” If the only things they would be permitted to report are official releases, there’s no reason to have press credentials because the releases are all online anyway.”
Here’s an interesting story. The week before the Pearl Harbor attack our War Plan Rainbow was leaked and published in the Chicago Tribune. Caused quite a stir but was forgotten after the attack. I guess you’re okay with this kind of thing.
Well, your guess would be wrong because I have already said upthread that I am taking about non-classified information. Here's what I posted:
I have zero issue with the Pentagon limiting or even eliminating physical access to the building by the press. The part that I think was wrong was requiring the press to seek prior approval prior to printing stories even if all the information contained therein was non-classified.
We only found out about the DEI training, lowering of standards for females, etc. etc. etc., because they were reported on. I don't think a policy that requires prior approval before reporting non-classified information is a good one because it means that other information like that can be more easily covered up in the future.
"Non-classified" information clearly excludes the highly classified war plans in your example. So no, I clearly would not be okay with that.
But, my question to you would be if you are okay with reporters being banned from discussing even non-classified information that may exposes shady crap like DEI, lowered standards, etc..
Because if you are going to support those kind of rules, they would apply regardless of which Administration is in power.