Doyle McManus is Washington Bureau Chief of The Los Angeles Times. He has reported on presidential politics, national affairs and foreign policy from Washington under three Presidents. As a foreign correspondent, he has written from more than sixty countries around the world — on wars in the Middle East and Latin America, revolutions in Russia and Iran, and economic change in Europe and Asia.

Interview with Doyle McManus conducted April 18, 2003 by Nasim Moalem

1. What do you believe is the role of the press in a democracy?

The role is quite essential and a three part role: 1) as a surrogate for citizens 2) as watchdog and 3) as a corps of information gatherers and analysts who can both make use of what’s going on in government and society and serve as a mode of communication—even among people who are in government.

2. What do you believe is the role of the press in a democracy during wartime?

The role is the same.  Citizens have a clear interest in and a right to know what a government is doing on their behalf.

3. How do you feel the coverage of the war with Iraq is going?

Embedding turned out really well, principally in print journalism.  For example, (The Washington Post) Bill Branigan’s piece on the checkpoint killings is a prime example of a reporter doing exactly what a reporter should so.  In late March, there was a questioning of whether the military plan was appropriate…embedded journalists did that with fairly ample evidence.  So, yes, most of the (war) print reporting is good journalism.

However, there are plenty examples of inadequate war reporting.  The T.V. coverage has relegated itself to cheerleading with splendid pictures.  There is (also the example of) the war that is reported on one side and not the other—the Iraqi government made it difficult to report very easily from the Iraqi perspective.  And there is war in which certain parts of the war are not open for any media, for example the special operations in Western Iraq are still secret.  We are in error if we think we have gotten a ring side seat to everything.

The coverage so far has been a success from the print media and the public because the (print) media did deliver more real time, accurate information about what was going on out there.

4. Do you have an example of when war coverage was ideal?

The ideal is unreachable.  In the post-Vietnam era, (military) officers wanted to shut out the media entirely, which had been the pattern on most wars since then but has loosened up over time.  In Afghanistan, however, reporters have no access to parts of the country under US control.

The embed project was a quite daring experiment and the ground rules were minimal and reasonable.  There are issues and danger signs that have to be kept in mind: 1) Are there instances in which military is trying to censor content and substance? There was a lot of that in the Gulf War, but haven’t heard of any in this war.  2) Examine the coverage itself after the dust has settled.  Is the coverage fair, accurate, skeptical and dispassionate?  That’s the more interesting test here—some stories are cheerleading, others are straight reporting—what is the ratio of one to the other?

From the press perspective in the Post-Vietnam era:

I think we are seeing a generational change in that generation of reporters that came out of Vietnam and Watergate—came into it knowing government lies all the time.  Officers came into it knowing the media is unfair and will screw you so the military doesn’t want anything to do with the process.  This cultural process was the starting point for both sides.  The Vietnam syndrome has gradually worn off.  It’s not accurate to say there is a love fest going on, but the two (media and the military) professions are trying to deal with each other with the premise that both are not out screw one another.