Covering the Pentagon, from Sy Hersh to Laura Loomer

In the wake of reporting about potential war crimes at sea, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth lobbed shots at the Messenger.

You sit in your air-conditioned offices or up on Capitol Hill and you nitpick and you plant fake stories in the Washington Post about kill everybody. From WNYC in New York, this is on the media.

I'm Michael Owinger. The bombshell story came out just as a brand new Pentagon Press Corps showed up for work.
They're pumped.

Tim Poole said, you know, we're not investigative reporters, so just essentially signaling right from the start that they didn't intend to do investigative journalism.

Plus, a new documentary about Seymour Hirsch, who's lurking in the Pentagon hallways during the Vietnam War, led to the scoop of a lifetime.

Instead of going to lunch with my colleagues, I would go find young officers. Eventually, Army guys just start saying, well, you know, it's murder incorporated there.
It's all coming up after this.

WNYC Studios is supported by USA for UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency. Families fleeing war often arrive in camps hungry, cold, and exhausted.

UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, provides emergency relief like hygiene kits with soap, clean water, and shelter materials to displaced families worldwide.

For more information, visit UNrefugees.org/slash WNYC. From WNYC in New York, this is on the media.
Brooke Gladstone is out this week. I'm Micah Loewinger.

On Thursday morning, the New York Times announced that it's suing the Pentagon.

The lawsuit names the Defense Department, Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell as the defendants.

The lawsuit seeks to repeal the new press policy, with the New York Times calling it a violation of free press's right to seek information under their First and Fifth Amendment rights.

The crackdown on the Pentagon press comes after almost a year of reports about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's fumbles and missteps.

Most recently, a bombshell story surrounding the White House's deadly strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats. The Washington Post has an exclusive.

They say that Secretary Pete Hegseth gave an order to, quote, kill everybody in the first strike on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean back in September.

Now, after an initial strike on the vessel left two people alive and clinging to the burning wreckage of the boat, a second strike on the stricken vessel was taken in order to carry out Hegseth's wishes.

Since that first strike in early September, the U.S. has carried out at least 21 more, killing more than 80 people.

There are serious questions about whether these attacks fall within the rules governing armed conflicts. But this second strike, which some are calling a double tap, raises yet more questions.

Now, the Post's article contains analysis from a former military lawyer named Todd Huntley, who says, quote, even if the U.S.

were at war with the traffickers, an order to kill all the boat's occupants, if they were no longer able to fight, would in essence be an order to show no quarter, which would be a war crime, end quote.

And it gives me no pleasure to say what I'm about to say because I worked with Pete Hikseth for seven or eight years at Fox News. This is an act of a war crime.

Former Fox talking head Andrew Napolitano speaking on the pro-Trump Newsmax. Ordering survivors who the law requires be rescued instead to be murdered.
There's absolutely no legal basis for it.

The White House's response has been muddled. The day of the attack, back in September, President Trump posted a video of the boat being struck the first time.

The second strike had been redacted and made it sound like he was all over it. We just

over the last few minutes literally shot out a

boat. A day later, Defense Secretary Hegseth sounded equally in the know.
I watched it live. We knew exactly who was in that boat.
We knew exactly what they were doing.

Then the Washington Post published its story on November 28th.

Last Sunday, when asked about the story, President Trump told reporters, We'll look into it, but no, I wouldn't have wanted that, not a second strike.

The first strike was very lethal. It was fine.
And if there were two people around, but Pete said that didn't happen.

On Monday, Press Secretary Caroline Levitt drew attention to another guy.

With respect to the strikes in question, on September 2nd, Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes.

To clarify, Admiral Bradley was the one who gave that order for a second strike. And he was well within his authority to do so.
So it sounds like there was a second strike.

But was Admiral Bradley following Hegseth's instructions when he gave that order? And who knew about it? Pete didn't know about a second attack having to do with two people.

President Trump at a cabinet meeting on Tuesday alongside Pete Hegseth. Later in that same meeting, Hegseth himself indicated he actually did know about the strike.

He said that after watching the first one live, he left the room. A couple of hours later, I learned that that commander had made the, which he had the complete authority to do.

And by the way, Admiral Bradley made the correct decision to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat. So you didn't see any survivors, to be clear, after that first strike?

I did not personally see survivors, but I stand because the thing was on fire. It was exploded in fire and smoke.
You can't see anything. You got digital.

This is called the fog of war. Which those reporters would understand if they just stepped outside once in a while.

You sit in your air-conditioned offices or up on Capitol Hill and you nitpick and you plant fake stories in the Washington Post about kill everybody phrases on anonymous sources not based in anything, not based in any truth at all.

On Thursday, a handful of lawmakers saw the full video of the strike, including the portion where the two surviving men were killed. Democratic Congressman Jim Himes.

Dan Lamoth is one of those nitpicking journalists Pete Hegseth was berating this week.

He contributed to the Washington Post reporting on the second strike, and until recently, he had had a desk at the headquarters of the Department of Defense, where he covered the U.S.

military and the Pentagon. In October, he and most of the press corps walked out.
Dan, welcome to the show. Thanks.
Appreciate it.

You spent 12 years as a member of the Pentagon Press Corps, meaning that you had a desk in the Pentagon.

You were credentialed to go to Pentagon press briefings and to and to speak with federal workers there.

But you, alongside every other news organization in the the building other than One American News Network, were kicked out in mid-October after you refused to sign an agreement that would restrict the kinds of reporting that you could do there.

I want to ask you about that agreement and your decision not to sign it in a minute. But first, tell me about your last day at the Pentagon.
How did it feel to just leave it all behind?

It had a kind of a surreal feel. And for me, it kind of came in waves this year.
Back in March, they revoked the specific desk that the Washington Post had, along with several other outlets.

So I cleaned out my desk way back then.

But my last day was actually the day before you saw a lot of the other reporters walk out, ironically, because I was asked to go up to New York City for a press freedom dinner with some other Washington Post people.

So, yeah, I had to turn in my badge, say my goodbyes. I took a photograph in front of the

steps and the Department of Defense sign that was up at the time. And yeah, I haven't been back in the Pentagon since October 14th, 15th.

The rules around reporting there have been changing for a while. There were already areas of the building that you couldn't visit without an escort, right?

I'd heard that maybe the McDonald's was off limits. There have always been parts of the building that were off limits.

The hallways are kind of common spaces, and then there are locks on many rooms in the building. And then there are places where we are openly welcomed and invited.

It would not be uncommon for me to walk 10 minutes to get to the Army because the building's that big and drop in on Army Public Affairs or walk across the hallway and go see the joint staff.

Like there were places that had been sort of welcoming and accepted spots that the media would go.

Over time this year, they had restricted those spaces basically down to the

office space specifically where the press sat, the adjacent adjacent office where the public affairs officers specifically for Hegset's team sat, and the briefing room when it was actually unlocked, which was rare because they didn't really brief.

So you're kind of restricted down to 5%, 10% of the building. And as recently as a year ago, we probably had access to

70% of the footprint, something like that.

Why do you think they had been shutting off your physical access to so many of these spaces?

For a lot of years, we had people running the Pentagon from both parties who kind of often had spent time around it previously. There's sort of an expertise there.

There's sort of a lived experience there where you're like, all right, I'm used to seeing a reporter around the corner when I'm in the hallway.

And I think this team came in with a different set of experiences. They had not been around the Pentagon nearly as much.

And they seem to take exception right away to the idea that the media would be so co-located with them.

And then I think on top of that, there have been really since the day Secretary Hagseth was first nominated and going forward, there were so many stories that were frustrating to him.

And that goes back to the confirmation period where his own sexual assault allegations came up, his infidelity came up, his past drinking came up, and that all gets pushed into the limelight because you've been nominated for a cabinet position.

You have to vet these people. He took the job quite angry at the media writ large, and in particular, the media that had covered his confirmation.
By March, you're dealing with SignalGate.

By April, you're dealing with several staff members that he fired, accused of leaking.

All these months later, there's no actual sense that they leaked classified information, which is what the allegation was publicly on television.

And then you move into this weird spot of numerous people getting fired. All of those stories create churn.

And then more recently, you're dealing with these strikes, which are obviously contentious in their own right. So it's just a whole calendar year at this point of challenging, difficult stories.

The media is not the one that picks those stories. Those are events that are happening all in front of us.
And it would be derelict for the media not to be covering those things.

But of course, shooting the messenger is just so easy. During your time at the Pentagon, how often would you get a good story, a good scoop, a good lead from just walking around and talking to people.

Did that access translate to good journalism?

Being in the building was helpful for building relationships, which come in really handy on these contentious stories, by the way.

When you actually know somebody and have talked about their kids playing Little League, and now you got to deal with a difficult story the following day, that helps.

But rarely do you ever get pulled aside in a hallway. and some big secret is spilled to you.
There's times where they'll be like, hey, I might have something for you tomorrow.

Just by virtue of being in the building, you're in the loop on things that they're already planning to roll out.

But it's way more of that than it is state secrets getting handed out in line at the McDonald's.

Since you've all left the Pentagon, a crop of right-wing influencers have replaced you, the new so-called Pentagon Press Corps.

And of course, these influencers signed that agreement from the Pentagon, limiting their access to different parts of the building, limiting their ability to do certain kinds of reporting in exchange for access to press briefings.

Give me a little bit more information about what exactly they've agreed to.

The new restrictions that were presented to the traditional press corps came somewhat out of left field.

There had been some thought that they might crack down again after the earlier restrictions on how freely you could walk in the unclassified spaces in the building.

But when it actually came to us, for me, the challenge was, if you're asking me to sign up front an agreement that says I will not solicit information and not only classified information, but basically anything nebulously stated as defense information,

that could be virtually anything. It could be arbitrarily applied.
It struck me as problematic, ethically and otherwise, as a journalist.

Basically, this said that if you solicited information from a Pentagon worker who was not authorized to speak or information that was not authorized to be released, then you could lose access to the facilities.

You could lose access.

There was also vague language in there that felt pretty threatening to sources as well, which is to say, if they spoke to you even about unclassified matters, let's say front office knife fights between the HEGSAF team, like there was a lot of that sort of stuff stuff this year as well.

That could potentially get someone fired, prosecuted, disciplined. The concern was at least there that they were going to go after people that were just trying to explain what's actually happening.

So I saw that as a concern.

And I think the issue that wasn't lost on me as we looked at this, if you're going to tell me I can only get information that is coming through certain people authorized to speak, and then the people authorized to speak never brief, never answer a question with any kind of substance, where's that leave us?

What's the point? With all that said, the job this year already had shifted a great deal.

I spend more time on my phone in the evenings than I ever have because you're catching people when they're available. Tradecraft matters a great deal right now.

I think you have to be careful with how you're speaking to people and protect your sources. You know, you soldier on, you deal with the job as it is.

What's it been like for you watching a group of internet-famous right-wing influencers sit in your seat, begin calling themselves the Pentagon Press Corps after signing that agreement that you refused to sign.

I think the only thing that was surreal to the point of it being kind of a viral meme this week was multiple members of this new press corps all claiming to have the Washington Post desk.

Your old desk. Right.
And as I mentioned, I cleaned that desk out months ago. Who said they had your desk?

I mean, Laura Loomer was the one that was probably most widely seen, but I mean, several other people all posted photographs saying they were sitting in the Washington Post desk.

So they were all assigned, they were all assigned the same desk. I don't understand.

I mean, I didn't really understand it either. I mean, I took it kind of as mockery or an attempt at trolling.
It's cool. I'm doing my job.
They want to spike the football.

They can, but that's where we are. You're working now outside the Pentagon.
How has that affected the ability to do your job?

There are people who have specifically come to us this year, come to me this year and said, I don't talk to the media, but I can't believe what I'm seeing.

And I want to talk to you about this specific subject. It's a unique moment where more people are inspired or inclined to speak up than normal.

It used to be common to kind of see the media going back and forth on issues of the day on camera a couple times a week. It's not the be all end all, but it's a baseline.

It's a starting point for what's happening, how a trillion dollar department with a couple million people on the taxpayer dime are doing their jobs. These operations can be dangerous.

People do die in accidents, in firefights, and

aircraft crashes.

So only talking about what they want to

is

never really going to be the answer, I think, for the majority of the media.

Dan, thank you very much. Thank you.

Dan Lamothe covers the U.S. military and the Pentagon for the Washington Post.

Coming up, we meet the new Pentagon Press Corps. This is on the media.

WNYC Studios is supported by Apple TV.

It's 1972. A young British family is attempting to sail around the world when disaster strikes.
Their boat is hit by killer whales and it sinks in seconds.

All they have left is a life raft and each other.

This is the true story of the Robertson family and their fight to survive, hosted by me, Becky Milligan. Listen to Adrift, an Apple original podcast produced by Blanchard House.

Follow and listen on Apple podcasts.

Alaska is a state at the forefront of our nation's issues. It's a place where climate change is undeniably altering the landscape.
These villages have been completely devastated.

Resource development and international relations are local issues. It's a disgrace to see that Putin's on this land right now.
And fat bears are celebrities.

I just started joining every fat bear group that I could find.

Catch the latest top stories from the 49th state on Alaska News Nightly every weeknight, wherever you get your podcasts or at alaskapublic.org.

who inadvertently accepted Russian funding for his YouTube content, and outlets like Lindell TV, owned by the My Pillow guy, Mike Lindell, who lost a lawsuit brought by a former employee of Dominion Voting Systems for defamation over the 2020 election, and Gateway Pundit, a far-right conspiracy outlet, also still being sued by that same former Dominion employee.

Anna Merlin covers extremism and conspiracy peddlers as a senior reporter at Mother Jones. So she's more than familiar with a lot of those people.

She told me that just about everyone present in the Pentagon briefing room had happily agreed to the Defense Department's new policies.

They're pumped. When these new rules were first announced, people like Tim Poole essentially said, you know, we're not investigative reporters.

So just essentially signaling right from the start that they didn't intend to do investigative journalism about the Pentagon or the Department of Defense.

Others have said, you know, that these rules are reasonable and that, you know, the previous media in the building wouldn't agree to them just because they were biased against the president.

It's what you would expect. Of course, the reason we're speaking is that this is the week that the new press corps was welcomed to the Pentagon.

The Pentagon's deputy press secretary, Kingsley Wilson, was the person who fielded questions from the new Pentagon Corps.

You reported on Wilson herself earlier this year, calling her a, quote, overt internet troll with a long history of bigoted, xenophobic, and deliberately provocative shit posting.

What did you mean by that?

Yeah, Wilson is an interesting figure. She's the daughter of Steve Cortez, a longtime Trump advisor.
She was 26 years old when she took the job.

She's had a lot of different roles in the sort of MAGA internet ecosystem, and she spent a lot of time tweeting, a lot of tweets excoriating immigrants and trans people, advocating for what she called, quote, zero immigration and mass deportations, bemoaning the, quote, death of the West, the term that is often used by far-right activists.

She has also made

even more wild and bigoted claims, for instance, repeating debunked lies about the lynching death of Leo Frank, a Jewish man who was lynched and murdered in 1915 by a mob in Georgia.

She claimed that Frank was guilty for the murder that put him behind bars,

something that most modern historians agree was a wrongful conviction.

Just to sit on that for a moment, the fact that she's tweeted about this multiple times just raises for me the question, like, what waters is she swimming in?

That this is the stuff that occupies her attention. It's pretty extraordinary.

Claims specifically about Leo Frank are part of some of the sort of deepest and most obscure pool of specifically anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

They are absolutely rancid when they've been used to justify violence against Jewish communities, which is specifically pretty extraordinary because the Trump administration has cast themselves as a friend to the Jewish people, has put a lot of energy into supposed investigations of anti-Semitism on college campuses.

So to install a press secretary in the Pentagon who had made these statements was in and of itself pretty wild.

And then I and other news outlets and even some elected officials, you know, called on the Pentagon to respond to these comments, and they never did. Nothing happened.

In 2024, she tweeted, the great replacement isn't a right-wing conspiracy theory, it's reality. And she posted this over a screenshot of a Bloomberg article about the growth of the U.S.

Hispanic population. And here's a bit from her opening remarks for Tuesday's presser.
Legacy media chose to self-deport from this building.

And if you look at the numbers, it's pretty clear why no one followed them. National trust in these mainstream media outlets has cratered to 28%,

the lowest ever recorded. The American people don't trust these propagandists because they stopped telling the truth.

Yeah, using the phrase self-deport, which is of course a politically, incredibly charged phrase that refers to the Trump administration's kind of ongoing practices of mass deportation is, yeah, again, a choice.

Tell me about the question that Matt Gates, former member of Congress, asked in the briefing.

His question is a really good sort of indication of what this new press corps means to do and his presence.

Kingsley, if Nicholas Maduro leaves Venezuela today, what role will the Department of War have in a post-Maduro Venezuela? It was a question about regime change positioned in a really supportive way.

And what sort of response did he get? Well, so what was funny is he actually didn't get a particularly substantive response.

Kingsley Wilson said, quote, the department has a contingency plan for everything. We are a planning organization.

So, with all the access these folks have, you know, and with all the ideological similarities they have to the people running the Pentagon right now, they're still actually not able to get substantive or newsworthy answers to some of these questions.

I want to ask you about the question from Lara Loomer because it was quite interesting.

She asked about the conflicting plans to, on one hand, cozy up to Qatar at the same time that the Trump administration is attempting to label the Muslim Brotherhood a foreign terrorist organization.

Now that the president has started the process of designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign Islamic terrorist organization, will the Department of War still proceed with selling F-15 fighter jets to Qatar?

And how will they be able to train Qatari pilots at their air base in Idaho if Qatar is included in the designation? It's not a bad question. I mean, right? Yeah, no.

I mean, specifically, Loomer's role is going to be the most interesting one in the new Pentagon Press Corps. Loomer is a very longtime anti-Muslim activist.

She is extremely vocal about that, often in the most inflammatory of ways. And she is well known to be a pretty key presence unofficially in the White House.

You know, there is a verb lumered, which means someone getting thrown out of their job in the administration because Laura Loomer calls for for it. And this has happened several times, right?

So if there is any kind of oppositional force within the new Pentagon Press Corps, it might be her, but it's going to be her in the service of promoting conspiracy theories and anti-Muslim sentiments.

James O'Keefe, founder of Project Veritas, you said that he's at the helm of a new independent outlet. bearing his name.
Tell me about how he used his opportunity in the spotlight earlier this week.

So James O'Keefe separated from Project Veritas in a pretty ugly divorce, if you will, and now runs a company called O'Keeffe Media Group. And his question was.

Nicholas Terza, branch chief here at the Pentagon, was caught on a video in the spring stating, quote, Trump is illegitimate. We're going to resist him, quote, everything he does.

We know there are other people like this that work here. My question is, what steps is the Department of War taking to identify and address personnel who are in the self-described resistance movement?

So basically, that's O'Keefe asking how they're going to ferret out perceived disloyalty within the Defense Department.

Yes, purging government employees for, I guess, constitutionally protected speech by the government.

Project Veritas used selectively edited undercover videos to present unflattering portrayals of, for instance, people who work for Planned Parenthood, people who worked in the Biden administration.

O'Keefe has spent a lot of time trying to show that people involved in democratic politics, involved in things like George Soros' Open Society Foundation, are in some way working against the interests of the American people, I think would be the safest way to put that.

A couple more new names that we might be hearing from the Pentagon. Wade Searle, who covers media for LifeSight News, a Canadian far-right Catholic advocacy outlet, asked this question.

So you were speaking earlier about the Washington Post report concerning the Secretary of War and Admiral Bradley. And

my question is,

does the Department of War plan on pursuing any sort of legal action against the Washington Post? And what consequences will there be for lying to the American people?

Yeah, again, it was a very warm and fuzzy exchange between the members of the new Press Corps and the Pentagon designed to set up monologues about attacking the previous administration and traditional news outlets like the Washington Post.

But in a way, the press conference itself was kind of beside the point. It didn't produce a lot of news.
It was actually remarkably boring.

What a lot of these folks did with most of their first day in the Pentagon was take pictures of themselves at desks that were previously occupied by mainstream news outlets.

It seemed kind of clear that that was the point, declaring themselves kind of victorious over the old media, and that was it.

All these outlets and personalities that now have credentials, these are people who have built brands over many years around conspiracy theories about, you know, shadowy government plots.

It is sort of tying my brain in knots watching these people, in exchange for access to press briefings, agree to not attempt to uncover government secrets.

Like, isn't that their bread and butter that we're being lied to? Yeah, it is super interesting, especially for people who are part of, you know, what I would call like the conspiracy media ecosystem.

For years, they have set themselves up as adversarial to the U.S.

government, have suggested, you know, that there is a deep state within the government that is working against the American people, you know, that might be, depending on how far in the deep end of the pool they are, like actively trying to kill all of us in various ways.

And, you know, here they are praising the Pentagon, praising the presidential administration, and yeah, agreeing to sign these rules that most reasonable people read and interpreted as agreements not to do investigative work.

And so for me, there is a real question about how their audiences will respond.

You know, people who are distrustful of government, people who might be distrustful of politicians in general, how they're going to feel about these outsider media outlets agreeing to take on a really, really, really different role.

I'm super curious if this works for them to maintain their audience.

You've been tracking a lot of these conspiracy theorists, far-right content creators, some of these people who are now asking and answering questions in the Pentagon.

For you, somebody on this beat, how does it make you feel?

Oh, I think it's great. I think it's super normal.
No, I'm sorry.

No, so I have a few questions. For instance, I am very curious if they continue showing up to work.
When the thrill wears off, like... Do they really want to do this job?

Yeah, I mean, it can be, you know, quite boring. I think any journalist who's ever sat through a press conference, you know, a public meeting, like it's, it's hard work.

And so, yeah, I'm super curious if they keep showing up. I'm super curious how they figure out how to define themselves in relation to the Trump administration.

So many of these people and these outlets have positioned themselves as explicitly pro-Trump, have depicted him as a heroic outsider who's coming back to save America.

These great disclosures and these huge changes and these consequential secrets that they are claiming are going to be revealed. You know, presumably it's all going to come out now.

So I'm curious what holding the Trump administration accountable looks like for them. Anna, thank you so much.
Thanks for having me.

Anna Merlin is a senior reporter at Mother Jones covering disinformation tech and extremism.

Another member of the new press corps is Cam Higbee, representing his independent outlet, Fearless Media.

He has over 750,000 followers on TikTok and over 400,000 on Instagram, where he posts videos of himself debating college students in the style of Charlie Kirk, or, say, railing against immigration.

And I'm not talking about illegal immigration. I'm talking about all immigration.
It's not racist to not want that. I don't care if you're coming from Europe.

I don't care if your skin is whiter than mine. I don't care what you look like.
We've got who we've got now. We're full.
It's not racist to not want that.

Higbee celebrated his new role by taking photos at a desk that he and others erroneously claimed had been occupied by the Washington Post.

Higbee posted: quote: Mainstream media media is out and new media is in. Cam, welcome to the show.
Thank you for having me.

What do you think is the job of the Pentagon Press Corps and how do you see your new role?

The primary role is to be the conduit between the United States government, the military portion of the government specifically, and the American people.

Also, of course, to push the government on hard issues, especially when they might be misstepping.

But what I don't think it is, is to wander about the most classified building in the United States and harass every employee you see with the express purpose of extracting state secrets.

Aaron Ross Powell, harassing employees? What are you referring to?

I don't have specific names of people who are doing this, but from what I understand, speaking to lots of people within the Pentagon, DOW employees, is that a very hostile work environment was created within the Pentagon by journalists who would walk about the building, camp outside of offices, harass people who leave their offices, burst their way into new, uh into offices that they were outside of when somebody would open the door with their card, et cetera.

I believe you're referring to something that Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson said to you about a hostile work environment.

Did you ask her for evidence that journalists created a hostile work environment in the Pentagon?

Sure. She gave me one anecdotal example of them camping outside of her office and just perpetually ringing her bell to get answers about certain things.

But the question I asked Kingsley was actually specifically predicated on conversations that I had with a lot of different people at the Pentagon.

I've never heard of some kind of chaos where journalists are hiding around every corner pouncing on people.

Well, of course you haven't because the people that were inside the building before were the people doing it. So of course you haven't heard about that.

And that's the main freedom, by the way, that's drawn back in the new agreement. You can't go into this part of the Pentagon without an escort.
It's really just a freedom thing.

It's not, it has nothing to do with information sharing.

The agreement clearly says that if reporters attempt to solicit classified information, they will be assessed for being a quote security or safety risk.

The agreement defines soliciting information as quote direct communications with DOD personnel or public advertisements or calls for tips encouraging DOW employees to share non-public DOW information.

A lot of this sounds like very basic aspects of the news gathering process.

I explicitly asked asked the Pentagon about this, and I was informed that these have always been the rules for the Pentagon Press Corps, that you are allowed to ask members of the DOW for information related to ongoing issues, but what you are not allowed to do is expressly badger non-authorized employees to give you information that is not public.

But there's a difference between information that is that is okay to be public, that the government is okay to give out, and information that isn't because it can literally get people killed.

We're journalists, not Chinese spies.

That's a pretty absurd way of describing something that's very common in the American press, which is trying to give the American public a view of what their government is doing, even when the government doesn't want them to know about it.

Is that not a fundamental part of investigative journalism? Well, it can be. It depends on what the information is.

If the information is related specifically to some kind of attack on the American people, then sure. But if it's how do you know that these boats are smuggling drugs?

How do you know that these are actually narco-terrorists on those boats? Why would the Pentagon ever give you that information?

Because if they tell you that information, then the bad guys know the information too, and they know how to

evade the Pentagon.

But if we only report what the Pentagon press secretary is saying to you, or we only report news that has been fed to us by specially curated spokespeople, if we don't do the work of walking around the Pentagon, trying to develop sources and trying to get a deeper understanding into what our government is doing with our tax dollars, then we have no way of calling out their lies.

I didn't say that you should never publish non-public information. What I simply said is, A, the people within the Pentagon should know you're a journalist.
They have to wear press badges.

And if they didn't have to before, they wore DOW employee badges, which is completely different.

Here's the thing, Cam. This is the line they use every single time there's any kind of classified information they don't want us to report.
So the New York Times have published the Pentagon papers.

That's what they said at the time.

Are you like dense? If you pass by and pretend as if there are not situations where you could publish classified information that can get people hurt or killed, that's not my problem.

That's probably why you're not in the Pentagon. You know what this really seems like?

It really seems like this administration is very, very frustrated with the large number of people who are leaking to the press. I actually don't think they're concerned about that at all.

So the SignalGate thing, I don't think they're concerned about it all. The Double Tap thing, I don't think they're concerned about it at all.

Actually, having spoken to people at the Pentagon, no, I don't think they're concerned about it at all.

In reality, what it seems is like the mainstream media doing what they always do, making things up and trying to attack the Trump administration, which, by the way, they didn't care what the Biden admin was doing.

That's not correct. The New York Times sued the State Department for records related to Hunter Biden and whether his name came up in emails.

What, three years after it happened and Twitter completely banned the story from the platform? Are you talking about that?

Bloomberg routinely sued the Biden administration and previous administrations for records that they refused to give out. They're digging for scandals.
That's what they want.

Do you believe that a potential war crime for bombing survivors of a boat who are defenseless is a scandal?

Is that salient information that has been kept secret for two months that journalists have every right to make the American public aware of.

No, I think they're trying to make a scandal just like they're trying to make a scandal out of the new Pentagon Press Corps by saying things like CNN said very blatantly the other night on air that every member of the new Pentagon Press Corps is required to have their stories approved by the Pentagon, which the agreement actually explicitly says the opposite, right?

They're lying, just like they always have. They're gripping on for dear life as their boat sinks.

You posted on X that unethical conditions are that I can't publish information that's classified, CUI, or in national security interest without permission.

Yeah, so I had been under a misunderstanding. Actually, I was like brainwashed by the story that the mainstream media was publishing after.

I don't even remember if this was before or after my first day in the Pentagon, which was just really basic orientation stuff.

And then I went to somebody at the Pentagon and I was explicitly informed this applies only to DOW employees and not to members of the press corps.

So, you are a Pentagon correspondent and you signed an agreement with the Pentagon, and you thought that you were not allowed to publish classical publications. Well, have you ever been gaslit?

Like, so when you read that, it explicitly says that you don't have to seek approval for anything, and then there's a whole mainstream media firestorm where everyone is telling you that you're not allowed to do this, and you haven't had an opportunity because you haven't been in the Pentagon yet to ask people at the Pentagon and you're trying to defend yourself, being gaslit by the entire multi-billion dollar mainstream media empire.

I think it's fair to allow a little bit of grace there, don't you think? It sounds to me like you didn't read this thing very closely.

I read it extremely closely and I've posted excerpts from it.

A lot of the people attacking me haven't read it. They actually were begging for me to release it despite the fact that it's been publicly available.

And maybe I should have kept my mouth shut until I spoke with the Pentagon.

But it's a little hard not to defend yourself when you're receiving thousands of replies on your tweets and several mainstream media empires all closing in on you and attacking you.

And you laugh at that,

but it is the case. And you know it's the case.

I understand that you've been under a lot of scrutiny recently. I'm not following.
But I think your audience is going to follow. I think this is going to look foolish for you.
But here,

let's talk about the press briefings. You spoke with the press secretary.
What did you ask her?

I asked about a French foreign military plot to assassinate Candace Owens. And that seems like a silly question.
I understand that.

But the fact of the matter is that last night, Candace Owens had 147,000 people watching her live stream where she was making these claims.

And a lot of American citizens are being brainwashed by claims that it's making. Obviously, Kingsley was not aware of any French assassination plot against Candace Owens.

And it seems that if there was one, being that it's such a high-profile issue, that she would have been briefed on it, but she wasn't.

And then finally, I asked questions about the second strike from September.

What do you say to listeners who have seen the partisan work that you do? You sometimes make appearances wearing a MAGA hat.

You frequently on your social media channels defend the president and the administration. What do you say to people that feel like you can't be an honest broker?

You're not going to ask hard questions in those press briefings. Well, if you think I haven't criticized the president or the administration, then you're just not familiar with my work at all.

But also, the difference between me and the mainstream media is that I, like you said, I don't claim to be unbiased, whereas, whereas they do.

Every human being is biased and every journalist is biased, including you, and you're doing it right now. You obviously have a bias against me, and that's why you were laughing at me earlier.

Sorry, I apologize for laughing at the Candace Owens thing. No, you don't have to apologize.
It is funny, right?

And I'm just pointing that out. Well, I

look.

Because you weren't laughing with me, you were laughing at me, and that's fine, and I don't care, and not offended, but you obviously have a bias, and you're injecting it into your work as we speak.

Yes, all journalists have biases, but are you going to hold the Trump administration accountable? Are you going to ask them hard questions?

Yes, on issues that I think they should be held accountable for. Yeah.
And that's my bias, right?

The difference between me and the mainstream media is, is that they think a second strike, which is standard military practice and has happened in every war, like it's very obvious that they're just feeding this crap to people who have never seen military action before.

Second strikes happen constantly and perpetually in all wars, regardless of who's president. Obama absolutely did it.
Bush absolutely did it. Okay.
You're saying it's not illegal according to who?

Well, go ahead and cite me the law that says it's illegal. Multiple legal commentators.
I'm going to be looking for informed code of military justice. Go ahead and cite it.

Yeah, I don't care about other people's opinions, Micah. Those aren't relevant.
We're talking about me and you right now. I don't care what legal analysts say.
They're wrong all the time.

Cite me the code. What is it, Micah? I don't know the name of the code, but you know full well that non-combatants who can't defend themselves are not supposed to be killed.

That's what international law says. Am I wrong there?

They are narco-terrorists who were transporting drugs that kill people into the United States. They were struck and then they climbed back onto the boat.

They are members of a foreign designated terrorist organization that transport materials into the United States that kill people. That's why we're fighting them.

How do we know that they were transporting drugs? Again, I can't tell you that because it's classified and I don't know.

Isn't that really important? I think it is, actually.

The government is not going to tell me how they identify terrorists because if I find that out and publish it, the terrorists are going to stop identifying themselves that way, making it impossible for the government to find them.

Okay. Cam,

I think we've both found this conversation quite frustrating. I appreciate your taking the time to speak with me.
I'm not frustrated. I'm having fun.
I wish you the best of luck.

in your reporting in the Pentagon, and I hope that you're able to hold this administration to account, to scrutinize them, to seek sources outside of the narrow channel of spokespeople that the Pentagon will push your way, and that you're able to attempt to call out the government when they lie to you.

Thank you. I assure you that that will be the case.
If I feel I'm being lied to, I will absolutely seek the truth, as I have always done. I have a particular gripe with lies and falsehoods.

You can call me partisan, whatever. I have a bias, obviously.
I don't know if that makes me partisan necessarily, but.

Okay. Cam, I wish you the best.
I appreciate it. Thank you, Micah.
I wish you the best as well. Cam Higbee is a Pentagon correspondent with Fearless Media.

Coming up, a new documentary about a journalist who once loomed large in the halls of the Pentagon. This is on the media.

Alaska is a state at the forefront of our nation's issues. It's a place where climate change is undeniably altering the landscape.
These villages have been completely devastated.

Resource development and international relations are local issues. It's a disgrace to see that Putin's on this land right now.
And fat bears are celebrities.

I just started joining every fat bear group that I could find.

Catch the latest top stories from the 49th state on Alaska News Nightly every weeknight, wherever you get your podcasts or at alaskapublic.org.

This is on the media. I'm Michael Loewinger.
To round out this hour about reporting on the U.S. military and the Department of Defense, we go back in time to the 1960s.

It's the height of the Vietnam War, and a young investigative journalist named Seymour Hirsch starts attending Pentagon press briefings and finds them pretty damn silly.

Around 1030 to come and give you a little briefing, you file a little something off that.

You know, these guys get paid, you know, an awful lot of money for doing things like listening to the news conference and waiting an hour till the transcript's typed up.

and then writing a 500-word story off it. What Hirsch did instead was slip into the hallways of the the Pentagon, and that's how he got the scoop of a lifetime.

Instead of going to lunch with my colleagues, I would go find young officers, you know, talk a little football and get to know them. I had been in the Army.
I was in the Army Reserves.

Eventually, Army guys would start saying, well, you know, it's murder incorporated there.

I said, what do you mean?

Hirsch went on to become one of the most famous, complicated, and embattled embattled reporters of the latter half of the 20th century after exposing several government cover-ups, earning the begrudging admiration and ire of presidents and their top advisors.

Laura Poitras, an award-winning journalist and filmmaker whose documentaries include Citizen IV and All the Beauty and the Bloodshed, together with her co-director Mark Obenhouse, filmed over 100 hours of interviews with Hirsch for a soon-to-be streaming Netflix documentary called Cover-Up.

I asked her why she wanted to make a film about Sy Hirsch and why now? I first approached Sy in 2005,

motivated by some similar concerns that I have today, which is the state of investigative journalism and the importance of investigative journalism to expose government wrongdoing and state power.

I made a film about the occupation and war in Iraq, and right before I traveled to Iraq is when Sai published his extraordinary reporting on Abu Ghraib prison and torture.

The source of my film started there. I came back from Iraq and I was still obsessed with both Sai's reporting and the failure of legacy media and the quote-unquote war on terror.

Sai was really gracious. He invited me to his office.

I sort of joked that the twilight music should have started playing when you walk into his office because you were like going back decades in time and there were like stacks of notebooks everywhere and tennis rackets and complete chaos.

And he was gracious and wonderful and funny and prickly. He talked to me for a long time and then he ultimately said, no way, you know, it's not going to happen.

So I didn't ever let go of the idea and we stayed in touch over the years. He followed the reporting I did around NSA surveillance and Edward Snowden.

And I think he recognized I was a bit of a kindred spirit. I should say with Sai, like to his great credit, once he was in, he was all in, despite his discomfort with some of the process.

And I definitely want to get into his his discomfort with the process, but first I want to kind of dive into who he is as a journalist and how he got his start.

One of the earlier scenes in the film is of a much younger Cy Hirsch at a Pentagon press conference while he's employed at the Associated Press.

During the lunch break, while all the other reporters are like socializing, he slips into the hallway and chats up officers. One of them tells him,

we are in a stage of open murder in Vietnam. Another says, well, it's murder incorporated there.
So he says, murder incorporated? Like, what?

Tell me what happens next.

He just gets a tip. And the tip is that there's someone being court-martialed.
He doesn't know anything more. And then we start to put the pieces together.
He learns then

his name is Cali. He meets the lawyer.
He tracks him down at Fort Benning. and learns about this massacre that we now know as the Milai massacre, where the U.S.

military went into a village of civilians and murdered over 500 people including babies

and what obsessed cy was how is this possible and he didn't want to leave the story at just looking at the soldiers but what was the chain of command so what he eventually uncovers is that there was a policy to bring body counts westmoreland who was then running this war needed dead bodies and so they went and slaughtered this village it took over a year for the story to break.

So a lot of people knew about this massacre. And then Cy got the tip.

He wonders who else in the press might have known about this and sat on it. Yeah, he's convinced that many people knew.

After he breaks the Mili story, Hirsch got a job at the New York Times, where he covered Watergate and the CIA's operation of spying on thousands of college students, domestic anti-war activists.

He began to loom so large in Washington as a sort of muckraker that even Henry Kissinger, President Nixon's national security advisor, took notice. I go see him in the White House.

And he said, so I'm interested in what your impression was of when you were in Hanoi in all those weeks. I said, well, I can tell you I saw no signs of a lack of morale.
And I went on like that.

10, 15 minutes of botinage. He said, hold on.
And he called his aide on Vietnam. And he said to him, this man knows more about what's going on in Vietnam than the CIA.

And I thought to myself, this can't be real. I mean, am I supposed to be flattered by this bullshit? I was just amazed.

So clearly, whatever sort of magic he was trying to work on Hirsch, it didn't work. It didn't work.
And, you know, before Cy showed up, Kissinger was kind of having his way.

He would be this anonymous source to the Times. He would feed stories, but not under his name.
Cy was having none of it.

And I think Kissinger knew that having Cy Hirsch at the New York Times was not going to be good for him. And it wasn't good for him.

I mean, Cy developed an obsession with Kissinger, and he was assigned to do Watergate after Woodward and Bernstein had been running with the story for seven months.

And then Cy ended up publishing a lot of stories about Watergate, focusing on Kissinger. But somehow Kissinger always managed to get away with it, right?

Nixon has to resign, but like Kissinger stayed on, and he was somebody who has managed to stay in power for almost his entire life.

Cy Hirsch is a big reason that the New York Times even started reporting on the Watergate scandal. It seems like he had a great career there.
Why did he decide to leave?

He's somebody who's always had some friction with his editors.

He did this big investigative reporting on a corporation, Golf and Western, which is a story he partnered with Jeff Girth on, and they exposed a lot of corporate wrongdoing.

His relationship with his editor shifted, that they became very nervous about the story, that all of a sudden talking about corporate power and money didn't make the Times comfortable, and he got a lot of pushback.

He said something in your film to the effect of the New York Times is a part of the corporate world, and it's not comfortable scrutinizing the corporate world.

Yeah, and in the course of the reporting, Jeff Girth decided to look into the financial records of the Times and their corporate filings and discovered that executive editor Abe Rosenthal had gotten a loan to buy an apartment at a discount and he got it through the board.

And so then they had to confront their boss about this favorable loan because they were working on a story that was dealing with executives getting favorable loans.

So it kind of created a bit of a blowout. When we were editing, we had a big story board because we needed to see sort of have like a a visual, how do we hold all of Psy stories in one place?

And so we had this big board and there was oftentimes like Psy quits, Psy quits. Like Sai quits the AP, Psy quits the New York Times, Psy quits.
And then at some point, it was like Sy quits the movie.

You know, it's a pattern. Another outlet that he worked at for some time and made an impact on was the New Yorker, which was home to his reporting into Abu Ghraib.

After 9-11, he wanted to understand how did this happen. How did they not see 9-11 coming? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

The more that we know, the more of it a failure we know it to be because the CIA knew the hijackers entered the country and didn't inform the FBI. But then the lead up to the Iraq war.

And I think that that just really set Sy off because he knew very well that there was no connection between the 9-11 attacks and Iraq.

9-11 was being used as a way to get through some policies that the Bush administration had been wanting to do for a long time, which was invade Iraq.

So they used this as an excuse to terrible consequences. And Sy gets this tip.
He talks to this general and he first learns about Abu Ghraib and he's being told about torture.

And then he gets a second tip from somebody who's working for 60 Minutes who also is onto this story and they have evidence of torture.

But 60 Minutes is getting pressure from the government not to publish their story.

Sai runs with it and through his reporting, he uncovers the Taguba report, which was a general was assigned to look into Abu Ghraib and found that torture had happened.

And so yeah, Cy broke this story, which redefined this war.

And part of what helped redefine the war were the pictures that he helped publish in the New Yorker. Exactly.

And there's a remarkable story in your film about how he was able to solicit the source that gave him those pictures.

And, you know, not to be too corny about it, but public media plays a role in this. Is that fair to say? Yeah, yeah.
Two whistleblowers are sources for this.

The first one is Joseph Darby, who was in the unit and had access to the photos. After the first story broke, Sai goes on to Diane Ream's show and says, Get in touch with me.
2028 72-0703.

Just call, leave a number, I'll get in touch with you. And he gets a call that afternoon, and a woman says, you need to come see me.

He goes and visits her, and she says, I have this laptop that my daughter-in-law came back with her rock, and it has photos. And there was additional photos.
The use of dogs to torture a prisoner.

I mean, they're horrifying photos.

And this was somebody who was so terrified of coming forward and speaking to a journalist that she didn't even tell her closest family that she had talked to Cy until actually we started working on the film.

She agreed to talk to us. And when we were setting up cameras, she had to pull her husband aside and say, this is why there's cameras here.
You know, in 2004, I talked to Cy Hirsch.

This is 20 years later.

She had kept this as a secret from her family.

She was scared about the repercussion, and she was right to be scared, because what we've learned is that the only people that are often held accountable for abuse of power are people who expose it.

Joseph Darby was subjected to horrible retribution, and yet the people who created the framework for this system of torture are allowed to walk.

You're speaking to the incredible risks taken in some cases by investigative reporters, but most of all by their sources.

And of course, the relationship between a reporter and his or her sources is one of the most sacred in journalism.

You were able to get a remarkable amount of access to Cy Hirsch's notebooks and files. These are yellow notepads we see over and over throughout your film.

These are notes taken in the reporting process, in some cases, filled with names and numbers of people who to this day he has protected.

He allowed you to have a deeply intimate look at his life and his professional career. How did you pull that off?

Again, he trusted us. I mean, he'd worked with Mark before, the co-director.
He knew my work. Anything he shared with us, we were going to treat with utmost care in terms of source protection.

And yet he was still nervous. He freaked out.
He freaked out. There's a moment where he sees a notepad that you're handling and he says, what the fuck is this doing in your hands?

You know, this is an FBI guy, but most of them are CIA guys.

I don't think we're in a position at any point or we're intending at any point to get to the next slide. Well, I'd like to quit.
I'm going to ask any of these people. I'd like to quit.

It sounds like this was not the only time that this happened. How did you bring him back?

I know what I'm doing in terms of source protection. He came back and trusted us.
For me, it was very important to include it in the film because the stakes are real.

It's the most sacred thing, the relationship between a journalist and their source. You clearly have a lot of respect for him and for his journalism over the years.

That said, you did not shy away from a pattern of mistakes that he's made over the years.

It was important to me that we have to tackle size stories where he got it wrong.

For me, it was really important to talk about Syria because I had friends who were tortured in Syria by Assad, and he knows very well that I have criticisms about that reporting.

You're referring to a 2013 piece in the London Review of Books in which Hirsch scrutinizes the Obama administration's narrative that Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people.

He wrote, Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on the 21st of August.

Later on, however, it was revealed that Assad's regime was responsible for the attack. And you challenged him about this in the film.

I read this stuff now, and I say to myself, I really misjudged him. I saw him two or three or four times, and I didn't think he was capable of doing what he did.
Period.

And

let's call that wrong. Let's call that very much wrong.

Is that an example of getting too close to power? Of course. What else is it?

I never thought he was Mother Teresa, but I thought he was okay.

But if I have made a claim in prior interviews to be perfect, I would now withdraw it. That's all.
I wasn't perfect.

This is hard to wrap my head around as a viewer because you have documented a long career defined by his deep skepticism of power and

lifting up the victims of state violence. So what do you make of this contradiction? How did he fall into this trap? I mean, I share exactly your perspective on this.

How is it possible given his body of work and where he's consistently taken a position against power? Again, only so I can speak to that, right? But I knew that I needed to ask it in the film.

Another example of your skepticism of his sourcing was his 2023 bombshell report on Substack about the Nord Stream pipeline. This is the pipeline which had allowed Russia to transport gas to the EU.

In 2022, there was mysterious explosions that damaged the pipeline, and Hirsch wrote a piece alleging that the CIA had collaborated with Norway to blow it up.

You asked Hirsch about his decision to base this piece on a single source. In response to that, he says.

So what?

So what? I mean, so legitimate criticism, absolutely. You know, right? Same one.
Yeah. What do I? I mean, I.

I mean, it is a little bit more. But the only point I'm saying is that, of course, there was.

What am I going to do? I can't write about who I know else was brought in from the Army, the Air Force, because I'm exposing them.

Even if there's nine sources sometimes, it's much better just to make it one. I'm sorry to tell you that.

Well, because you don't know, you don't want to talk about, you don't want about sources in the State Department and the CIA both agree.

What if the source didn't got it wrong and it's a single source? What do you do? Then I've got 20 years of working with the guy that I've been wrong on.

Time after time, I'm told things that turn out to be right.

Relying on a single source is very dangerous, and it's something that I feel critical of and felt that there's this kind of skepticism that needs to be brought into the film.

I think there's still a lot we don't know about what happened with the Nord Stream sabotage, but there have been a lot of journalists who've reported a very different narrative.

One thing that fascinated me about the film is, of course, he's getting called nasty names by Richard Nixon.

There are examples of other journalists who are critical of him as a reporter and some of his tactics. Then there's the scrutiny that he gets from the public.

We see him on C-SPAN taking callers, and it's clear that throughout his career, there was a segment of the population that didn't support what he was doing, that didn't actually want to see the truth that he was trying to reveal.

Right. I mean, that's what the film is all about, right? To ask the hard questions in the moment when the stakes are the highest.
He got a lot of pushback because there was a kind of march to war.

If you're looking at Vietnam or if you're looking at Iraq, we have a consensus looking back in history that both of these wars were catastrophes, right?

But in the moment, that's not the narrative that we were being told and that the legacy media in large part were telling the public, right?

This is what the crux of the whole film is, is that we have to be asking those questions, otherwise we're going to keep repeating these patterns.

Right now, with the Trump administration, we're seeing what I hope is not the beginning of a potential new march to war with Venezuela.

The stakes for good national security reporting remain extremely high. At the same time, it's getting harder and harder for legitimate investigative reporters to do their work.

Spaces like the Pentagon and the White House that were once more open to journalists to do work. I see you shaking your head.
I'm going to push back a little.

I don't think the problem is investigative journalists. I think the problem is government lying and institutions not backing investigative journalists.

And I don't think journalists are going to find the truth at Pentagon press briefings. I'm sorry.
I just don't think that's where truth is going to be found.

I mean, that's where lies are going to be, you know, this is.

So I believe investigative journalists will continue to fight and continue to actually risk their lives, which is what we're seeing around the world.

Journalists going to prison, journalists being assassinated. Journalists are willing to fight for the truth.

The question I have is about the institutional support for that work and the willingness to take on the government when they come after you.

So currently I'm very concerned about the capitulation of large media organizations to government pressure, both the settlement around 60 Minutes and Paramount and ABC not fighting for the First Amendment, I think is the biggest threat we're seeing.

And that's coming from institutions, not from journalists doing their jobs.

You do believe that in the lead up to some of our wars, mainstream journalists were too credulous. They were cheerleading.

I'd like to know what what you think journalists can learn from the film and from reporters like Cy Hirsch. Right.
I mean, I think we need to use the words to describe what we're seeing.

I'll go back to Cy's reporting around torture. When he reported about Abu Ghraib, there were editorial guidelines in the legacy institutions not to use the word torture to describe CIA torture, right?

That they were supposed to use enhanced interrogation techniques.

It's the job of journalists to be adversarial and to report the facts as they see them, regardless of the consequences, without fear or favor.

And what we're seeing in Gaza, I mean, how can we look at a population that's being starved and civilians being bombed for two years and not call it a genocide?

I mean, I just think we have to use the words that we know to describe what is happening. The erosion of trust in the media is because the public often feels lied to.

They feel lied to by their government, and they feel that the press is also part of the lying.

Laura Poitris is an investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker. Her latest film, Cover Up, is playing in select theaters and will stream on Netflix later this month.

Laura, thank you very much. Thank you.
It was a pleasure to talk to you.

That's it for this week's show. On the Media is produced by Molly Rosen, Rebecca Clark Callender, and Candice Wong.
Travis Mannon is our video producer.

Our technical director is Jennifer Munson, with engineering from Jared Paul and Sam Baer. Eloise Blondio is our senior producer, and our executive producer is Katya Rogers.

On the Media is produced by WNYC. Brooke Gladstone will be back next week.
I'm Michael Loewinger.