Reporting in times of war (and of Trump)

BarcelonaIt is already known that the first victim of a war is truth and that, for governments, especially in times of war, doing journalism is unpatriotic because certain sensitive information cannot be revealed to the enemy. Media outlets always face this dilemma in times of war, as part of their readership may buy into this message, and therefore, the New York Times has been forced to educate its readers.

In an explanatory video, journalist Eric Schmitt explains that he and his colleague Jonathan Swan reported that there was great concern among American military personnel because the war in Iran was depleting ammunition reserves, especially missiles (JASSM-ER, Patriot, and Tomahawk). Well, at the last press conference of the Secretary of Defense and head of the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth, he not only refused to answer Schmitt's questions but also accused him of being unpatriotic: "I would like to encourage the media to think twice before publishing information that can affect lives, as the New York Times" has done.

In the video, Schmitt gives a true masterclass in journalism to explain that he has spoken with high-ranking military officials from Europe and Asia, with representatives of Congress, and with members of the Pentagon to be able to communicate this information. All of them believe that public opinion has the right to know how the war is going and, specifically, how it is affecting American arsenals. On another occasion, Hegseth already said that the media were not explaining the war well because they were winning by a wide margin.

I was also accused of being unpatriotic at some point during the Procés. The question is: should the truth be told even when it displeases the government or the readers? Journalists will always say yes.