To bleat on about OSA is, in my view naive.
This is nothing to do with legitimate military secrecy/security (except that it's being used as an excuse/justification) and it is everything to do with image and spin.
20 years ago, the MoD/RAF were always concerned to make sure that journos did not publish sensitive parametrics or tactics, or details of SOME ongoing or future op deployments. If you took advantage of a facility, the quid pro quo was that you would also submit your work for clearance, which might sometimes result in changes being requested to save embarrassment, but which was usually focused on ensuring accuracy, helping to tell the story, and preventing security breaches. Occasionally a desk officer might request deletions of stuff that was already in the public domain, but problems were few, and could usually be worked out.
If an article contained something that might embarrass (details of a procurement cock up) there might be gentle hints and suggestions - but more often along the lines that "We'd be grateful if you could make it clear that this is YOUR opinion, and that it's not something that the RAF/Squadron/bloke you interviewed necessarily validates." There was a clear division between 'Church and State'.
Over the years, with progressively more gutless and less powerful DPRs and DCCs there has been a growing tendency to want to avoid anything that might upset or embarrass the minister, and a growing unwillingness to help with stories that might be generally positive but include some details of a procurement cock-up or policy mistake (that's entirely understandable and fair, if short-sighted, and unfair on the taxpayer).
But at some stage a line has been crossed, and the attitude now seems to be that it is entirely appropriate for the services'
PR organisations to pursue an active Government (if not party political)
PR agenda (even where this conflicts with the best interests of the services) and to use spin and half truths to achieve this.
The priority now seems to be to prevent anyone from speaking up for the services, and to question some of the stupid, short-sighted and cost-driven nonsense to which you lot are increasingly being subjected. This is intended to gag anyone who might facillitate the exposure of procurement cock-ups, misuse of resources, or the shabby treatment of servicemen and women.
This is particularly serious for the RAF, in my view, which seems to be losing the
PR battle with the other services, and which seems to have a culture which discourages senior officers from doing an 'Admiral West' or a 'General Dannant'. The most senior RAF officers seem to follow a pretty craven approach, supporting the Government line on 'stretched but not over-stretched' and giving the appearance of signally failing to fight their service's corner (perhaps they fight the battle effectively, but only behind closed doors?).
No-one seems to remember the last senior blue suiter who had the moral strength and testicular fortitude to speak out against the nonsense - unless you go back to Mike Graydon, ten years ago and too many of the RAF's top commanders are remembered for the energy with which they set themselves up in post service careers in industry, unfortunate incidents with curtains, or sh@gging people who they shouldn't have - usually demonstrating alarmingly poor judgement and a cavalier disregard for their marital vows (these being serious commitments that some might compare to their commitments to their job, to their oaths of loyalty, and to their duty to their subordinates).
The sad thing is that this will work - and it will help to stifle justified complaint, because too many servicemen have an ingrained belief that every journalist is an enemy, and that none of them have your interests at heart.