Proposed Rule Withdrawn – MOME Proposed Amended Rules re Press Credentials

Online comments: 11

• Anjali Bhat

  This proposed rule is obviously intended to stifle independent journalism, and should be rejected.

  Comment added December 24, 2025 10:46am

• Neil Constantine

  As a photojournalist, these proposed rules are a divisive means to create structure of separation that can easily be taken advantage of by a scandal plagued government employee, such as Eric Adams or any failing politician or Government group. The tier then creates an avenue of creating reason to keep other outlets or “less experienced” press out of anything. What does legacy media or 20 years experience have to do with finding or witnessing a truth that must be presented to the world? The vagueness of the other half in regards to approving denying, revoking and suspensions is frightening and truly a violation or attack of the freedom of the press. Reform and refinement in such broad unspecified terms leaves not the opening for evolution but a road paved for the tyrannical to travel. The word set above should not be envoked and allowed a single day’s light beyond comments. These proposed rules are a blight upon the constitution and a continuance of corruption from the outgoing Adam’s administration. It harkens back to the days of the nypd trying to block the truth when in charge of the press. Eric Adams and anyone enabling him should not be allowed to set forth rules on their way out that seek to destabilize the honest people of New York City who rely on the press. If additional rules are sought to better the press, then that should be anything other than this as it’s vague control and creation of barriers to tomorrow are not a help, they are a hinderance that come across as someone from Turkey or Trump’s DC suggested at a party Eric Adams attended. I oppose this and call upon all who are press and people to do the same.

  Comment added December 24, 2025 11:05am

• Nancy Sheran

  These rule changes appear to be requiring more “professionalism” from the press, but this goes against the forces of today’s journalism and social media, which is to encourage decentralization and the ability to publish to a community as an individual blogger or podcaster. Legitimate news gatherers and publishers may not be affiliated with a for-profit news business. In addition, many nonprofits and their volunteers put out newsletters, and merit the title of “press.” They may have alternative ways of funding their ventures, other than by subscriptions. Rules for Press Passes should reinforce freedom of speech and access as a human right. Press passes should also be available to non-profits and individuals who gather and publish news as individual commentators. Their area of expertise may be narrow, but that should not prevent them from getting a Press Pass.

  Comment added December 24, 2025 4:44pm

• JB Nicholas

  ONE SNOWFLAKE COMPLAINT, NO EVIDENCE: ERIC ADAMS EXIT PLAN OPENS DOOR TO CITY CENSORSHIP OF JOURNALISTS
  https://www.thefreelancenews.org/home/on-his-way-out-the-door-former-mayor-eric-adams-is-trying-to-make-it-easy-for-the-city-to-take-journalists-press-credentials

  Comment added January 3, 2026 10:40pm

• Todd Maisel

  There is no good reason for adding “threats” to the issues that lead to suspension or revocations. MOME already has ways to deal with that in current reading. This opens it up to people making complaints for no reason other than to harass photographers and journalists for merely doing a door knock, or taking a photo they don’t like. There are plenty of reasons for MOME to take action, especially if a press person is arrested for doing harm, threatening harm or doing something serious that warrants arrest. We’ve had photographers get in arguments in the field and then file criminal complaints when nothing had occurred. This opens up a can of worms when the proper way to deal with these issues already exists. I also don’t understand the Premier Card. Yea, I could get one, but why? Does it cut out people with 15 yrs from covering certain events? Hmmm.

  Comment added January 6, 2026 4:46pm

• Anonymous

  This rule seems to exist only to stifle the press and keep away more reporters. As a journalist with 20+ year experience, I know many reporters far younger than me, with much less experience, who are operating at the top of their game. I don’t believe MOME gains anything from banning such reporters — unless the goal is to shrink the amount of people who are granted access to cover them. If allowed to go into effect, this rule will brush up uncomfortably against the First Amendment (which prohibits Congress from making laws abridging freedom of speech or the press, safeguarding independent reporting from government control, and preventing prior restraint / censorship before publication).

  Comment added January 7, 2026 10:25am

• Isabella Rieke

  This is a thinly veiled attempt by the former Mayor to hinder the freedom of the press and attempt to control who has access to breaking news and our City’s government. I implore the current administration to double down on their respect for the press and dismiss these egregious proposed changes — more access for journalists is good for us all!!

  Comment added January 8, 2026 10:05am

• Brian L

  This is a terrible idea that will stifle press freedom and result in a less-informed public.

  Comment added January 8, 2026 11:12am

• Christopher Leon Johnson

  Good morning. My name is Christopher Leon Johnson and I am opposed to the rules. I was waiting to make a statement on this but I’m happy that I was submitting this comment when Mayor Zohran Mamdani said that he will rescind the new rules proposal.

  I hope that Zohran Mamdani Fires the Executive Director of the Press Crediental Office and Fire the Chief Legal Counsel Skarbo too. Skarbo is being petty and moving the Goal Posts to make sure that certain people doesn’t get press credientals to the point of trying to revoke the press pass of an activist because they were protesting Judges. Skarbo was desperate to revoke Press Passes for anyone that protest judges but was dragging his feet when someone was throwing paint to a Jewish Board Member house to support Palestine and when a Member of NYPPA got arrested for violating a lawful order during the Jordan Neely Protest in Soho. . The current Press Office is Bias and Petty. They support Antifa, Far Leftist orgs and the NYPPA Bullies(the same folks that the ED took a picture with and most likely was the ones that help drafted the proposal to make sure that they are the only ones that are allowed to cover the mayors office and the nonprofits). The ED Nasser and Chief Counsel Skarbo are the ones that proposed to the mayors office to change the rules. Most likely that Zohran will make sure that people that are independent get the passes but GC Skarbo and the ED Nasser will convince him to keep the Provisons F and E to where if anyone does the CEA Weaver embarrassment saga via the NYPOST and Daily Mail then they can get their press passes revoked or suspended. I think people should be calling the Mayors office and calling on the Mayor and Espinal to fire Skarbo and Nasser. Those two will the the biggest advseraries to make sure that Independent menu doesn’t get press passes. Please reject this rule.

  Christopher Leon Johnson

  Comment added January 12, 2026 12:13pm

• Whitney Curry Wimbish

  I am a journalist with more than two decades of experience reporting in New York, New Jersey, the UK, Cambodia and elsewhere, and I’m writing to voice my strong objection to former Mayor Eric Adams’ proposal to change NYC press pass rules. The proposal would have a severe chilling effect on newsgathering and should be rejected in its entirety.

  Requiring applicants to be employed by or affiliated with a media platform is inappropriate in an era of extreme media consolidation and mass layoffs. According to research from Challenger, Gray and Christmas, media outlets cut 17,000 jobs in 2025 across TV, film, broadcast, news and streaming for the first 11 months of the year – up 18 percent from the year before. The news space alone – broadcast, digital and print – suffered 2,254 job cuts. The journalists laid off from these positions have fewer options for full-time jobs and frequently turn to freelancing. Adams’ proposal would wrongly prevent these reporters from obtaining a press pass, making it more difficult for them to practice journalism. It would likewise punish everyone else unable to find a full-time position among the vanishingly small number of open jobs, especially journalists new to the industry.

  The provision to create a “Premier Press Card” for people with a minimum of 20 years of experience would further unfairly disadvantage young reporters, who enter an industry with fewer options than I had when I began my career. This is wrong and would erode the industry. It is unfair to give advantages to people who are already the most advantaged in the industry.

  The most egregious portion of former Mayor Eric Adams’ proposal is the expansion of the grounds on which a press credential could be denied, suspended or revoked to include “an open arrest for or prior conviction of a misdemeanor offense, regardless of whether the offense was committed during the course of newsgathering.” We are working in an era of rampant and well-documented police and federal agent abuse of journalists. This provision sets up a dynamic where a reporter covering police and federal agents risks not only physical abuse, but an arrest and criminal charge that would jeopardize their press credentials. In other words, having this provision on the books gives the people the press are meant to hold to account even more power to silence them.

  All of these provisions would have a chilling effect on members of the NYC press, who already face numerous obstacles to hold the powerful to account. Mayor Mamdani should reject them.

  Thank you and best regards,
  Whitney Curry Wimbish

  Comment added January 12, 2026 12:36pm

• Graham Rayman

  I am a journalist who has covered the city for more than 30 years with The Daily News, The Village Voice, and Newsday. These amended rules are simply an effort to introduce more bureaucratic barriers to the press in a time when journalism is under constant attack. It’s a bad look politically and bad policy, especially for the City of New York.

  It seeks to create a VIP room for the press and smacks of retaliation by the previous administration. It is also a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Pls reject these proposals and instead offer broader opportunity to the media.

  Of course the first inclination of any bureaucracy is to expand its powers, but in this case as in many others, the effort is completely counter-productive to the central goal of keeping the public informed about events and statements that affect this, the largest city in the United States, one that should lead by example.

  The requirement that a journalist be affiliated with an organization discriminates against freelancers, people working on books and a range of other types of journalists and should be rejected immediately as obviously unconstitutional. Freedom of the press does not come with an asterisk.

  News associations are great but there should be no requirement of membership to obtain a press card. Many journalists would agree with Groucho Marx when he said he would never belong to a club that would have him as a member.

  As we have seen over the past decade, a journalist can really be anybody who is witnessing a newsworthy event and providing an account to the public. This effort to create an even more narrow private club ignores that distinguished history.

  Let’s not forget that in the prior mayor’s tenure, the reporters at 1 Police Plaza were shunted to a more remote room, general access to 1PP was eve more sharply restricted, reporters were forced to sign a written policy to work out of 1PP, the NYPD encrypted its radio transmissions, City Hall sought to restrict and limit use of its own press room and reporters were attacked by name and invective by high city officials. All these steps created a chilling effect and are anti-Constitutional and un-American. I don’t even need to mention what’s coming out of Washington. This policy seems to seek to add to that unfortunate history.

  Does NYC really need a overly lawyered 17 page policy on press passes?

  The press card itself is already of limited use in the first place. The police already severely limit press access at breaking news scenes – i.e., the “pens.” The most useful element of a press card is getting into City Hall, 1PP and other official buildings for press conferences, which are events called by the agencies themselves which by definition want media in attendance. So why restrict further?

  I’m not sure there’s a need for a “premier press card.” For what purpose?

  Finally, the additional punitive measures are completely unnecessary and again smack of retaliation.

  Let’s focus on informing the public and reject getting sidetracked into trying to micro manage the 4th Estate, the only private profession by the way specifically named and protected in the Constitution.

  Thank you.

  Graham A. Rayman

  Comment added January 14, 2026 1:05pm