otherwise generally uncooperative.nThat point (the fact that journalistsnaren’t very sharp) is stressed throughoutnthe book. First Gitlin asserts, “thenarchetypical news story is a crime story,nand an opposition movement is ordinarily,nroutinely, and unthinkingly treatednas a sort of crime.” Thinking is out because:n”Extending the news story wouldnentail hard and unaccustomed work,noutside normal newsgathering routines,ngoing beyond the given scene, the givennpress conference, and the given pressnrelease.” He later points out that “mostnTimes reporters learn the news-reportingntrade on a police beat, where theyncan rely on the police to dig up ‘thenfacts’ and, actually, to decree just whatnconstitutes a relevant fact.” In the seeminglynrare cases where thought can bendetected, “Reporters covering the samenevent find it convenient to borrownangles, issues, and questions from eachnother.” I suppose this only happens whenna police officer isn’t available.nHowever, if all reporters are so dumb,nthe idea that newspeople had somethingnpersonal against SDS would seem to bendifficult to prove. After all, who wouldnbelieve that those pathetic scribblers,nthose veritable sheep, could have somethingnpersonal against anything.? ButnGitlin indicates that they could benbrighter if they only tried. Therefore,nsince they didn’t try, he says:nThe editors and reporters … are generallynupper-middle-class in origin,nand although their personal valuesnmay be liberal by the conventional nomenclaturenof American politics, theyntend to share the core hegemonic assumptionsnof their class: that is, ofntheir managers as vs^ell as their majornsources. Their salaries are handsomen(in 1976, CBS News paid its correspondentsnbetween $35,000 andn$80,000 a year, not counting fringenbenefits and perquisites), and theynshare tastes and vacation spots andncirculate at dinner parties with manynof their sources.nTo give more support to the idea thatnthere was personal vindictiveness involved,nGitlin points out some reportersnwho were infinitely more noble andnforthright than the average human being,nreporters who could dig up thenfacts all by themselves, or at least takenthem wholesale from people like DanielnEllsberg, thief of the Pentagon Papersnand source for Gitlin. Consider FrednPowledge, formerly of the Times. InnMarch 1965 a background story bynPowledge on the student left ran in thenTimes. Gitlin describes the story, thennsays: “All in all, the Powledge piecenderived its information from within thenradical student orbit, and conveyed respectnand a certain distanced sympathy.”nLater Gitlin presents “CBS News” correspondentnAlexander Kendrick: “LikenFred Powledge of the Times, Kendricknhimself was sympathetic to the NewnLeft, and unusually well-informed.”nKendrick did pro-SDS pieces. Thennthere is Stanhope Gould of CBS, “anyoung, long-haired, brash, inventivenfield reporter,” whom Gitlin quotes asnwho supplied not only a blurb for thendust jacket, but also additional tidbits tonGitlin. Did Schorr ask permission of thenHouse Select Intelligence Committeenbefore he sold its secret report to ThenVillage Voice?nfinally, the cabal theory. Gitlin doesnmake some perceptive points about thenpower of the media with regard to helpingnform the views and opinions of itsnreaders and auditors. (Which leads mento wonder: had the media not recognizednSDS, would it have lasted as long as itndid.”) Gitlin turns to Antonio Gramsci,nan Italian communist of the earlier partnof this century, for many of his termsnand concepts, a seemingly chic thing tondo. That is, it will send some to theirnreference books to check on Gramsci,nand others will just be suitably impressednwith Gitlin’s erudition, which will addnimmeasurably to his radical cachet. Itnshould be noted that Gitlin makes thenbook appear to be a scholarly text: manynfootnotes, subheads, references to othernI would propo.si.’ iliar S15.S was the glorv ol tlio American si.xiics.'”n. . the pcT.’ipeclive is cs.sentialK corivcl . . .”nsaying, ” ‘I was sympathetic, I wasn’tnthat old myself.’ ” I wonder if SDS suppliednthese gentlemen with handkerchiefsnwith the party line sewn samplerlikenacross them.” These media personnelnare touted as being quite sharp. Afternpraising Gould on one page, Gitlin blastsnRowland Evans and Robert Novak,n”longtime Communist hunters,” on thennext, because they, “As usual … didnnot cushion the force of their exposen[which said SDS was organizing a nationalnantidraft campaign in 1965] bynasking SDS to confirm or deny theirnstory, or by asking for any commentnwhatsoever.” You can be sure that Powledge,nKendrick and Gould would havenasked. To say nothing of Daniel Schorr,nnn-Girl OjilesbynInquirynyat ionnparts of the book, etc. I suspect that onenreason for this approach is that such angimmick will aid the marketing of thenbook as a college text. And besides that,nit, as in the case of books like Chariotsnof the Gods, must look learned so as tonachieve sure-fire plausibility with thosenwho don’t know any better.nGitlin describes Gramsci’s “core conception”:n”those who rule the dominantninstitutions secure their power in largenmeasure directly and indirectly, by impressingntheir definitions of the situationnupon those they rule and, if notnusurping the whole ideological space,nstill significantly limiting what isnthought throughout society.” Thosenwho rule, in this case, of course, are anmm^mmmmmmmmm^nJannary/Fcbpuary 1981n