Quote

Historically, war journalists have embedded themselves with one side, which means the greatest threat comes from the clearly delineated enemy of that side.

To be a good reporter, writing about war, you have to write about the people. It's not about the tanks or the RPGs or military strategy. It's always about the effect war has on civilians, on society, and how it disrupts and destroys lives.

On the flip side, I enjoy covering the Arab world, I've spent my entire career here in the Middle East, but I would never call myself a war correspondent.

I was a war correspondent. I've watched great people crumble under pressure and make bad decisions.

I was a war correspondent in Korea. I did a book on it: 'This is War.'

Wars tend to be very public things, they are visible. There are correspondents traveling with the troops and you get daily dispatches.

When you are on assignment, you stick to the facts, limit your vision, and often cut out the most revealing material. There is no texture, no shades of gray. In fiction, you can bring the reader on the perilous journey with your characters as they discover that war is more like a wilderness of mirrors, full of danger and uncertainty.

I'm a writer. I don't support any war. That's my principle.

When you are covering a life-or-death struggle, as British reporters were in 1940, it is legitimate and right to go along with military censorship, and in fact in situations like that there wouldn't be any press without the censorship.

I don't think I'd call myself a war writer, but I would probably say I'm a writer who has written about war.