Media In Times of War
...s did complain about these limitations of access and refused to except these types of restrictions in the future. In late 1991 these leading news organizations and military officials began negotiating a set of principles for both parties to follow in future war coverage.(2) After lengthy discussions, the parties agreed that "[O]pen and independent reporting will be the principle means of coverage and access will be provided to all major military units." Furthermore they agreed that military public affairs officers should act as liaisons and not interfere with the reporting processes. But the most important of the principles agreed upon is the following: Journalists in the combat zones shall be credentialed by the U.S. military and shall be required to abide by a clear set of military security ground rules that protect the U.S. Armed Forces and their operations. Violation of the ground rules may result in suspension of credentials and expulsion from the combat zone of the journalist involved.(2) Because of the possibility of being removed from breaking news this principle deters journalists from reporting news that could jeopardize operational security. The principles do not however specify anything about "security reviews". Journalists were concerned that even though they are allowed to be present they may not be allowed to report non-military events. The Pentagon refused an addition to the principles regarding these "security reviews". Spokesman for the Pentagon Pete Williams stated, "The military believes it must retain the option to review news material to avoid the inadvertent inclusion in news reports of information that would endanger troop safety or the success of a military mission."(2) 2.) Lee, "Security Review and the First Amendment," Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Spring 2002 v25 i2 p743(21) In 2001, the Society of Professional Journalists as well as many other organizations for journalists asked Secretary Rumsfeld to prohibit "security reviews". They also requested that review of news content should only be for the "limited purpose of ensuring that troop movements and operations are properly protected..."(2) Basically the press said that they do not want any form of "security review" but will abide by it as a condition to gain access to military operations. There are new organizations being established to deal with a form of self censorship. In September 2002 a relatively small group of professional journalists formed Military Reporters & Editors. Lead by Seattle Posts' James Wright and San Antonio Express-News writer Sig Christenson, M.R.E plans on taking on the Pentagon. M.R.E.'s Vice president Dave Moniz, a military reporter for USA Today, says the government has legitimate reasons to withhold certain information. But no one monitors when Pentagon officials cross the line and establish policies that deny the public basic factual information. He states, "All of us have experienced some level of frustration with the military over the last year."(3) In response to the formation of M.R.E. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Bryan Whitman said, "The military is making efforts to balance the desire of journalists to witness missions in combat zones with other pressing factors." And goes on to say, "We are committed to providing the greatest access possible to journalists, but we are also charged with ensuring that we do not needlessly endanger the troops we send into harm's way or to compromise the success of our operations." There has also been several debates among members of the Society of Professional Journalists regarding the Code of Ethics. Right now there are two arguments that are being discussed about a revision of the code. One argument is that the Code of Ethics is like the constitution saying that it 3.) Heyboer, "Poised for Battle," American Journalism Review, Nov. 2002 v24 i9 p16(2) was intended to stand the "tests of time". Also saying that it was written with the future in mind and that it is basic in nature. And to change it, no matter the circumstances, is a mistake. The other argument is t...