• by Ray Schultz , Columnist, Yesterday

Publishers and editors both must be alarmed by the new rules for journalistic access just announced by the U.S. Department of War, formerly known as the Department of Defense.   

Reporters are now prohibited from publishing information that has not been pre-authorized. The penalty for violating this rule, which also covers unclassified material ,is to have one’s press pass revoked.  

And reporters must sign an agreement that they will comply. If they don’t, they will also lose their press pass.

This reduces the press pool to the role of simply waiting for handouts and announcements— any investigative reporting will clearly result in banishment.  

We’ll see how many reporters actually sign it. 

Several observers have blasted this plan. “In its current form, this dangerous new policy could be wielded to silence independent reporting in the public interest about the Pentagon and our national defense,” says Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, in a statement. 

“At the most basic level, the First Amendment means that the government doesn’t get to decide what information a journalist can or can’t publish.”

Similarly, the Society of Professional Journalists argues: "This policy reeks of prior restraint — the most egregious violation of press freedom under the First Amendment — and is a dangerous step toward government censorship. Attempts to silence the press under the guise of ‘security’ are part of a disturbing pattern of growing government hostility toward transparency and democratic norms.”

But the choice is a hard one.  To lose one’s credentials puts the publication at both a business and journalistic disadvantage, not to mention what it does to the reporter’s career.  

There have been times in American history — during World War II, say — when reporters were attached to military units and had to be careful not to publish information that would endanger our troops or help the enemy. 

But we are not in such a moment now. This move is occurring in a political hothouse at home. 

A publisher might agree with the Pentagon about most issues. But they should not be signing away their staff’s ability to cover the news.

Are there any ways around it? For one, all media organizations could agree to turn in their credentials in at once. Or, they might cooperate with each other by having events covered by a pool of reporters.  

Neither of these schemes would likely work, given that some media organizations firmly support the administration.

A reporter tossed out of the press pool would have no choice but to work his or her sources and do the kind of reporting the government is clearly trying to squelch.