An Open Letter   

Mr. Pete Williams

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs

Washington, D.C.

Dear Pete,

Thanks for asking for comment on the Defense Department's proposed rules for members of the national press pool, although I feel jilted after almost 10 years of courtship. The rules would eliminate some of us who have been members from the beginning.

You remember that the pool got started after news organizations complained about being shut out of the Grenada invasion in 1983. My paper, the Milwaukee Journal, was one of 26 newspapers included, and I've attended most of the pool meetings over the years.

Everybody believed the pool would work. It did in rehearsals, and it even worked when you shipped us to Saudi Arabia in August 1990. But it fell apart in Panama, and you guys did a masterful job of manipulating the combat pool system in the gulf war to control information.

I know what you're going to say: We had open coverage when the Marines landed in Somalia, and we acted like buffoons. But it's the old watchdog bit – you've got to expect some unnecessary barking and occasional dumping on the carpet.

Long before that incident, however, you'd put these new "Eligibility Criteria for News Media Membership in the National Media Pool" in the Federal Register. That's almost as good as passing a law.

Three provisions are masterfully done. The first says that pool members must agree to the ground rules and "any additional ground rules or procedures established by the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) or the appropriate military commander to meet the operational security requirements of a given mission."

That's smart. There's no way any of us would be able to wander off and cover any news except what you and the generals approve.

The second rule says that pool members are required "to maintain a Washington, D.C., staff of sufficient size to preclude compromising operational security when the pool is activated."

As a Washington bureau chief, I wholeheartedly support that one. Although you don't specify how big the bureau must be, I welcome the chance to expand my staff. I assume the DOD will propose a line item in the 1994 budget to reimburse us so we can maintain the proper size bureau.

The third proposed rule says that pool members "must demonstrate a familiarity with the U.S. military and military operations by maintaining a correspondent who regularly covers military affairs, visits military operational units, attends Pentagon press conferences, and interviews senior military and civilian DOD officials."

That rule would do a quick job of eliminating reporters like Ernie Pyle of Scripps-Howard or Ruth Cowan of the Associated Press, the first woman combat correspondent. Neither ever covered the Pentagon before they went to war. They mainly wrote about soldiers and other real people.

But the real drawback to the proposed rules is they don't say anything about the military people who accompany the pool members, or the generals in charge of the action. So I propose adding the following:

1. All military officials with potential combat command responsibilities shall be required to memorize the First Amendment. They shall be tested annually on their knowledge of it, along with relevant U.S. Supreme Court decisions related to censorship and prior restraint.

2. All military personnel who might be called upon to escort the media in combat zones shall demonstrate that they have had at least two years of reporting experience with a reputable news organization. (In the spirit of your proposed rules, we'll worry about defining "reputable" later.)

3. All generals and other officers who have contact with any journalists shall be subject to any additional ground rules as determined by pool members.

Pete, I know this might take more space in the Federal Register. But fair's fair.