering activities, the policy said. Now look, media outlets were told that they had until today, Tuesday 5 p.m., to sign on, or they would essentially have to return their credentials [00:03:40] and clear out the Pentagon. I would clear out the Pentagon so fast like, oh wow, I'm not going to be able to sit in on the, you know, the press briefings from the Pentagon spokespeople who just lied to our faces anyway. What will we do? So pretty much every media outlet has signaled that they are not going to sign [00:03:57] this agreement, including and pay close attention to how, you know, bipartisan. This is, for lack of a better word, Newsmax, right wing, CNN, Reuters, the Associated Press, The New York Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic, NPR, and more. [00:04:13] And while CNN has already stated that they would not agree to the restrictions, Fox News, NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN have issued a joint statement earlier today saying that today we join virtually every other news organization in declining to agree [00:04:29] to the Pentagon's new requirements, which would restrict journalists ability to keep the nation and the world informed of important national security issues. The policy is without precedent and threatens core journalistic protections. We will continue to cover the US military, as each of our organizations has done [00:04:47] for many decades, upholding the principles of a free and independent Dependent press. Only one outlet has agreed to the restrictions, and that's all. Former Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz, who now hosts a show on the network, [00:05:03] stated in a post. Frankly, I'm shocked these weren't already the rules. It's the Pentagon. Oan is happy to follow these reasonable conditions grounded in care for our national security. I could not disagree more with Matt Gaetz on this matter. [00:05:19] Having the government control journalists means that we have state media, not actual free press or journalism that is protected by our First Amendment. So speaking of state media, I was talking to somebody that was [00:05:35] familiar with the Chinese mainland, right, and knows folks who live there. And they said, totally unrelated to any of this, that. Oh, yeah, all that anybody watches in China is online videos. They never watch TV. And I said, oh, that's interesting. Why why do they never watch TV? And they said, well, because TV is controlled by a state propaganda. [00:05:55] So it's totally useless. Why would you bother listening to the propaganda that the government is putting out that you know is false? So you just go online instead? Right. So that's what they're trying to turn this country into. So and by the way, in a lot of ways they've done that in a much more sophisticated way. [00:06:10] But credit to the mainstream media here. At least they're fighting back against the Pentagon here and not bowing their heads. So I'll give them credit for that. And I think that, you know, this is, again, unfortunately, the Israel ification of our country. Why did Israel ask for this? No, no no, no. [00:06:26] It's to my knowledge, they have nothing to do with this. But CNN and other news organizations do run all of their stories about Israel through their Israel bureau, and Israel either approves or doesn't approve before they run it. [00:06:42] So to be fair to Hegseth and Trump and this administration, they must have thought, well, if all the news organizations are going to have their news stories about Israel pre-approved by Israel, why can't they get pre-approved by us? About stories about us? Well, it was never a good idea for them to allow Israel to do that either. [00:07:00] Right. So please stop adopting their terrible ideas. So I'm worried about that as well. But there might be a silver lining here, Anna. And you kind of hinted at it. Look, all these reporters are so obsessed with access. [00:07:18] But that access is access to someone who has an agenda. And so almost all the leaks come from people who want to push an agenda. And the reporter then helps them with that agenda by not explaining why they got the leak and what the purpose of the leak is. [00:07:35] And they hide that from their readers. And I think it's a and their viewers, and I think it's a huge problem. So maybe if they stop obsessing about access journalism, they might actually be much better at covering the Pentagon. - Got. - I totally agree. Look, these, government agency press conferences are useless. [00:07:56] They really are. I mean, the whole point of the white House press secretary, for instance, whether you're talking about Karine Jean-Pierre or Caroline Leavitt, is to protect the administration, to defend the administration and its policies, and to provide cover for [00:08:12] policies that have gone awry or, has led to backlash among the American people. So I think it's important to take what government officials and spokespeople of these government agencies have to say [00:08:28] into consideration and then fact check it. But for the most part, if you're just relying on being part of the Pentagon press pool in order to do your reporting on foreign policy, well, your reports are going to be dog crap. They just are. You have to do a lot more digging. [00:08:43] And, you know, Jeremy Scahill, I got to give him a shout out because he's been around for a while. He's an actual war reporter. He reported on the ground in various wars in the Middle East. And those are real journalists. Those are the people who gather the news, gather the facts, [00:08:58] and put the reporting out there. If you're not doing that, I don't know how much credibility your war reporting or foreign policy reporting really has, to be honest. Yeah. Last quick thing is, today I'm going to randomly be reading about a former State Department spokesperson, Vedant Patel. [00:09:13] And he used to, act as an unofficial spokesperson, of course, for Israel instead of us. And now it turns out he's a registered foreign agent for Israel. Stop using these sources. They're already super biased and useless. [00:09:29] They're just using you as a way to get out their message. Do some real journalism like drop site news, the lever, and so many other wonderful independent outlets. Every time you ring the bell below, an angel gets his wings. Totally not true, but it does keep you updated on our live shows.