Op-Ed piece in the Times: http://partners.nytimes.com/2002/03/02/opinion/02RICH.html
An excerpt:
"The president's sentiments were no doubt sincere, as is his muscular pursuit of the killers. But there is still scant evidence to suggest that he condones the idea of a free press. Not since the Nixon years has an administration done as much to stymie reporters who specialize in the genre of investigative inquiry Mr. Pearl was pursuing when he was ambushed. Now as then, the administration is equally determined to thwart journalists whether they're looking into a war abroad or into possible White House favors for a lavish campaign contributor who has fallen into legal peril (Ken Lay now, Robert Vesco then).The most chilling example involves another newspaper reporter in Central Asia, the war correspondent Doug Struck of The Washington Post. On Feb. 10 — two weeks after Americans first saw pictures of Mr. Pearl with a gun pointed at his head — Mr. Struck reached the remote spot of Zhawar, Afghanistan, to track down reports that a U.S. Hellfire missile targeting Al Qaeda operatives had instead killed villagers. By his account, Mr. Struck soon was held at gunpoint by U.S. soldiers. Their commander, after consulting with superiors by radio, told him, "If you go further, you would be shot." Once he wrote of the incident, a Pentagon spokesman tried to discredit his story, saying that Mr. Struck had only been held back for his own safety. But the Post correspondent called the Pentagon's version "an amazing lie," adding that "it shows the extremes the military is going to keep this war secret, to keep reporters from finding out what's going on."
Mr. Struck has credibility not least because his tale is part of a pattern that began on Sept. 11, when the White House spread the canard that the president had delayed his return to Washington because of a threat against Air Force One."