Patrick Sloyan was the senior Washington bureau correspondent for Newsday, where he won the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting for uncovering a series of Desert Storm battlefield events that had been hidden from the media by the George H.W. Bush administration.

He has covered national and international news events since 1960.

Interview conducted on March 13^th, 2003:

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

It’s an adversarial relationship that takes a critical approach to government; a bulwark against government.  It provides balanced and accurate information—a balanced and accurate picture is what I’m looking at.

The theme of my news accounts is revelation—not gotcha style journalism.  The goal is to reveal the true nature in complex issues.

In government, there are many voices—government agencies who have different points of view.  The viewpoints are based on the same information but different opinions come out. There are many sources of information—that’s how you come up with accuracy, but not necessarily the big picture.

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

There are many types of journalism during combat.  What they are doing in Iraq (embed experiment) is nothing new—it was done in the Crimean War.  The viewpoint is akin to the individual soldier to the individual commander, colored by the journalist for warm appreciation, but you also get the horrors of war.  So, you retain a dedication to fairness and balance.  The trend in journalism today is to push an agenda which is a violation of what they are supposed to be doing.

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

It’s pretty good.  It’s the kind of coverage you saw in Vietnam, with the same restrictions as today.  This war you are seeing what the horrors of war are really like.  The killing of soldiers, civilians, errant bombs, accidental killings—this is the reality of war.  You didn’t see any of that in Desert Storm.  I spent six months after the Gulf War covering the war that was blinded (to the press and the public).  This (war) is in stark contrast to the first Gulf War.  The long term coverage (the kind I did after the first Gulf War), there is some of that going on now. 

There are many reporters cutting their teeth on this war, who have no military service experience.  This Vietnam generation doesn’t have the military experience to know what they are seeing.  You can’t get the right answers if you don’t know the right questions.

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

This war coverage is much better than in the past but Vietnam was the best (example of ideal coverage).  In Vietnam, you (the reporter) could go wherever you wanted to and see whatever you wanted to and they (the military) would take you.  The guys (soldiers) were happy to see you.