Looking Over Their Shoulders

By William A. Henry III.

After protracted debate with press executives, the Pentagon last week imposed its "final" rules for covering combat in the gulf -- and leading news organizations promptly labeled them unacceptable.

At every stage, effective control of a correspondent's work will be in the hands of the military officers he or she is with. Coverage at the front will be permitted only for Pentagon-organized pools of reporters under constant military escort. In World War II, Korea and Vietnam, by contrast, individual journalists could make arrangements to rove the war zone -- at their own risk, of course -- and the use of pools was rare. All stories from the gulf will have to be submitted to prior military review and may face delays in cases of dispute. No such restrictions existed in Vietnam, and Pentagon officials agree that no significant breaches of security occurred as a result.

Similar press rules have been grudgingly accepted by British reporters who will cover their nation's 30,000-plus troops in the gulf. French journalists must individually sign a four-page charter imposing comparable restrictions in order to gain access to their 10,000-member gulf force. In both nations, law and tradition make it easier for the government to control the wartime press than in the U.S. The British believe stringent controls over press coverage in the Falkland Islands war contributed greatly to the success of the effort. London firmly believes that to enjoy public support, war must be conducted beyond the public's view. The Pentagon apparently now concurs with the British view.

As soon as the Pentagon's rules were made final, the presidents of the four major TV news networks sent a letter of protest to Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. So did editors of the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Philadelphia Inquirer, TIME and the Associated Press, while the New York Times issued a similar statement. The network presidents charged that the rules "go far beyond what is required to protect troop safety and mission security . . . and raise the specter of government censorship of a free press." The A.P. protested a ban on reporting "details of major battle damage or major personnel losses" until announced by the Pentagon. "You could drive an Army half-track through this provision," said A.P.'s Washington bureau chief, Jonathan Wolman. An A.P. reporter was among those whose copy was censored by the military in a 1987 incident, not only to remove operational details about a U.S. escort for Kuwaiti tankers but also to delete the fact that two U.S. officers had conferred "over a beer." The scrutinizer said the description "looked bad."

Despite the pressure, Pentagon spokesman Pete Williams insisted that any nonpool reporter who tried to observe U.S. troops in action would promptly be "escorted back to a rear unit and, as soon as possible, back to Dhahran." Many Americans would like to believe that the Vietnam War was not lost on the battlefield but in the headlines. The Pentagon denies it shares that view, but its actions gainsay its words.

With reporting by Stanley W. Cloud/Washington and Frank Melville/London