Censorship or National Security: with lives at stake, should the government exercise some control over the media during a war?

• Position: Opinion - Brief Article

Yes The question of whether the government should control the media during times of war is as old as war itself.

The military has a very important reason for controlling information during wartime: Officials rightly worry that news stories will inform the enemy about troop movements or military plans, thus endangering U.S. soldiers.

It's an established rule of war that victory most often goes to the side that has surprise in its favor. Authorities should review media accounts of tactical operations to make sure our reporting doesn't compromise military efforts. In this new information age of instant, global news, it's clear that our enemies are also watching satellite TV and monitoring Internet reports. No story "scoop" is worth risking the lives of American troops.

Since September 11, information about airport security, bridge and dam safety problems, nuclear power plants, and the like has been removed from a number of federal Web sites. For the time being, that decision is reasonable because data on those sites pinpointed weaknesses and provided exact locations--information that would be valuable to anyone seeking to sabotage them.

In the past, officials have cited another, less legitimate reason for wartime media control: that negative stories will undermine morale. This is too subjective a reason. Bad news may be depressing, but it is often only through exposing bad news that good news eventually results.

If information is controlled to save lives or shore up American vulnerability during times of war and national emergency, and if these controls are limited in time and scope, the media are wrong to oppose them.

--MIKE WENDLAND Columnist, The Detroit Free Press

No The Constitution entrusts journalism to the media, not the military. Congress is empowered to make "all laws" for the federal government, but "no law" restricting press freedom...