Doing Less with MorenBarbara Matusow: The EveningnStars: The Making of ti/e NetworknNews Anchor; Houghton MiflQin;nBoston.nby Gordon M. Pradln1 uming on the tube at seven o’clockneach weekday evening may be the mostnmassive act of collective delusion evernpracticed by a culture. Lusting after thisngoddess of immediacy, aptly called thennews, viewers sit glazed and numbedneach and every night before their screens.nThe networks are aware of this situation,nso they increasingly program up-to-theminutenon-the-spot newsbreaking reporting.nAnd with cable television, one atnlast can never no^be without the soothingnlibations of interpreted events.nNaturally, we want to find out what’sngoing on around us. There is, perhaps, anninborn curiosity related directly to ournearliest strategies for survival. Events outnin the world affect ourselves and othersnmake up the febric of our lives. But wenhave no experience until we actively participatenin the telling of these events, putnthem into our own words, commit acts ofninterpretation. As long as we maintainnprimary control over these speech acts,nare responsible for their style and integrity,nour daily decisions foster freedom.nBut not surprisingly, forces “wiser” thannourselves prefer to make these decisionsnfor us, prefer not to have to deal with thencomplexities and contradictions andncommon sense that might arise were wenleft alone to act for ourselves. And so thenflood of predigested news swells evernmore menacingly.nAlthough people want to assert theirnindependence by establishing unique interpretationsnof events, they also desirento share in thepowerfiil repetitions of thenDr. Pradl is with the Department ofnCommunication Arts and Science atnNew York University.ngroup, to acquiesce in world-building notntheir own. They want, in other words, tonbe assertive and docile at the same time.nNewsgatherers, have pounced on thisnconflict and offer up an illusion that appearsnto fiilfill both needs simultaneously.nThis is the fiction of mass “participation”nin the evening news. There are no individualninterpretations, just a predigestednmenu offered by the networks. As this isnnot easily discerned, the locus of our society’sninterpretive control moves fromnthe irmer resources of its citizens to thenouter maniptilations of lib culture.nThe history of this trend is both longnand varied; it effectively began when thenprograms established to report the newsninverted their original purpose, that ofnbeing a conduit. The night watchman,nthe press, the radio, television, aU werenmediums designed to make events availablento the public. Although thesensources contained their biases, the eventnremained to be interpreted in black andnwhite. But the situation changed, and thenconduit function shifted to one of consumption.nSubsequently, every event becomesnnews and since the thirst of thenmedia can never be fiiUy quenched,nevents are generated just in order thatnthere be something to convey to a demandingnpublic. Once this occurs, whateverndistinction existed between newsnand entertainment (and the distinctionnremains dubious in the first place ) ceasesnto exist.nAnd now Barbara Matusow appearsnwith yet more “news”—^in feet, the insidenscoop by an honest-to-goodness insidern—^about the news. In The Evening Stars:nThe Making of theNetworkNeivs Anchornshe traces the evolution of televisionnnews since World War II. Not only doesnshe explain, for instance, how Edward R.nMurrow created a tradition of integritynwithin the fourth estate, but also how hensignaled its eventual demise by “usheringnin a peculiarly American part of thennnprotagonist.” Once begun, this trend inevitablynleads to a “news” establishmentnwhose first concern is gaining an audience;ntrying to deliver the news takesnsecond place. This isn’t a particularlynshocking sense of priorities: Dan Rather’snaudience lead over his competitorsnmeans that a 30-second spot can be soldnfor $44,000, as compared to $35,000 fornthe team in third place. Such an advantagencould add up to over $10,000,000 anyear—^no small sum when all you arendoing is serving up the news to an adoringnpublic.nMs . Matusow feigns alarm at suchn”business” figures and the slide towardnovert entertainment that continues tonmark the national network news broadcasts,nbut because herwayofviewing thenworld is so constrained by her ownnnews-gathering affiliations, she fails tonsee the larger dimensions of the problem.nAssorted homilies about the potentialnabuses of power are her idea of anthoughtful analysis of the absorption ofnnews by entertainment. But such criticismnbelies her real purpose in writingnthe book: to serve as gossip columnist fornthe network news stars. Simply everyonenis there—^from John Cameron Swayse,nHoward K Smith, John Daly, Peter Jennings,nTom Brokaw, and Ted Koppel.nScurrying both in front of and in back ofnthe camera’s eye, Ms. Matusow tells usnwhy Tom Snyder failed to make thennumber-one seat in New York City; hownRoger Mudd, during the final competitionnfor the top spot at CBS, stayed aboventhe fray, assuming the network owednhim the job; how Barbara Walters wasnquietly sabotaged by Harry Reasoner,nwho, before going on the afr, Uked tonhang around bars with his old cronies.nAnd she reassuringly divulges the fectsnthat Dan Rather, despite his a^essivenqualities, is really a top-flight newspersonnand that although he has a $10,000,000nsalary, he lives a very unpretentious life-n^ ^ M 1 7nMay 1984n