In a recent press briefing, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth vociferously confronted the media, lambasting them for their lack of unrestrained support for President Donald Trump. During a conversation centering around United States’ military actions against Iran, Hegseth accused the news organizations of not aligning with the Pentagon’s official perspective, suggesting they replace critique with patriotic zeal. His remarks echo previous Pentagon pleas for media support under the banner of national loyalty.
Hegseth expressed his discontent, saying the press seems genetically compelled to critique Trump, depicting their actions as stemming from an overwhelming desire to witness the President’s failure. The Secretary’s outburst was born from coverage that threw ambiguity around Trump’s assertion that prior US air strikes had effectively ‘annihilated’ Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
News portals such as The Intercept recently highlighted the doubts cast by present and past defense officials regarding Trump’s narrative. Following this, on Tuesday, multiple media entities shared data from an initial Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report. This report suggested the impact of the attacks was less significant, only halting Iran’s nuclear program by a few months.
Hegseth, during his second news conference, presumptuously stated that instead of celebrating the effectiveness of the strikes, the media gathers ‘half truths, spun information, leaked information’ to craft public perception about our military’s performance. However, it remains to be confirmed whether the U.S. attacks genuinely made a significant impact on Iran’s nuclear agenda – an agenda that, as per U.S. intelligence services, did not include an active nuclear weapons initiative.
‘From what I gather, we’ve only been able to delay Iran’s nuclear program by a few months,’ said Senator Chris Murphy, D-Conn., far from convinced, after Thursday’s classified briefing. ‘There’s no question that the program took a hit. However, the claim that we’ve completely knocked it out doesn’t seem to add up logically.’
Presidential dissatisfaction towards the press during contentious wars is not an anomaly. As the Vietnam War stretched into what seemed like an endless and hopeless conflict, an aggrieved President Lyndon Johnson expressed his resentment towards television networks’ coverage. ‘Given the chance, I can highlight Ho Chi Minh’s true nature on-air,’ he noted, referring to the leader of North Vietnam, further stating that the channels were portraying him unfavorably.
Attitudes of Johnson’s successor, Richard Nixon, were decidedly more acidic regarding the war coverage— he cut his criticism to the chase: ‘The press seems to be our greatest adversary!’ he snarled back in 1971.
In the mid-1960s, CBS News dispatched Morley Safer to Vietnam to report on the intensifying American conflict. In July, following a heated encounter in the village of Cam Ne which cost American Marines three lives and left four injured, Safer and his camera crew accompanied the troops back to the village the next month.
Safer conveyed the scene: Troops advanced towards the village, initiating fire. While it was suggested that they encountered retaliation, Safer reported that he didn’t witness it. Two soldiers among their group suffered injuries, supposedly due to ‘friendly fire’. The troops then proceeded to systematically incinerate each and every house in the village.
Despite the language barrier – no Vietnamese speakers were reportedly part of the American troops – homes in Cam Ne were set on fire. Some houses were forcefully evacuated, others were demolished by flamethrowers. In the end, around 150 homes were affected, two hamlets were completely leveled, and the ruins were further bombarded.
Official reports recorded that one child was fatally injured while four women were hurt. Despite this, it’s believed that the actual number of casualties may be much higher. The veracity and the full extent of the damage remain open questions.
Hegseth, at his own press briefing, championed the notion of American exceptionalism, urging the media to emphasize the country’s unique military capabilities. ‘Can we at least acknowledge and highlight the distinctive qualities America possesses, particularly our unique military prowess? Yet, I fear it might be too much to expect from the ‘fake news’,’ said a disappointed Hegseth.