I’m not so much concerned about what the government “doesn’t want leaked” as I am about what should not be leaked because of national security concerns.
Note: The Hegseth action is not impacting the media in general. It just concern people within the DOD buildings. (To be blunt, I’m surprised we even give them offices and infrastructure of their own in the first place.) This allows a reporter to overhear something that the speaker isn’t even aware the reporter is hearing.
Media can (and still do) talk to anyone and everyone in parking lots and bars.
Providing office space (at DOD expense) is not part of “free press”. And office furniture. And whatever else it costs to provide for them in government buildings.
The DoD works for us. Why wouldn’t we want our tax dollars going toward something that is vital to our democracy - that being a free press telling us what is going on in one of the largest departments in our government?
I would agree on the purely political leaks. On leaks involving classified information that could be damaging to the country…investigate and prosecute.
The press offices are a red herring. What the real issue is, is the pledge Hegseth is demanding - reducing the press to stenographers, repeating the DoD press releases without real reporting.
Again, it is OUR tax dollars that funds the DoD. I think it’s a wise investment to use our tax dollars (and let’s be honest - what does a room in the pentagon cost relative to the DoD budget? 0.0000001%?) to give journalists access to the DoD so that we will be informed about how the significant pile of our dollars are being spent.
It’s just like the briefing room in the white house that we pay for. It’s good for us to have reporting on what is going on.
I don’t know why I’, struggling making this point. I’m gonna try again.
The government takes billions of our dollars and uses it in the DoD.
Those are our earnings and we deserve to know what they are doing with it. But the DoD isn’t always keen to tell us honestly, for various reasons. Some warranted (classified information, don’t want to risk operations), some nefarious (we’re illegally selling arms to fund the contras or what not).
So, to me, it makes all the sense in teh world to take a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of the spending (and come on…it a room in a giant office building and a couple of desks. It costs next to nothing) to put journalists in who’s job is enshrined in the constitution, so that they may help the citizens )who pay the full tab of the DoD ) know what is going on in there.
Does that make sense? You might not agree, but am I making the point clearly?
The office space allows them to do their job. And their job is a direct benefit to the citizens who fund the DoD. IT helps us know what they are doing with our money.
