This is The Poynter Report, your daily guide to the news about news. Subscribe to get it in your inbox every weekday.

Boy, oh boy. These guys in the Trump administration. Just when you think they can’t get any more petty and thin-skinned and, to paraphrase one of their favorite words, snowflaky, they find another way to bellyache about something.

The latest?

The Washington Post’s Scott Nover writes, “The Defense Department has barred press photographers from briefings on the ongoing U.S.-Israeli military conflict with Iran after they published photos of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that his staff deemed ‘unflattering,’ according to two people familiar with the decision who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation.”

This is not made up.

As the Department of Defense engages in a war that is killing people, putting Americans at risk, upsetting the global economy and driving up the price of oil, it is worried about … photos of the defense secretary?!

Nover reported that several outlets — including The Associated Press, Reuters and Getty Images — sent photographers to the briefing for a March 2 press conference with Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Nover wrote, “But after they published photos — which have broad reach because they are licensed by publications globally — members of Hegseth’s staff told colleagues that they did not like the way that the secretary looked. Hegseth’s aides decided to shut out photographers from the two subsequent briefings at the Pentagon, on March 4 and March 10, according to the two people familiar with the decision.”

Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson said in a statement, “In order to use space in the Pentagon Briefing Room effectively, we are allowing one representative per news outlet if uncredentialed, excluding pool. Photographs from the briefings are immediately released online for the public and press to use. If that hurts the business model for certain news outlets, then they should consider applying for a Pentagon press credential.”

This is just the latest squabble the Pentagon has had with the media. Last year, the Department of Defense demanded that journalists sign a document saying they would not solicit any information the government did not authorize. That, of course, was a ridiculous request that reputable news organizations refused to sign. Those outlets lost their press credentials and now the only media allowed inside the Pentagon are the ones that did sign the policy, none of which should be considered serious news outlets or individuals. The current Pentagon press crew is made up of Trump sympathizers and sycophants who rarely, if ever, push Hegseth or the administration on anything.

As Nover noted, “Hegseth and Caine’s March 2 press briefing was initially meant to involve only newly credentialed media, but after the department requested a TV camera from the major broadcast networks, the journalists who had relinquished their badges negotiated an agreement to allow some of them in the briefing room, a lawyer for the Pentagon Press Association said in court Friday.”

It’s not clear which photo or photos of Hegseth upset the Defense Department.

Nover wrote, “When photographers showed up for last Wednesday’s briefing they were not allowed in, according to two other people familiar with the situation who also spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation. Since then, only the Defense Department’s staff photographers have been permitted into the briefings.”

In a statement, National Press Photographers Association president Alex Garcia said, “Excluding photographers from Pentagon briefings because officials did not like how published images portrayed them shows an astonishingly poor sense of priorities in the midst of a war and is, for a public servant, not a good look. A free press cannot function if government officials decide that only favorable images of public officials may be created or distributed.”

The National Press Club put out a statement that said, in part, “The decision to bar independent news photographers from Pentagon press briefings is deeply troubling and runs counter to the fundamental principles of transparency in a democratic society.”

It added, “If the Pentagon believes the public deserves to be informed, it should allow journalists to bear witness, not restrict them when the images are inconvenient.”

Covering or covering for?

Mediaite’s Colby Hall slammed Fox News’ coverage of the war in his piece: “Fox News Isn’t Covering Trump’s Iran War — It’s Covering for It.”

A prime example Hall pointed out was a comment made by Fox News guest, retired Gen. Charles Wald, who told Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum, “One glitch with a girls’ school, which was really sad.”

That “glitch” resulted in the death of 170, most of them school children.

Now, you might say that one ill-advised and tone-deaf comment from a guest doesn’t necessarily reflect an entire network’s coverage, right?

Hall wrote, “Wald’s remark was not an aberration. It captured something structural about how Fox has chosen to cover Trump’s war with Iran — not by ignoring the worst developments outright, but by acknowledging them briefly and then moving the conversation back toward effectiveness, progress, and the case for confidence in the operation. The result is a version of the conflict that looks, to millions of viewers, like it’s going roughly according to plan.”

Hall added that there is plenty of impressive reporting done by Fox News — particularly from the likes of national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin and Trey Yingst, who is as good a war correspondent as you’re going to find.

“But,” Hall writes, “their work exists in a different lane from the studio programming that surrounds it. The segments praising operational success run longer and repeat more often. The developments that complicate the narrative get a mention, sometimes a tough question, and then the conversation moves on.”

He adds, “What Fox News is doing is not simply reflecting conservative opinion about the war — it is constructing one.

Notable journalism involving Iran

• The New York Times’ Julian E. Barnes, Eric Schmitt, Tyler Pager, Malachy Browne and Helene Cooper with “U.S. at Fault in Strike on School in Iran, Preliminary Inquiry Says.”
• And here’s The Washington Post’s Tara Copp, Souad Mekhennet, Meg Kelly, Alex Horton and Susannah George with “Iranian school was on U.S. target list, may have been mistaken as military site.”
• The New York Times’ Mark Mazzetti, Tyler Pager and Edward Wong with “How Trump and His Advisers Miscalculated Iran’s Response to War.”
• The Atlantic’s Franklin Foer with “The Obvious Is Taking Its Revenge on Trump.”
• New York Times chief TV critic James Poniewozik with “The Trump Administration Goes to War, by Any Memes Necessary.”

Making an appeal

(AP Photo/Allison Robbert)

Last month, a federal judge ruled that the Department of Justice cannot search the electronic devices seized from a Washington Post reporter to find a leak within the government. In January, the DOJ used a search warrant to enter the home of the Post’s Hannah Natanson. They took her phone, two laptops, a recorder, a portable hard drive and a Garmin watch. She was not being accused of any wrongdoing, but agents were looking to see who might have leaked classified material.

But in last month’s ruling, Magistrate Judge William Porter seemed to indicate the government could not be trusted to stick to its narrow search without exposing more than 1,000 of Natanson’s government sources to the Justice Department.

The government said it was going to appeal Porter’s ruling, and on Wednesday, it did just that. The Post’s Perry Stein wrote, “Federal prosecutors argued in the appeal that applying for a warrant and executing a search are core functions of the executive branch. They said the judge’s order for the court to conduct the search violates the Constitution’s separation of powers and that journalists are not protected from searches when the government fears they could possess sensitive government materials.”

The appeal said, “As a reporter, Ms. Natanson is subject like any other citizen to a legitimate use of criminal legal process in a criminal investigation, such as this search warrant. The magistrate judge’s path forward instead creates a reporter-specific search procedure that binding precedent clearly rejects and that is unjustified by Ms. Natanson’s First Amendment activities.”

In his original ruling, however, Porter did not order the government to return Natanson’s devices to her. So it still has her equipment; it just can’t go through it. Officials say only a small amount of information is relevant to them, and they asked if a filter team could go through and find the information they say they need. But Porter has said no. The government is claiming that Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a systems administrator with a top-secret clearance, is the target of their interest.

Stein added in her Post story, “Porter has acknowledged that the government’s seizure of the devices is preventing Natanson from doing her job as a journalist and has said that he wants to conduct the search expeditiously so that she can return to work.

Do we really need this interview?

Media insiders are buzzing this week about the decision by The Hollywood Reporter to do an interview with disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, who is in prison after being convicted of rape and sexual assault.

Maer Roshan, editor-in-chief of The Hollywood Reporter, spoke with Weinstein for “Harvey Weinstein: The Rikers Interview.”

Muck Rack pointed out some of the reactions. For example, The New Yorker’s Emily Nussbaum wrote on social media, “Equal parts fascinating & grotesque interview with Harvey Weinstein.”

That was the gist of many: a good interview from Roshan, but does anyone want to hear the 73-year-old Weinstein talk about the hardships of prison? Actually, maybe some people might find satisfaction in hearing about his suffering. And it’s not a softball interview by Roshan, who pushes Weinstein at times.

I have to admit, I read the interview in its entirety. At no point did I feel Roshan was handing Weinstein a sympathetic ear to excuse or defend his actions.

In the end, Weinstein’s answers pretty much confirm everything you probably think of him — mostly that he is arrogant and delusional. In which case, you might say you don’t need to read a Q&A with him to substantiate that.

If you have no interest at all in reading it, and you believe The Hollywood Reporter shouldn’t have done the interview, I certainly don’t blame you and won’t try to convince you otherwise.

But I found the Q&A worth the time, mostly to read just about how much it stinks for Weinstein to be in Rikers these days.

Media tidbits

• The New York Times’ Kashmir Hill with “They Don’t Want Their Company’s Surveillance Tool Used by ICE.”
• TheWrap’s Corbin Bolies with “With Kari Lake Rebuffed, Voice of America Looks to Rebuild.”
• Jeremy Barr, media reporter for The Guardian, tweeted on Wednesday, “The great Liz Seymour, managing editor of The Washington Post, is leaving at the end of April, editor Matt Murray announced in an effusive memo to staffers this morning. A big loss but a well deserved break.”
• For Poynter, Indianapolis public editor Tracey Compton with “An Indiana public records fight went to court. The journalists (and the public) won.”
• The Los Angeles Times’ Samantha Masunaga with “Paramount may have landed Warner Bros., now comes the baggage.”
• The New York Times’ Sarah Bahr with “A Reporter Goes Back to School for His Beat.”

Hot type

• For The New York Times, Arthur Lubow with “An Artist Renounced His Family. They Sued to Acquire His Life’s Work.”

More resources for journalists

• Reporters and editors with ambition to do investigative journalism: Get guidance from ProPublica’s Alexandra Zayas in this five-week, hands-on seminar. Enroll today.
• Get the tools, mentorship and peer community to turn your non-fiction book idea into a publishable proposal. Apply for our workshop today.
• Great Lakes journalists: Time running out to apply for FREE election coverage workshops in Detroit and Indy — work on coverage strategies, gain reporting tools and spark regional connections. Apply now.

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at tjones@poynter.org.

The Poynter Report is your daily dive into the world of media, packed with the latest news and insights. Get it delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday by signing up here. And don’t forget to tune into our biweekly podcast for even more.