...Really? First amendment anyone?

[Weltall]

It's literally what they are saying.

Literally, what they were saying is that certain areas would be surrounded by a 65 foot safety zone, and there were legitimate reasons for this. Reporters were potentially endangering (and almost certainly interfering with) individuals involved with cleanup. Reporters could gain access to areas within this safety zone if given prior clearance.

This doesn't mesh at all with a statement like "photographing cleanup in the Gulf is now illegal", and all the rage responsible for its being rescinded is the result of media outlets raging over the inconvenience.