Does the Pentagon have the authority to prevent reporters from being with troops?

Question

or is that a form of censorhip and restraint of a news organization?

Sure the Pentagon is in charge of where, etc... military personnel goes, etc... but, can they legally prevent reporters from going with them?

This question stems out of Congressman Duncan Hunter of Ca. resent request to the Pentagon to have CNN reporters embedded with American troops removed.

http://www.spj.org/news.asp?REF=633#633

Answer 1

Yes, I think that they can, if having reporters along would jeopardize the mission or put American troops in trouble I think they should have that right. I do however think that they should not be able to pick and choose which reporters that they take with them.

Answer 2

Yes the Pentagon does have the authority to restrict access of the press during combat missions and they can restrict their access to military bases and excercises. If the Pentagon allows reporters to be imbedded with the troops the reporter must sign certain paperwork that restricts what they can say and show due to national security, for example they can't do a live satilite feed without approval because it could give away troop location to the enemy. Also, if a reporter violates the "orders" of the commanding officer of the unit they are imbedded with they can, in rare circumstances, be Court Marshalled.

Answer 3

I think it is obvious that the military can eliminate the concept of "embedded" reporters. Many journalists disdain this idea because they believe in makes the media part of the "team" and leads to biased reporting (in favor of the US). CNNs protest relates more to the fact that other organizations will still have their embedded reporters (MSNBC, ABC, CBS, FOX) and CNN is being singled out as a punishment. That is another issue. But without question the Pentagon can choose to eliminate this program. The military is providing these journalists with flak jackets, transportation in armored vehicles, Kevlar helmets, and protection from enemy forces. They don't have to do any of that. If these journalists weren't embedded, they would be following the US around without any protection, and you would see many, many more dead journalists.

The military can control access to it's troops, bases, vehicles, etc. in a war zone without question. It is a matter of tactical security. It is only through the good grace of the Pentagon that our media has any access to what the military is doing over there. If they choose to end that access tomorrow, then they can do so without violating any law whatsoever. Journalists could choose to cover the war in a traditional manner, by reporting on what they see and learn outside of the US military.

Answer 4

The media has either misinterpretation the First Amendment right to freedom of the press or has purposely attempted to distort the meaning of freedom of the press to the American people.

Freedom of press is just that, it allows the media to publish or broadcast any information they obtain without fear of the government attempting to censor them or arrest them for doing so. It does NOT guarantee the media the right to have the government or military assist them in gather information to print or broadcast.

Only the media's arrogance or distorted view of the first amendment would hold this interpretation. Which begs the question, if these organizations hold such distorted views of facts about something as clear as the First Amendment, should we believe anything that these companies publish is accurate and truthful?

A similar event occurred in Maryland two years ago. When the Governor felt that the Baltimore Sun was publishing false reports about his administration, he refused to provide information to the Baltimore Sun. The Sun sued the Governor, claiming he violated their right to freedom of the press. However, the Federal Courts throw out the Baltimore Sun's case. The Court ruled that 'the right to publish news is expansive, but it does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information.' Meaning, Sun reporters had the right to publish any story they wished, but the governor was not required to give the Sun any information at all. They would have to discover this information for themselves, which, of course, is the whole point of journalism. Reporters are suppose to perform investigations, find sources, verify information, and report their findings; and they do this outside of the government not in partnership with it. That's what Pravda was in the old Soviet Union.

Answer 5

They can if they believe having them along could jeopardize a mission or national security interests. During the first war in Iraq, Saddam and his people were watching that toad Peter Arnett blabbing his idiot head off about troop movements, etc.

Edit: Added links.

Edit 2: Very interesting article. A real dilemma to make a decision in that case. Not an easy web of concepts to untangle.

Answer 6

THE KEY WORD IN THAT ARTICLE IS EMBEDDED. THEY ARE UNDER THE PROTECTION OF AMERICAN TROOPS AND THEY TRAVEL WITH THE SOLDIERS. THE PENTAGON CAN STOP ANY NEWS AGENCY FROM BEING WITH OR AROUND THEIR TROOPS IN A TIME OF WAR. THEY ALSO HAVE THE POWER OF CENSORSHIP IN A TIME OF WAR. THE REPORTERS CAN GO WHERE THEY WANT BUT THEY GOVERNMENT CAN BAN THEM FROM ANY AREA THAT THEY FEEL WILL BE A DANGER TO THEM OR THE TROOPS. CNN IS AFFILIATED WITH AL JAZEERA THE AL QUEDA NEWS AND PROPAGANDA MACHINE. I WOULD ALSO BAN CNN FROM BEING NEAR ANY AMERICAN TROOPS.

Answer 7

this letter is CNNs side of the story, my question is why did Hunter request it. what was in his letter? Just because they state what they believe he is doing it for doesnt mean that is why he asked.