"Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth demanded that reporters agree by 5 p.m. Tuesday to a new policy, under which they would need to pledge to not obtain or use any unauthorized material, even if the information is unclassified — or hand over their press badges in the next 24 hours. Media outlets say this is a violation of their First Amendment rights, and nearly every news outlet has refused to sign."

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5555797-media-outlets-decline-pentagon-policy/

Good.

Good.

So you like not having news coverage about the DOD? (All but one major network refused to agree to the new rules)

So you like not having news coverage about the DOD? (All but one major network refused to agree to the new rules)

That's not what's being reported.

The DoD is setting limits on what information the press can use if it was solicited and involves national security.  The signed documents are something the government lawyers now require people to sign whenever breaking set policies can result in criminal charges -- so you can't say you had no idea of the rules.  Everyone with a clearance has to sign a nondisclosure agreement.  I don't see this as any different.

All the pentagon wants to do is make sure information that's sensitive isn't being leaked for political points and financial gain.  Whistle blowing is one thing.  Fishing for dirt is another.

The Pentagon routinely puts out press releases to (1) make sure the facts presented have been vetted to be accurate and written for public consumption (fewer acronyms, etc.), and (2) review the material for sensitive information that may not be in the interest of national security to be made public.

If the news agencies choose to not play by the new rules, it is they who are denying the public news coverage off the military, not the DoD.

i can get the a number for a special reading tutor program.  Maybe it'll help, but I'm not optimistic.

So you like not having news coverage about the DOD? (All but one major network refused to agree to the new rules)

What does this response have to do with the topic?  Do you not understand that there are always alternative ways of getting accurate information?  I mean, look at all the fake news since 2016; luckily there are independent journalist who still report accurate things or things the fake news choose to down play.

That's not what's being reported.

The DoD is setting limits on what information the press can use if it was solicited and involves national security.  The signed documents are something the government lawyers now require people to sign whenever breaking set policies can result in criminal charges -- so you can't say you had no idea of the rules.  Everyone with a clearance has to sign a nondisclosure agreement.  I don't see this as any different.

All the pentagon wants to do is make sure information that's sensitive isn't being leaked for political points and financial gain.  Whistle blowing is one thing.  Fishing for dirt is another.

The Pentagon routinely puts out press releases to (1) make sure the facts presented have been vetted to be accurate and written for public consumption (fewer acronyms, etc.), and (2) review the material for sensitive information that may not be in the interest of national security to be made public.

If the news agencies choose to not play by the new rules, it is they who are denying the public news coverage off the military, not the DoD.

i can get the a number for a special reading tutor program.  Maybe it'll help, but I'm not optimistic.

If it is so minor and standard, why are nearly all the media walking out, even Fox news?

The new policy requires reporters to get official authorization for information before reporting on it, even if not classified. Maybe I missed the part in the first amendment of the freedom where it says they have to get permission to report a story about the military?

What does this response have to do with the topic?  Do you not understand that there are always alternative ways of getting accurate information?  I mean, look at all the fake news since 2016; luckily there are independent journalist who still report accurate things or things the fake news choose to down play.

All you said was good so I am trying to understand your position better by asking questions that would draw out a more articulate response.

If it is so minor and standard, why are nearly all the media walking out, even Fox news?

The new policy requires reporters to get official authorization for information before reporting on it, even if not classified. Maybe I missed the part in the first amendment of the freedom where it says they have to get permission to report a story about the military?

Did you even read the articles or watch the news?  FOX News as NOT the only one who didn't refuse to sign -- or what you call "walking out" ... walking out of where, exactly?  i'm not going to give you the answer, but the one organization was not FOX as you probably just assumed without checking.

That's not true.  you're pretending they have to get permission for any and all military/Pentagon information they use in stories.

The truth is, they still can use any information they obtain outside of Pentagon sources.  It's only information obtained from Pentagon/military sources which may or may not be sensitive enough to affect national security that they need to have reviewed.

The MSM is not interested in reporting the facts nor of protecting the individual citizens.  They are only interested in using the information they gather to hurt this administration, and that could include putting troops and weapons systems at risk by publishing information that assists our enemies -- as long as it makes Trump look bad.

Stop pretending the press has any lofty principles when they put out political stories.  They lied about Russia-gate.  They lied about Romney's taxes.  They lied about Hunter's laptop.  They lied about Biden's mental fitness.

Given the MSM's track record of fact-based, unbiased reporting lately, i personally wouldn't give any of them the time of day for fear it'll be misreported somehow.

All you said was good so I am trying to understand your position better by asking questions that would draw out a more articulate response.

My position is obvious.  How are you going to get a better understanding by asking a close ended question (yes/no)?  You of all people were taught about open and closed ended questioning.

For the uninformed and uneducated
https://www.dodcui.mil/CUI-Registry-New/

My position is obvious.  How are you going to get a better understanding by asking a close ended question (yes/no)?  You of all people were taught about open and closed ended questioning.

Your position is clear.  it's only unclear to someone who wants their position to be more right than yours even if yours is based on the real facts, not some left-wing interpretation that's meant to sway the reader against it.

Trump's policies are an open book.  it's the people pretending to read between the lines that sew the seeds of hatred and distrust for Trump and his policies.  In this case, their interpretation is it's an attempt to violate the First Amendment and to declare war on the corporate media.

The truth is much simpler.  They learned from their first term -- the press doesn't act in good faith with information they receive from reliable and honest sources in the administration.  Nor do they regard classified and sensitive information as anything more than a chance to scoop everyone else and embarass Trump for having leaks in his military.

If those are the rules so-called journalists want to play by, then Trump gets to use any and all legal means available to prevent them from winning.

Simple.

Hegseth is treating them like children and he is the babysitter.

The way these people have acted in the past I don't blame him.

He's keeping them professional, despite their efforts to do otherwise. 

My position is obvious.  How are you going to get a better understanding by asking a close ended question (yes/no)?  You of all people were taught about open and closed ended questioning.

Your position is obvious, your reasoning is not.

Did you even read the articles or watch the news?  FOX News as NOT the only one who didn't refuse to sign -- or what you call "walking out" ... walking out of where, exactly?  i'm not going to give you the answer, but the one organization was not FOX as you probably just assumed without checking.

That's not true.  you're pretending they have to get permission for any and all military/Pentagon information they use in stories.

The truth is, they still can use any information they obtain outside of Pentagon sources.  It's only information obtained from Pentagon/military sources which may or may not be sensitive enough to affect national security that they need to have reviewed.

The MSM is not interested in reporting the facts nor of protecting the individual citizens.  They are only interested in using the information they gather to hurt this administration, and that could include putting troops and weapons systems at risk by publishing information that assists our enemies -- as long as it makes Trump look bad.

Stop pretending the press has any lofty principles when they put out political stories.  They lied about Russia-gate.  They lied about Romney's taxes.  They lied about Hunter's laptop.  They lied about Biden's mental fitness.

Given the MSM's track record of fact-based, unbiased reporting lately, i personally wouldn't give any of them the time of day for fear it'll be misreported somehow.

I stated that Fox news did walk out, they refused to sign the agreement. Meaning it wasn't just left wing media upset.

Walking out of where? Their offices in the Pentagon. Packed their stuff and leaving.

It is not that I hold the press up as some beacon of integrity, they are definitely to blame for the bad reputation they have right now, rather it is steps the government is taking to make it harder for the press to do their job.

Your position is obvious, your reasoning is not.

Thanks for not answering well as u have no good one.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I stated that Fox news did walk out, they refused to sign the agreement. Meaning it wasn't just left wing media upset.

Walking out of where? Their offices in the Pentagon. Packed their stuff and leaving.

It is not that I hold the press up as some beacon of integrity, they are definitely to blame for the bad reputation they have right now, rather it is steps the government is taking to make it harder for the press to do their job.

So, why is it a problem to make the press' job harder when the press doesn't do their job to start with.  Most are politically biased and only care about smearing Trump and getting clicks.

You're criticizing Trump for breaking an already broken media. 

So, why is it a problem to make the press' job harder when the press doesn't do their job to start with.  Most are politically biased and only care about smearing Trump and getting clicks.

You're criticizing Trump for breaking an already broken media.

People are forgetting that this applies to all and not just the fake news.  Even the so called right wing news FOX/Newmax had to do this.

Thanks for not answering well as u have no good one.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

So you are avoiding the question. gotcha 

So, why is it a problem to make the press' job harder when the press doesn't do their job to start with.  Most are politically biased and only care about smearing Trump and getting clicks.

You're criticizing Trump for breaking an already broken media.

For starters you paint with too broad a brush. Yes a lot of the media is biased and has hurt the reputation of the media in general but that is not proof that "the press doesn't do their job". There are very much so good journalists doing a good job. Again, we can kick the media a lot and it deserves a lot of kicking but my concern is keeping the government accountable.

I remember when conservatives used to care about government accountability. How are we going to argue for firearm rights as a check against an authoritarian government then not care about government getting bigger and more secretive?