Pentagon Reporter Mocks Censorship, Not Who Benefits
This saga of Hegseth's 'anti-First Amendment' policies, and Barbara Starr's 'lazy emoji' jab (from The Independent's report), misses the real censorship. While they chase clicks on Hegseth's access demands, they ignore how defense contractors, think tanks funded by said contractors, and foreign lobbying groups quietly shape what Pentagon reporters ARE allowed to see, hear, and print. The real
'brave' act would be for a mainstream outlet to trace the millions Northrop Grumman gave to the Atlantic Council, then ask if said council's 'expert' analyses on escalating conflicts are entirely objective. Or, better yet, investigate the $450,000 AIPAC spent lobbying in Q1 2024 alone , as per OpenSecrets.org, while Congress debates unconditional aid. That's real press restriction; it just doesn't
come with emojis. One might wonder if the media's outrage is reserved for visible 'threats' to access, rather than the insidious, moneyed interests that ensure certain narratives — like unending, profitable wars — go unquestioned. Is it truly a free press when the stories they aren't allowed to cover, or are subtly steered away from, are exponentially more damaging than Pete Hegseth's tantrum?
Truly brave.