TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/011491/0114103.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 5.9 KB | 121 lines

                                                                                NATION, Page 17

Fencing In the Messengers


The U.S. press and the Pentagon square off over unprecedented
limits on news coverage of a potential gulf battlefield

By WILLIAM A. HENRY III -- Reported by Stanley W.
Cloud/Washington and Dean Fischer/Cairo


    Ever since the Vietnam War, many military officers have
contended that U.S. troops in combat face two foes: one on the
battlefield, the other in the news media. In this view,
reporters are more interested in probing for contradictions
between official statements and the testimony of footsore
grunts than in emphasizing any underlying unity of purpose.
They seek out graphic images of suffering, invading the privacy
of victims and allowing emotion to obscure larger concerns of
national policy. Above all, they may be so skeptical about war
in general, or a current war in particular, that they do not
root for the American side. Journalists regard this
characterization as unfair, but audiences may not be so sure.
The U.S. public seemed unperturbed when the Pentagon hindered
American reporters in covering the invasions of Grenada and
Panama.

    As the likelihood of combat has risen in the Persian Gulf,
where battlefield conditions and terrain would make military
assistance a necessity for reporters, distrust between the
brass and the press has blazed anew. Despite repeated contacts
with news executives who believe they made their concerns
clear, the Pentagon has expanded its proposed ground rules for
the behavior of journalists on any gulf battlefield from one
page to six. Even after a promise of revision following a
heated session with about 60 senior Washington journalists late
last week, the Pentagon seems firm in its intention: to impose
unprecedented restrictions on where reporters may go, whom
they can talk to under what conditions, and what they can show
of combat. Says ABC News Washington bureau chief George Watson:
"Literally interpreted, the proposed rules say you couldn't
take a picture of a wounded soldier. It's not possible to cover
a war without showing casualties."

    Initially the most attention-grabbing restriction was a
Pentagon fitness test for reporters, involving sit-ups,
push-ups and a 1.5-mile run. The idea was that before being
certified for combat coverage, a journalist would have to
demonstrate that he or she would not slow down troops. The
test, never before attempted in any U.S. conflict, prompted
much eyeball rolling and jollity in newsrooms across the
nation. But in Saudi Arabia, where zealous military officers put
the proposal into practice, most correspondents passed and
nearly all said the rule had practical value in a battle zone
with blazing sun and few trees or buildings for cover. Los
Angeles Times correspondent David Lamb, 50, who also reported
from Vietnam between 1968 and 1970, described the fitness
hurdle to his editors as "a blatant violation of my
constitutional rights, but the correct thing to do" Some
journalists asked whether civilian and military officials on
inspection tours would face the same rule. Pentagon officials
eventually conceded that they had gone overboard and withdrew
the test, but said they would still expect correspondents to
be fit enough to cope with the desert.

    Other proposed rules may prove harder to negotiate away. The
Pentagon seeks greater control of journalistic activities than
it had in Vietnam. It would limit initial combat coverage to
two 18-member pools of print and broadcast reporters, one each
with the Army and the Marines. Reporters would rotate and other
pools would be added, but the number of journalists covering
combat at any moment would probably be substantially smaller
than in Vietnam -- and almost surely smaller than news
organizations would pay for.

    News coverage outside the pool arrangement, a common
practice in past conflicts, is essentially impossible in the
gulf, and the Pentagon proposes that pool members have military
escorts "at all times." These pools inevitably will be
controlled to some extent by field commanders in Saudi Arabia,
where, according to Newsday Washington bureau chief Gaylord
Shaw, two reporters have been threatened with exclusion because
they asked "rude" questions. Such a ban would violate Pentagon
rules, but getting a reversal might require time-consuming
appeals back to the U.S.

    The most troubling requirement is that pool reports be
submitted to military censors to exclude any of 16 categories
of material. These range from "information on effectiveness of
enemy camouflage, cover, deception, targeting, direct and
indirect fire, intelligence collection or security measures"
to the catchall of "sensitive" matters. The concerns are valid,
but the definitions are broad and vague and must be applied by
military censors unaccustomed to such screening. Although the
rules provide for a complex appeal and allow for an ultimate
right to publish, the process could delay stories by days. All
interviews would have to be scheduled in advance and conducted
on the record -- a deterrent to whistle blowers, and a new
rule since Vietnam. In a blow to broadcasters, the Pentagon
would virtually ban conveying the sights and sounds of
casualties.

    Pentagon spokesman Pete Williams, who oversees the
rulemaking, said he wants to meet media concerns while assuring
U.S. commanders that "nothing will be reported that will
jeopardize the success of your mission." He rejected the urging
of Andrew Glass, Washington bureau chief of Cox Newspapers, and
others that the Pentagon list security-related taboos and count
on the honor and patriotism of journalists -- reinforced by the
military's legitimate accreditation powers -- to ensure
compliance. At week's end Williams promised instead to offer
still more proposals this week, only a few days before they may
begin to have real, and bleak, meaning.