Not sure why people haven't figured it out - bad news is only happening if it is reported. So if you could simply stop reporting the bad news, then they wouldn't be happening. Seems pretty obvious to me.
It's similar to testing in software development. The more tests you have, the more the tests can break. Therefore the ideal number of tests is zero - no tests, no red builds.
Not sure why people can't get with the program here.
I'm reminded of during the Iraq occupation how Dick Cheney scolded the media for not saying how great things were going and said how much he liked Fox's coverage. And how not long after it was no longer possible to deny that things had gone terribly wrong and things weren't actually so rosy.
"Instead of signing the new policy, the Times journalists — along with dozens of reporters from other outlets — turned in their press passes, opting to cover the military from outside the complex. The Pentagon later welcomed a reconstituted press corps consisting of pro-Trump commentators and influencers."
They literally do. There's been numerous cases of undercover cops manipulating mentally ill people into committing crimes they otherwise wouldn't have.
It was bad enough that the Pentagon hardly shares any bad news. When bad news gets exposed by third parties, e.g. strikes on US facilities and planes, also on Iran's schools and civilian buildings, the Pentagon only covers it up with lies or censure. Any organization that is not committed to spreading the truth is not a good organization, and suppression is worse.
The raid on Venezula and the strikes on Iran were some of the first military operations that didn't leak to the media that I can remember (with the exception of the Bin Laden raid I can't think of another big one during my lifetime?).
Both happened after they kicked journalists out of the Pentagon and I have to think that it played at least some role in the secrecy.
The earlier strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities before the change were leaked, though not the details of the mission, just that they were happening.
That's inaccurate. Several journalists had both advance and real-time knowledge of the raid on Venezuela, but chose to hold off on reporting out of journalistic ethics. [0]
Given the detail and depth of reporting into the initial strikes on Iran that emerged very shortly after, I would expect the same was true in that case too.
Banning journalists from the Pentagon doesn't prevent them from getting scoops and being leaked to. That was always a false justification for this move.
Not sure why people haven't figured it out - bad news is only happening if it is reported. So if you could simply stop reporting the bad news, then they wouldn't be happening. Seems pretty obvious to me.
It's similar to testing in software development. The more tests you have, the more the tests can break. Therefore the ideal number of tests is zero - no tests, no red builds.
Not sure why people can't get with the program here.
Reminds me of - Stop the testing to reduce Covid cases.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/23/trump-joking-slowin...
I remember thinking this was ridiculous when he said it. It's wild how it ended up being the ultimate approach.
I'm reminded of during the Iraq occupation how Dick Cheney scolded the media for not saying how great things were going and said how much he liked Fox's coverage. And how not long after it was no longer possible to deny that things had gone terribly wrong and things weren't actually so rosy.
Yep. Same reason going to the doctor is fatal. A cancer diagnosis is terrifying and correlates to dying of cancer. Why would anyone take the risk?
"Instead of signing the new policy, the Times journalists — along with dozens of reporters from other outlets — turned in their press passes, opting to cover the military from outside the complex. The Pentagon later welcomed a reconstituted press corps consisting of pro-Trump commentators and influencers."
----------
Limit badspeak. Boost goodspeak.
Crime, fraud, bribery, assaults, supreme court tampering, supreme court buy outs, government waste, the list is long for the program at hand.
In the same vein as, "it's the police who create crime."
They literally do. There's been numerous cases of undercover cops manipulating mentally ill people into committing crimes they otherwise wouldn't have.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqwJFuntco4
Not to mention planting evidence, fabricating claims made to the courts, and so on.
And coveting thy neighbor's lemon pound cake.
Just for context: the first policy was so bad that even Fox News wouldn’t go along with it.
https://archive.is/JOlEv
It was bad enough that the Pentagon hardly shares any bad news. When bad news gets exposed by third parties, e.g. strikes on US facilities and planes, also on Iran's schools and civilian buildings, the Pentagon only covers it up with lies or censure. Any organization that is not committed to spreading the truth is not a good organization, and suppression is worse.
What’s the diff with the new text? Only the word “solicitation” removed?
I hadn't realized the Times isn't going along with the DoD "de-brand". On this occasion, I will hand it to them.
[flagged]
This seems like the sanest solution.
Well it was nice to have at least some military actions that didn't leak ahead of time.
Reference? Or maybe expand on it a bit?
The raid on Venezula and the strikes on Iran were some of the first military operations that didn't leak to the media that I can remember (with the exception of the Bin Laden raid I can't think of another big one during my lifetime?).
Both happened after they kicked journalists out of the Pentagon and I have to think that it played at least some role in the secrecy.
The earlier strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities before the change were leaked, though not the details of the mission, just that they were happening.
That's inaccurate. Several journalists had both advance and real-time knowledge of the raid on Venezuela, but chose to hold off on reporting out of journalistic ethics. [0]
Given the detail and depth of reporting into the initial strikes on Iran that emerged very shortly after, I would expect the same was true in that case too.
Banning journalists from the Pentagon doesn't prevent them from getting scoops and being leaked to. That was always a false justification for this move.
[0]: https://www.npr.org/2026/01/05/nx-s1-5667060/media-shows-res...
It also helps that they’ve figured out how to not invite journalists directly to classified operational signal group chats