Download issue (PDF) - Nieman Foundation - Harvard University

Coverage of Terrorism
But the Panama experience was
nothing compared to the Gulf War. In
that one, the military succeeded in
creating the most rigid control of combat
coverage in American history. Using
the Pentagon Pool concept as its
starting point, the Defense Department
decreed that the entire war—not just
its initial stage—would be covered by a
complex system of rotating pools. Participation
required that journalists acquiesce
to an onerous set of rules governing,
among other things, their
freedom of movement, their freedom
to photograph, and their freedom to
conduct interviews. Worse, they had to
submit their copy for “security review.”
Ostensibly this was to be a benign
search for classified or sensitive information,
but it became a fairly rigid
system of censorship that resulted in
the deletion of merely embarrassing
facts or in the delay of their transmission
until a report had lost virtually all
news value.
In the midst of all this, the Pentagon’s
chief spokesman, Pete Williams (now
an NBC correspondent), wrote in The
Washington Post that the Gulf War was
the best-covered war in U.S. history. In
fact, by any objective standard, it was
the worst, and had the war gone badly
for the United States, the American
people would have been among the
last to know.
In the aftermath, another series of
negotiations between the press and
the Pentagon brass was conducted. I
was one of five journalists appointed
by the ad hoc Washington bureau chiefs’
organization to represent them in the
negotiations. With me on the committee
were Michael Getler, foreign editor
of The Washington Post; Clark Hoyt,
Washington bureau chief of the Knight
Ridder newspaper chain; Jonathan
Wolman, Washington bureau chief of
The Associated Press, and George
Watson, Washington bureau chief of
ABC News. Our task was to try to undo
as much as possible of the damage
done by the creation of the Pentagon
Pool and its application during the
Gulf War.
The negotiations with Pentagon officials
dragged on for eight months. In
that time, it became clear on our side of
the table that our interests were not
always identical. Wire services and television
news, for example, with their
fierce competition and short deadlines,
tended to be much more dependent
on pools for early stories and pictures
than, say, newsmagazines. They were
thus much less inclined to disband the
Pentagon Pool altogether and simply
tell the brass, as Getler put it at one
point, “that we’ll see you at the next
war.” Bridging the differences among
ourselves and still accomplishing our
goal was a major challenge.
In the end, we and the Pentagon
representatives managed to agree on
nine general principles “to be followed
in any future combat situation involvrial
and will make these facilities
available whenever possible for filing
independent coverage. In cases
when government facilities are unavailable,
journalists will, as always,
file by any other means available.
The military will not ban communications
systems operated by news
organizations, but electromagnetic
operational security in battlefield
situations may require limited restrictions
on the use of such systems.
• These principles will apply as well to
the operations of the standing DOD
National Media Pool System.
Accompanying Statement on
Security Review
News Media Statement: The news
organizations are convinced that journalists
covering U.S. forces in combat
must be mindful at all times of operational
security and the safety of American
lives. News organizations strongly
believe that journalists will abide by
clear operational security ground rules.
Prior security review is unwarranted
and unnecessary. We believe that the
record in Operation Desert Storm, Vietnam
and other wars supports the conclusion
that journalists in the battlefield
can be trusted to act responsibly.
We will challenge prior security review
in the event that the Pentagon attempts
to impose it in some future military
operation.
Department of Defense Statement:
The military believes that it must retain
the option to review news material, to
avoid the inadvertent inclusion in news
reports of information that could endanger
troop safety or the success of a
mission. Any review system would be
imposed only when operational security
is a consideration (for example, the
very early stages of a contingency operation
or sensitive periods in combat.)
If security review were imposed,
it would be used for one very limited
purpose: to prevent disclosure of information
that, if published, would
jeopardize troop safety or the success
of a military operation. Such a review
system would not be used to seek alterations
in any other aspect of content or
to delay timely transmission of news
material. Security review would be
performed by the military in the field,
giving the commander representative
the opportunity to address potential
ground rule violations. The reporter
would either change the story to meet
ground rule concerns and file it, or file
it and flag for the editor whatever passages
were in dispute. The editor would
then call the Pentagon to give the military
one last chance to talk about potential
ground rule violations.
The Defense Department believes
that the advantage of this system is that
the news organization would retain
control of the material throughout the
review and filing process. The Pentagon
would have two chances to address
potential operational security violations,
but the news organization
would make the final decision about
whether to publish the disputed information.
Under Principle Four, violation
of ground rules could result in
expulsion of the journalist involved
from the combat zone.
Adopted March 11, 1992 ■
Nieman Reports / Winter 2001 15