style in New York City.nThe power of the network anchor isndirectly related to the direction of thencash flow. Today, the anchor is not unlikena sports “star.” The economics of sportsnentertainment has totally inverted die directionnof satisfaction in competition.nWith eyes always on the fan, not the opponent,nthe success of sports business isnmeasured in terms of the relative hysterianwhipped up among the spectators,nnot in terms of the inherent accomplishmentsnof the participants. So in a sense,nDan Rather and Dave Winfield are similar,njust professionals doing thefr jobs.nThe participation illusion must benmaintained at all costs in the fantasynworld created on the nightly newscasts.nThe audience must never become awarenof how it is passively massaged and itsnperceptions externally controlled. Onenbrilliant technique is the on-the-spotneyewitness interview with the person innthe street. ‘Tes viewer, you are there andnyour voice is beingheard’Ttdoesn’tmatternthat it is just another meaninglessngrunt that will be fafrly balanced out innthe best American tradition of objectivitynand neutrality—two voices yea, twonvoices nay. Such surrogate presencesnsupposedly validate the openness andnunbiased nature of what is being reported.nBut this format dictates thatnthere will never be time for serious interpretationnand commentary.n18inChronicles of CulturenWhy has the conventional polarity betweennnews and entertainment dissolved?nIn a society where citizens act, notnmerely react, the news functions in twonways: it provides data about events thatngenuinely affect life in the body politic; itnprovides a vdde array of interpretationsnof these events consonant with a citizen’snneed to transform indirect events intonuseM direct experience. The citizen, in anreal news environment remains free tonchoose from amongcompetinginterpretations.nHe is free to create his own experience,nthough this experience will bencompatible with others to the extent thatncitizens share certain fundamental andnconsciously agreed upon social mean-nings. But it is precisely in the area of thesensocial meanings that a free people are potentiallynvulnerable when the traditionalnnews processes are consumed by thenneed to entertain. Entertainment quicklynsees the advantage of external regimentationnand control and so it seeks ways ofnimplanting needs in the audience whichnit can then predictably satisfy. But as risknis decreased so is the viewer’s interpretivenautonomy.n1 elevision is packed with information;nmore flashes by in a week than onencould ever hope to process critically in anlifetime. The critical function whichnmakes the democratic way of life possiblenis under attack. When things are examinedncriticaUy, people remain inncharge. Yet despite all its participationngimmickry, the real content of televisionnnnand thus of television “news” is feeling,nnot thinking. Thus television executivesnconspfre to keep the audience properlynstroked on a daily basis. They are in thenbusiness of enchaining minds, not engagingnthem. The values of print news as opposednto image news parallel the differencenbetween the values of individualnresponsibility and the values of mass subjugation.nConcensus of feeling is the keynto the entertainment approach to thennews. Keep the images, however, disturbing,nflowing past the viewer: nevernprovide time for reflection. Reflectionnmight cause the viewer to assume realnownership over the images, transformnthem into thefr proper meanings, and innturn cast them out of his mind. But asnlong as the viewer is dependent, henmoves in trancelike servitade to thosenwho would control the culture.nOf course, as nevra has become indistinguishablenfrom entertainment, therenhas been a stepped-up campaign of respectabilitynon its behalf. The less televisionnnews works as traditional news,nthe more insistent is the line that a station’snnews team is honest, accurate, comprehensive,nand totally professional. Allnthis powerful array of talent is merelyncaught in the wheels of a technologynserving an invisible system of socialnmeanings that support coUective valuesnand the impotency of the individual.nThe problem finally is that television isnnot to be reformed, for that is beyond itsnvery nature. We may, of course, applaudnthe rise of families apparently switchingnthefr televisions off and this may indeednbe one way of dealing with the arrogancenof television news—^let them fight evernmore fiercely for a declining audience. Itnwould be naive to expect a vast reductionnof programming overtly labeledn”news”; if anything is happening, the reversenis true. When all entertainment isnnews, and vice versa, then we need nonlonger worry about the existence of ournown experience, or is that when we willnfinally begin worrying but it will be toonlate? Dn