Consider the power of this statement then: if they were ok with all of those things and now they draw a line that means that things have gotten much, much worse than they were before.

It's pretty hard to take someone who is pointing at journalists embedded in combat units as examples of a deficit of backbone in that industry seriously.

>They've been towing the Pentagon/S.D. line, getting privileged official "leaks", going to wars as "embedded" shills, for decades.

It's difficult to see those on the same plane really. There's spineless and there's spineless. The official "leaks" as theatre as it was, occasionally functioned as soft checks and balances for revealing in-fighting amongst the different departments of goverment -- when the pentagon, white house, CIA were at odds with each other over strategy and tactics on some topic-- and often this was used as narrative fodder for both the left and right.

As for the embeds, at least they saw some shit and had skin in the game by being near the action. Some of them actually died on assignment. Lıke, what the fuck are we talking about here? And when you have Israel not letting any reporters into Gaza I have little confidence Trump won't take a page out of that playbook if he gets the US in some ground conflict either.

So you have administrations that allowed all that in the past, and you have this snowflake administration who's afraid of some questions being asked on a golf course in Florida.

>SecDef is, at best, an idiot. At worst, he’s compromised

He acts like every other person (myself included) that i know that had a serious alcohol problem and is now somewhat relapsed but still looks funny at his favorite drink. With a guy like this you literally never know what the clear liquid in the glass bottle is.

But that's a separate issue, different circumstances and, mostly, different people. Similar to how they (in part) reported during epidemic.

But now they did something good and it's somehow nullified by the other things?

Also: You are promoting that we keep a grudge. Are you planning to let go of it sometime?

> There will always be one journalist without any moral qualms that’ll stay

They’re outed as stooges. That doesn’t matter to the influencer crowd. But I bet this costs the DoD a lot of narrative-shaping power.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0900636106

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1212126109

https://sjdm.org/~baron/journal/14/14715/jdm14715.html

> making a scoop

The chances of making that via a White House press conference is pretty close to zero.

>Game theory applies here.

Rely on traditional trade craft. A bouncing bevy of brothel, escort service, deepthroats; historically and dramatized, is a staid and proven primary source.

...so why did they unite in this case?

Only the one? Found the optimist.. ;)

[flagged]

It's less about having an effect but all about moral integrity. They want to signal that they still abide to their professional standards in order to keep their reputation among their peers and the public, those who aren't gleichgeschaltet (yet).

> And I don't have any doubts that the Pentagon will also quickly find enough "warm bodies" (besides those from OANN)

You mean like Tim Pool lol?

Could you, in a million years, ever imagine seeing his face in the White House briefing room? We're a pathetic country right now.

> (how do I write this in a way that won't get me downvoted?)

It’s sad that your speech has been chilled by the misuse of the karma system by some large faction of users here.

> The press corps is already 50% right wing

This is supposed to be unfair?

Here is Tom Bowman’s (NPR’s lead defense reporter) opinion article where he mentions wandering the halls of the Pentagon

https://www.npr.org/2025/10/14/g-s1-93297/pentagon-reporter-...

If you don’t quote it out of context you’ll see that a) he doesn’t have any problems with not having physical access to parts of the pentagon and b) the quote was part of a broader anecdote where generals contradicted the secretary of defense.

The new pledge would not allow him to report that disagreement. Which is extremely telling.

They wouldn't have full access, but yes, journalists should be able to ask anyone anything. Asking is legal, and it's up to the person being asked to not say anything that a journalist isn't supposed to know.

What bad things have happened from what you're describing?

> This will not be allowed anymore and, considering it's the Pentagon, doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I do love that despite the administration lying about everything there are still people who will take what they say at face value without a shred of critical thinking.

They're doing this because people keep leaking unflattering pieces of information and Petey gets his feelings hurt pretty quickly. It has nothing to do with security, and everything to do with control.

What is the right structure for the Ministry of Truth?

Lol you're making it out like the individual reporters make these calls. If anyone stayed it's because their employer believes there's money to be made in staying. The end.

I can buy that. But even then, I've seen plenty of videos where one person is just commenting on another video, so even for those influencers… they can do it without actually showing up.

Edit: I suspect you're right anyway. Typical mind fallacy on my part, as there have been people giving anecdotal stories of DOGE recruiters offering them a pay cut relative to their current roles just for the chance to do that work and get DOGE on their CVs, recruiters very confused that the response was that DOGE would be seen as a negative by future employers.

Then how are you different than the "press release" page on Pentagon website?

“Information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified,”

I don't doubt they're doing access journalism, but being part of the press pool wasn't really an element of that it the past. When's the last time a journalist got kicked out of the Pentagon? The access journalism is usually about what happens behind the scenes (e.g. embarrass someone in the Pentagon and you won't be getting off the record statements).

Secwar, right?

> Since nobody is protesting now

Not the case, there are quite large protests, one is this weekend I believe.

As for disappearances, ICE is already doing that. Although in Chicago their attempts to disappear people are going increasingly poorly, since ICE's appearance in a neighborhood now typically draws dozens of people onto the street to protest.

And Russia of course.

I used to share your opinion, but were to the point where it’s difficult to say it’s dumb luck. Look at the amount of change and impact they’ve had on the country in such a short period - it feels wrong to say that chance/luck/whatever rather than intentional, planned, and skilled manipulation.

It's not really rocket science though.

I do think the HN and tech community is a more diverse group, than just the ultra libertarians, opportunists, and outright fascists. Maybe that's just my naive hope. In any case I would also like to know how US based techies think about this administration and the direction the country is heading in.

People keep saying this, but have you actually asked 100 people yourself and found at least 33 agreeing?

I don't get why California doesn't just join the European Union and exit the US; it's not like the red neck states like California.

Trump is affecting the economy of other countries. The tariffs and the massive uncertainty is causing layoffs and makes companies more hesitant to invest.

The destruction of US scientific institutions has effects on other countries as well, science is very interconnected. It also affects all companies that supply scientific equipment and supply.

The foreign policy has effects on other countries, the US is still the most powerful nation at the moment. And let's assume that there is a chance his threats to invade Greenland or Canada are actually acted upon, that would change world politics in a fundamental way.

Not who you're asking, but the extreme changes in US foreign policy (well, maybe not necessarily policy because I doubt there's much paperwork going on to make the rapidly swinging changes official) are affecting, basically, the stability of global security and making US allies very nervous.

Whilst this is at an international political level, it has effects on individuals world views and therefore psychologies, which can be experienced viscerally.

As an obvious example, I'm sure Ukrainians have gone through some personal ups and downs as a result of the current administrations interpretation of diplomacy.

Every country in the world is severely affected by Trump's reversal of climate change policy.

That would be very funny if it weren't disturbingly close to the truth.

And when people do talk about politics it's exactly the kind of hot takes you'd expect from people who think they're very smart (and probably are when it comes to choosing a database) but are completely uninformed about the current topic and only capable of parroting referred opinions, or making statements they expect the group to agree with. Nobody comes out of the conversation smarter than they went in.

Honestly, I think it's better that we do keep conversation here to shiny technology. If you want to talk politics, go and find a group of people who know what they're talking about. That way you might learn something.

In fairness, the LLMs are also inflammatory.

For the record, I’m also dog tired of hearing about LLMs as well…

But LLMs are great piece of technology and closest analogue to the AGI in past 30 years! It's truly a gamechanging future technology.

... And, incidentally, knowing that my value judgements are as broken and human tangential as Borg transwarp control computers, I know that it's a massive bubble that is going to financially ruin absolutely everybody.

The people who say that mostly support Trump, but are just embarrassed to say so in public.

People being grabbed off the streets and transported to prison in unrelated country is what you voted for?

Thank you for being brave enough to speak up and say that this is what you voted for.

How do you feel it squares with the Constitution?

Are immigrants bankrupting / destroying the country?

Should the Democrats give up their attempts to prevent health premiums from doubling next year?

Do you believe the Democrats want to fund healthcare for illegal immigrants?

Are you 100% supportive of the way ICE has been going about their business?

Do you believe Portland is a war zone?

Do you believe the US can compete with China in manufacturing?

Did Russia start the war with Ukraine?

If it came to choosing sides would you choose Russia or Ukraine, or should the US extract themselves from it entirely? (passively choosing Russia)

Is inflation over?

Should the Fed be cutting rates?

Is the economy booming?

Would it be possible to briefly list what you voted him for?

Thank you for your vote. Its great to see Pax Americana dissolve in real time.

lol

You're admitting that you wanted to vote for a guy who is committing an unprecedented amount of corruption? Taking bribes via his own personal bitcoin?

You wanted a President that pardons people who give him money? lol. Really?

Or have the guy who had a literal brainworm and doesn't believe in germs determining American's health? lol

Did you vote to have a WWF person run the dept of education? Are you an adult with a functioning brain?

You voted for a recession lol.

You voted for tanking an economy and prices getting higher lol

You voted to have college students writing op-eds critical of Israel deported (No offense, get out of this country if you don't think people should have the right to criticize any government they want)

You voted for the guy who wants to jail people for burning the flag

You voted for the guy who wants to take away news licenses because they;re mean to him

You voted to have more expensive healthcare

You voted to have all our allies abandon us and laugh at his speeches

You voted for a pedophile. Like an actual pedophile. Congrats on bragging about that one.

You voted to have coal mines reopened lololloooollollo and for the people who don't think solar energy is renewable because it can be nighttime too hahahahahahahahahahah

What is it lke having the worldview of a toddler?

You must be bummed out that your party didn't get a candidate that follows your morals and values and on top of all that is a convicted felon.

Wouldn't you have wanted a better candidate?

So you want a dictator? You want random tariffs based on Trump's gut feeling? You want foreign-looking US citizens to be detained at will by ICE? You want every part of the government to be corrupt, rampant insider trading based on political decisions? You want a government that retaliates against companies and people it doesn't like, and uses the force of the government to harrass them?

> Everything I've seen so far from Trump is what I voted for.

Did you always have fascist tendencies or did Trump bring them out?

ap99 The replies here are why politics should not be discussed here. You said nothing wrong, but the replies are ridiculous. They summarize down to something like "When did you start becoming a Nazi" or "When did you start liking pedophiles, are you also a pedophile?"

About 77 million people voted for Trump in 2024, that is 22% of the US population. He is actually far more unpopular than people think.

They didn't resign.

They turned in their badges that allows them to access certain spaces in the pentagon. They're still reporters, they still work for their employers, and they can still do reporting.

I don't think they should resign, I just want to be clear that this is taking a stand which won't cost them their pay.

> I remember how then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was ecstatic after the fall of Baghdad in 2003, insisting that it showed the success of the U.S. invasion. Not long after, I ran into an officer at the Pentagon who told me, "No, Tom. It's not a success. Saddam Hussein's supporters are attacking our supply lines. Now, we have to send more troops back to guard them." That was because the United States, at Rumsfeld's insistence, never sent an adequate number of forces to Iraq to begin with — a fact another Army general warned me about, unsolicited — and I reported on, before the war even began.

> Instead of toeing the official line, that reporting helped people understand what U.S. troops were really facing. Far from being a success, the fall of Baghdad marked the beginning of an insurgency that stretched on for years.

https://www.npr.org/2025/10/14/g-s1-93297/pentagon-reporter-...

> They’ve started bombing fishermen

The word you're looking for is 'murdering'.

[flagged]

If you identify sufficiently with the people giving you the article to publish, it's not a "they" but an "us". Even if the decisions are taken in rooms you don't have access to.

Maybe they think they'll get access to them eventually if they're loyal.

It might seem cowardly, but it isn't that different to what happens every day in business. Society is full of organisations working on the "make the boss' opinions your own" principle.

What is the point of being a Developer (except for easy money and not having to do anything other than copy + paste) if you are only allowed to "code", word for word, the feature specifications ("user stories") they give you to build?

They're still allowed to write whatever they want, they just won't be invited to Christmas parties anymore.

> I think people are being slightly hyperbolic.

People are not being hyperbolic. This is reducing the transparency of Pentagon to the American people. See also the Whitehouse banning the AP earlier this year.

> It's basically stating that if a news outlet publishes unauthorized information then they won't be allowed access to the Pentagon.

Without access it's going to be very hard to do good reporting, adversarial or otherwise. This is the government working to control what is said.

> You're generally going to be reluctant to frame entities that you have a positive relationship with in a negative way. And this agreement is essentially formalizing adversarialness.

The world is built on relationships. One of the keys of being a good journalist/reporter is being able to have relationships which help to build stories while also staying objective.

I get the same feeling, but I don't think I can justify the feeling.

IMO at best this is frogs* jumping out of water that was boiled too fast.

* an idiom based on a stupid truth, as the real frogs were sans-brain at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

>if they sought to report on information — classified or otherwise — that had not been approved by Hegseth for release.

Any information that isn't approved by Hegseth is unauthorized. In other words, only what Hegseth allows could be written.

To call the bad would be an understatement.

The rules were updated on Oct6 to allow media outlets to report using any information even if classified and unapproved for release, as long as they didn't solicit it or were given it with the premise that it won't be released.

So if they were to be approached by a whistleblower or happened to hear the right conversation or find the right documents, it'd be fair game.

I like your reasoning. There’s nothing stopping a news outlet from publishing anything other than the clearly outlined consequences. In a similar vein there’s nothing stopping anybody from finding out what happens if you swallow a D battery but for some reason none of my friends are doing that

Hey you’re on a roll, don’t stop there. How does Apple respond to FOIA requests?

They’re not subject to FOIA you say? Perhaps there’s a difference to the organizations after all.

What possible relevance does what companies do have? I can't believe you're arguing this in good faith.

Apple doesn't demand ideological conformity from news oganizations before letting their reporters in, no.

Apple is neither a state nor a democracy. The journalists and the government are there to aserve the same boss: the people. Now one of the people's employees sabotages the work the other employee.

If Apple had the ability to deploy military forces on behalf of my democratically elected government I'd actually be pretty concerned with them locking out the press too.

Apple doesn't require you to pay a significant portion of you paycheck to them either.

You are right, Apple should have its own nukes and bombers.

Apple is a private company that answers to shareholders. The DoD is a government department that used to answer to the people.

Apple doesn't own a monopoly on violence. Your argument doesn't carry any weight.

For Apple that makes sense as there are financial damages. Can/should the US be able to sue for defamation if the claims aren't libel?

Governments are companies now? The capitalism brain rot is in its final stages

> "“Information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified,” the directive states. The signature form includes an array of security requirements for credentialed media at the Pentagon."

https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-press-media-restrictions...

Your position amounts to "but ma' America Special".

If the ICC is good enough for Laurent Gbagbo, its good enough for Obama, Bush, Biden, Trump and Clinton.

The ICC delivers one thing Americans refuse to deliver: justice for victims of war crimes.

That this is not obvious, or prioritised, clearly belies the situation vis a vis American Exceptionalism.

Isn't that easily circumvented by being antonymous source to a colleague that is not accredited?

> often in combination with Jewish-controlled also as pejorative.

Am I alone in thinking that "woke" was the catch-all for the enemy this time around?

Not only that, fake news is basically lugenpresse as Hitler called them.

Yes, calling the media liars is a thing the Nazis did. However, it's not a good reason to equate someone with Nazis because lots of other people from all parts of the political spectrum have called the media liars from time to time. And a number of times, the media has even deserved it. I challenge anyone who disagrees to go take a dive in historical newspaper archives.

Fox News and OAN are part of the press. Do you think they're honest?

I'd be surprised if anyone believed everything the press said. It doesn't even seem possible as different press outlets will say conflicting things. But even if someone did, that isn't really an argument that a free press is an enemy of world peace so I'm not seeing how your point is related.

Even more fun when we add the dimension for press ownership.

Who owned the presses when Jefferson or FDR or even Reagan discussed the role of the press; who owns it now?

Diversity and the (political/social) range of press is an important aspect of this matter.

And then there’s Nixon.

The issue comes in theory vs practice. Obviously in theory a free press is absolutely key to a free society, but in practice the press often ends up with different motivations. Another, rather more famous comment from Jefferson on the press [1]:

---

"To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, "by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only." Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood.

Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knolege with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables.

General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will, &c., &c.; but no details can be relied on. I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.

Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into 4 chapters, heading the 1st, Truths. 2d, Probabilities. 3d, Possibilities. 4th, Lies. The first chapter would be very short, as it would contain little more than authentic papers, and information from such sources as the editor would be willing to risk his own reputation for their truth. The 2d would contain what, from a mature consideration of all circumstances, his judgment should conclude to be probably true. This, however, should rather contain too little than too much. The 3d & 4th should be professedly for those readers who would rather have lies for their money than the blank paper they would occupy."

Thomas Jefferson, 1807 [1]

---

[1] - https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_sp...

Doesn’t make it any less crazy

I'll take a a free press over an authoritarian controlled one any day. A boot stamping on a human face forever is not the kind of world peace I'm interested in, even if it's my boot. But I can understand the allure for a certain kind of person.

[flagged]

[flagged]

The media is called the fourth estate (not 5th). A 5th column would be more like sleeper cells.

And the media lies at least as much as our government. That's why ratings are so far down. They have burned their credibility that previous generations of journalists spent decades building up.

That is only part of the story, not the full story, where journalists and CIA analysts get together and determine the truth. you've seen the video Snowden posted about this? It is a known reality. Why hide it behind the facade of a free press? There are many dimensions to this story, including Zionist bias by mainstream "journalists" that told you there was no genocide and Israel is a victim, and they've kept up that lie even after the UN declared it a genocide.

[flagged]

The news article is interesting, but political discussions on HN rarely are.

In (Part One), sure.

In (Part Two) it was external actors laying bricks that isolated Waters' protaganist, and in (Part Three) cause passes the Rubicon as everyone and everything is lumped together as just more bricks in the wall.

Not at the time but they later said it could be applied to more

Accountable in what sense? How are journalists trying to pry extra info from staff helpful? If they want to ask questions at press conferences and whatnot - as far as I understand they still can?

> Without proper press access how is there any real accountability?

No.

Real accountability is that the people can torture their leaders when they fail, but that just doesn't happen anymore.

Imagine that this was just a big rock and Trump was sitting on top of the rock like with a group of apes. Also, let's assume that Trump had set fire on the entire banana supply. Do you think the apes would not have picked a different leader immediately?

Rational people would understand that if you make people lose billions that there should be consequences, but someone the world population is more stupid than a bunch of apes.

isn't what they're doing at the pentagon essentially getting people to leak stuff?