Reporters from nearly all major news agencies cleared out their offices today at the Pentagon

Bigfoot

Bigfoot

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
17,916
Reaction score
46,541
Location
On the Trump Train
Screenshot_2025-10-15_at_16-19-17__5__OS-3642367.jpg



"or the Ukraine impeachment hoax, or the COVID-19 natural origin hoax, or the peaceful BLM riots hoax, or the suckers and losers hoax, or the Hunter Biden laptop hoax, or the Biden’s-brain-is-totally-fine-you-guys hoax,

And if the new guidelines result in fewer professional con artists and media hoaxers roaming the halls looking for new lies to peddle, so be it.
 
Last edited:
Bigfoot

Bigfoot

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
17,916
Reaction score
46,541
Location
On the Trump Train
I never knew the press had free access and was allowed to roam around the Pentagon listening to people for information.

Considering it's the Pentagon, and considering how the so-called news media has been operating since 2016, the Trump years. That seems like a really bad idea with all things considered.

When it comes to the Democrat/Deep State-controlled Fake News Media, the usual suspects.
I agree with the get the fuck out, it makes sense to me. YMMV
 
Last edited:
tirwin1

tirwin1

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
17,459
Reaction score
48,318
Location
rochester
Bigfoot said:
I never knew the press had free access and was allowed to roam around the Pentagon listening to people for information.

Considering it's the Pentagon, and considering how the so-called news media has been operating since 2016, the Trump years. That seems like a really bad idea with all things considered.

When it comes to the Democrat/Deep State-controlled Fake News Media, the usual suspects.
I agree with the get the fuck out, it makes sense to me. YMMV
Click to expand...
I agree. I consider the pentagon a restricted place. There should never be reporters allowed to just roam the halls. That makes it too easy for spies. This is just common sense. Fuck the drama queen losers in the press that have problems with this.
 
Grimscale

Grimscale

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,067
Reaction score
15,781
Location
Rochester
Reporters should not have to sign pledges to only print what the .gov says is ok to print. That is one of the definitions of oppression.

That being said, there is a marked difference between printing "state secrets" and blowing open .gov bad behavior by printing what is provided by whistle-blowers.
We The People NEED honest news agencies to have the ability to post things the .gov may not want us to know. There are ways to do so that do not endanger troops or civies.

How do we thread the needle between these two diametrically opposed requirements?
 
Cooolone

Cooolone

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,295
Reaction score
9,746
Location
NY, USA
You know... Maybe, just maybe, the Press Corp will have to get information the Old Way... Through investigative Reporting, when using verifiable sources that have been redundantly confirmed, etc...

I didn't even know Press Corps and NON Military outside (3rd party) employees were permitted in the Pentagon halls, let alone having permanent offices there! That's nuts!

Guess it was easy when the previous administration just published what they wanted you to say. Called on only favored press because they wouldn't challenge the administration, or the Commander in Chief's competency... And who could forget they wanted to create the Politburo, errrrr, Anti Misinformation Office! The Press wasn't crying then... They were complicit with the Federal Govt during Covid and not wanting to rock the boat afraid to lose favored status, etc.

What a fucking joke!

Fuck them... They don't wanna sign, fine! That in itself is ok, that's their decision! They have control over. The Consequence of that decision they do not (have control over). And so be it! But don't go crying because you think you (Press) should decide what the govt should or shouldn't be doing!
 
Bigfoot

Bigfoot

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
17,916
Reaction score
46,541
Location
On the Trump Train
From the "show more" link.

"We (THE FEDERALIST) actually read through the new Department of War media access guidelines, and we found zero new restrictions on the ability of journalists to report on or criticize the government. Many corporate journalists eager to grandstand will claim otherwise without evidence, but we will show you what the actual document says."

“Nothing in this document requires you to waive any constitutional rights. This in-brief constitutes a description of [Department of War] policies."
 
Bigfoot

Bigfoot

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
17,916
Reaction score
46,541
Location
On the Trump Train
FWIW -

AI Overview


The Pentagon's media access guidelines underwent a significant and highly controversial change in October 2025, leading to the departure of most resident journalists from the building
. The new rules, implemented by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, impose strict controls on reporters' activities inside the Pentagon and their reporting processes.

Key changes and restrictions
  • Prior approval for reporting: The central tenet of the new guidelines is a policy that threatens to revoke credentials for reporters who publish information not authorized for release by the Pentagon. This applies even to unclassified information.
  • Threats for soliciting information: While the revised policy states that receiving or publishing sensitive information is "generally protected" by the First Amendment, it also says that soliciting such information "may weigh in the consideration of whether you pose a security or safety risk". This has been seen as a threat to independent newsgathering.
  • Limited unescorted access: Unescorted press access to the Pentagon has been sharply reduced. Journalists are now largely restricted to a single path connecting the building's Metro and River entrances. Access to other areas, including the Public Affairs offices, requires an escort.
  • Removal of office space: Some news organizations, including The Washington Post and The New York Times, had their Pentagon workspaces removed earlier in 2025, with some spots reallocated to more friendly outlets.
  • New press credentials: Journalists who signed on were issued a new style of credential with a clearer "PRESS" identifier.
  • Photography restrictions: The use of visual recording devices is prohibited without specific authorization from the Pentagon Force Protection Agency or other relevant offices.

Industry response and consequences
The new rules have prompted widespread condemnation from journalists, media organizations, and press freedom groups.
  • Mass walkout: By the October 15, 2025 deadline to sign the new policy, dozens of major news organizations—including The Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Fox News—had refused to sign and vacated their Pentagon workspaces.
  • First Amendment concerns: Critics argue the policy infringes on First Amendment protections by punishing reporters for seeking information and limiting the public's right to know.
  • Commitment to continued coverage: News outlets have stated their intention to continue covering the Pentagon, though their reporting will now rely more on sources outside of the official, restricted channels.
  • Pentagon Press Association: The association issued a statement calling October 15, 2025, a "dark day for press freedom" and criticizing the implied threat of criminalizing national security reporting.
  • Limited cooperation: Only a handful of outlets and independent journalists have reportedly signed the new agreement, with the conservative One America News Network (OANN) being one of the few to do so publicly.
 
Last edited:
Bigfoot

Bigfoot

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
17,916
Reaction score
46,541
Location
On the Trump Train
"Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement on Monday: "The policy does not ask for them to agree, just to acknowledge that they understand what our policy is. This has caused reporters to have a full blown meltdown, crying victim online. We stand by our policy because it's what's best for our troops and the national security of this country."


"Credentialed reporters have traditionally been limited to unclassified spaces in the Pentagon and have worked across the hallway from the Pentagon press office, which has allowed them access to department spokespeople. Press badges signify that they have gone through a background check."
 
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
36,175
Reaction score
40,641
Location
Western NY
Grimscale said:
Reporters should not have to sign pledges to only print what the .gov says is ok to print. That is one of the definitions of oppression.

That being said, there is a marked difference between printing "state secrets" and blowing open .gov bad behavior by printing what is provided by whistle-blowers.
We The People NEED honest news agencies to have the ability to post things the .gov may not want us to know. There are ways to do so that do not endanger troops or civies.

How do we thread the needle between these two diametrically opposed requirements?
Click to expand...
Just be nice if they were truthful.
 
tirwin1

tirwin1

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
17,459
Reaction score
48,318
Location
rochester
This guy has a good detailed write up. He lets the press have it. Decide for yourself if the whiners in the press are to be taken seriously on this (or any) subject.

 
Celt

Celt

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
9,805
Reaction score
20,396
Location
Westchester
Bigfoot said:
I never knew the press had free access and was allowed to roam around the Pentagon listening to people for information.

Considering it's the Pentagon, and considering how the so-called news media has been operating since 2016, the Trump years. That seems like a really bad idea with all things considered.

When it comes to the Democrat/Deep State-controlled Fake News Media, the usual suspects.
I agree with the get the fuck out, it makes sense to me. YMMV
Click to expand...
Good, turn them in. Lets see how long they last. Seriously, roaming the pentagon without escorts is crazy.

We need a free press, but sadly its not free anymore. They are bought and paid for by the gloabalists.
 
Z

Zerex

.308 Win
Messages
3,174
Reaction score
2,498
Location
Rome, NY
There were NO CCP reporters/spies in the mix..do I have this correct?

They---CCP reporters included, never offered bribes for info either, right?
 
FP1201

FP1201

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,296
Reaction score
10,600
Location
Adams, NY
Bigfoot said:
"Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement on Monday: "The policy does not ask for them to agree, just to acknowledge that they understand what our policy is. This has caused reporters to have a full blown meltdown, crying victim online. We stand by our policy because it's what's best for our troops and the national security of this country."


"Credentialed reporters have traditionally been limited to unclassified spaces in the Pentagon and have worked across the hallway from the Pentagon press office, which has allowed them access to department spokespeople. Press badges signify that they have gone through a background check."
Click to expand...
I'd like to see an end of "Confidential sources speaking on conditions of anonymity" these un-official "sources" oft amount to someone's bullshit opinions offering little more than speculation without recourse for erroneous, damning, or dangerous information....Many things are secret for damn good reasons, plenty of other not.
 
Grimscale

Grimscale

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,067
Reaction score
15,781
Location
Rochester
FP1201 said:
I'd like to see an end of "Confidential sources speaking on conditions of anonymity" these un-official "sources" oft amount to someone's bullshit opinions offering little more than speculation without recourse for erroneous, damning, or dangerous information..
Click to expand...
I don't care if it is anonymous or not.
If someone is a whistle-blower you don't want to dox them.
If it's bullshit, THEN you dox them and put them in prison.

But if you cut off the avenues whereby someone can provide evidence of wrongdoing you will never know how much the .gov blows smoke up your ass.
 
FP1201

FP1201

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,296
Reaction score
10,600
Location
Adams, NY
Grimscale said:
I don't care if it is anonymous or not.
If someone is a whistle-blower you don't want to dox them.
If it's bullshit, THEN you dox them and put them in prison.

But if you cut off the avenues whereby someone can provide evidence of wrongdoing you will never know how much the .gov blows smoke up your ass.
Click to expand...
I so tire of the snewz stories quoting "anonymous sources" that end up being bullshit speculation or the cameraman in the shitter hearing part of a private conversation in the next stall and telling the Reported who runs with it for sensationalize story ratings, then there's the disgruntled/fired employee who twists the truth or really doesn't understand what's going on putting out their bullshit or giving away secrets that shouldn't be disclosed.

I've zero problem with "whistle Blowers" and the Laws that are supposed to protect them. (Obama admin was prosecuting and outing whistle blowers during his reign of terror) Bearing false witness should come with penalties strong enough to remind everyone why it's a bad idea to lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top