Wait, Newsmax refused, the media outlet that makes Fox News look normal? Huh.
this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2025
270 points (100.0% liked)
politics
26064 readers
2810 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Washington Post and a few others as well, yes.
I’m also struggling to see the issue:
“News organizations pushed back, and the policy was revised last week to say that members of the media were not required to submit their writings, but that U.S. military personnel could face "adverse consequences" if they make unauthorized disclosures to reporters. Reporters could then be viewed as security risks and have their access revoked“
The military is covered under UCMJ and yes, you CAN get in trouble for leaking information. That’s literally part of the reason you have a security clearance, because you are saying you’re trustworthy enough to not leak shit.
The problem is that this has a chilling effect on reporters using anonymous sources for fear being blackballed by the govt.
Why would a reporter need security clearance? Their entire function is to report information. I don’t understand your point.
Holy fuck, when the batshit crazies are opposed then you know it is some absolute un-abashed balls to the wall lunacy.
This feels like a ....
turning point?
Bang
Grrrrraaagghhhhlll
I think more a gurgle.
Noooo CHARLIE
No. It was a simple school shooting. Thuts and prayts for all and move on.
Well I’m pretty sure he had drugs in his system so really it was his fault.
Newsmax is conservative enough to get media access whether they sign it or not; the goal of the policy is ultimately censorship, allowing the Pentagon to selectively enforce it against liberal and moderate publications that don't parrot their fascist propaganda.
This is about the “you have to get our permission to report anything” policy.
Newsmax said it had "no plans" to sign up to plans set out by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's department to restrict access to the Pentagon.
The main issue around the policy comes down to how information is shared with reporters. The initial plan called for all department information, whether classified or not, be run past Pentagon officials before an outlet could be allowed to publish an article.
News organizations pushed back, and the policy was revised last week to say that members of the media were not required to submit their writings, but that U.S. military personnel could face "adverse consequences" if they make unauthorized disclosures to reporters. Reporters could then be viewed as security risks and have their access revoked.
Does this mean the others meekly submitted? Or just that they're still running their options through their lawyers