MOME Proposed Amended Rules re Press Credentials

Online comments: 8

• 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