During times of war and military action, issues of censorship and the public’s right to know versus the government’s need to keep military secrets come into the arena.

The Persian Gulf War is no exception.

Despite continuous attempts by reporters to get out on the front lines to witness battle first hand and document the happenings on both sides of the fire, there are government regulations hanging overhead that ultimately put the nix on any of these plans.

The most obvious of these regulations are the “reporter pools,” filled with physically fit journalists who can only travel with their military press guide.

And unlike Vietnam where journalists were able to publish just about anything of fact—and often not of fact—they could get their hands on, the military has its fat red marker to draw lines right through a reporter’s story before it hits the television screen and newspapers.

Although there seem to be a few hotshot journalists in the Gulf who might want to single-handedly battle their way into the action despite restraints, many journalists back home tend to have an understanding that military officials’ first responsibilities are to engage the task at hand while keeping our soldiers healthy.

For example, the military is censoring things like the exact location of troops or where a missile hit until the officials are ready to give their briefing.

Common sense dictates that some of these things are better left unsaid for now so as not to endanger the U.S. plans or the soldiers. No credible medium would want to risk the success of a troops anyway, and probably would not release much of the information if they weren’t being told not to do so already.

But then there are other memories that pop into one’s head that leave doubt as whether that’s really all that is being censored.

No journalist will ever forget Grenada, for instance, when the press was completely removed from the situation and left to float alongside. And few journalists are willing to ever let that happen again.

The government keeps reassuring journalists that Grenada won’t happen again—usually in the same breath that they are saying “not another Vietnam.”

The question that keeps arising though is how thin is the line being drawn between the Gulf War and Grenada?

If people are to take for gospel CNN’s interpretations, the line isn’t very thick at all.

The cable network has reported being banned from talking to military chaplains and claim they were not allowed to film or report on a patch on a soldier’s uniform—which they eventually did show on camera—that read something to the effect of “kick Hussein out.”

Clearly this type of censorship is not to protect military secrets but to prevent any negative images about the soldiers and the war itself, as many claim happened in Vietnam.

Is the government censoring what the public knows to protect military strategy? Or is part of the plan to hide those inevitable embarrassing tidbits that pop up along the way?

The media does not need to be sensationalistic about the tragedies of war. But they certainly should be allowed to report on events that will not sacrifice the outcome of the war, or the men and women involved.