that the American people supported thenemasculation of the CIA conducted bynSenator Church before the TV cameras.nOn the contrary, repeated polls havenshown support for a strong nationalndefense, which presumably includes anneffective intelligence capability, whichnfurther presumes the need for a measurenof secrecy. As far as the “surge of sentiment”nwas concerned, the journalists whonappeared at Schorr’s hearing were membersnof the same club, who think andnwrite, as William F. Buckley remarked,nlike the Rockettes.nAhe investigation of the CIA was ancharade conducted by scoundrels withnmedia exposure foremost on their minds;nthe House Intelligence Committee,nchaired by Rep. Otis Pike, competed withnthe Senate in leaking juicy secrets to thenpress, keeping the CIA on page one fornmonths, and the cameras in the hearingnrooms.nIn this sense, Schorr can’t be blamednfor his perspective as a newsman. Henwas reporting trivia as well as hard news,nand he knew it. The House Committeendid not mind his reading their report andndiscussing it on the air; before it appearednunexpectedly on the front page of thenVillage Voice, the substance of thenCommittee’s findings had already beennextensively reported. For this it was notnthe press which deserved blame, butnCongress.nStill, one is forced to grapple with thendilemma Schorr happened upon whennhe obtained a copy of the Pike Committeenreport from a secret source. He reactednwith confusion, as did his superiors atnCBS, who refused even to answer hisnplea: What to do.” The publication of thenreport was a minor flicker in terms ofnthe authentic problem faced by Schorr,nand faced today by American society:nthe power of the news media, specificallyntelevision news; more specifically thenmedium of television itself to influencenand manipulate the thinking and behavior,nthat is, the culture of vast numbersnof people.nIn this context, the endless pages onnWatergate, the anecdotal tidbits aboutn14)nChronicles of Culturenthe top echelons of power at CBS, evennthe inner details of CIA activities becomensecondary. To focus on the dilemma ofnculture that Daniel Schorr inadvertentlynraised is to focus on the thinking ofnSchorr himself. His book is a pictureperfectncase study of the development ofna bewildered mind, and then, marvelously,na tentative foray into intellectualnclarity.nThroughout his career, and especiallynfollowing his release of the House report,nSchorr was accused of being an arrogantnman. I find him guilty of only a rathernpetty vanity— his book is filled with asidesnon French restaurants, weeks at Aspen,ndinners and lunches with the prestigiousnand the powerful. His career and attitudesndeveloped along predictable lines in thenworld of modern journalism. He begannreporting as a chronicler of news; thenobjective observer, as we learn it. Hisnaggressiveness sometimes got him intontrouble with the power brokers of thenmoment: corporate executives as well asnpoliticians; Bill Paley as well as BarrynGoldwater. In a newsman, irritatingnpowerful people can lead to self-righteousness,nas it did with Schorr. Admirationnfrom colleagues, which Schorrnalways had, can be reflected in creepingnOther Preferences ^n”Schorr’s detailed confessional has beennwell worth waiting for.”n—Publishers Weeklyn”Exactly what you would expect; it isnclear, interesting, carefully documented,nunpretentious and mercilessnin its contempt for executive invasion,ncowardice and smuggery, whether in,nthe United States government or thenexecutive reaches of the ColumbianBroadcasting System.”n—John Kenneth Galbraithn”The book, while certainly slantedntoward a Schorr’s-eye view of his ownntumultuous career, is one of the mostncandid and responsible volumes everniwritten about TV news.” jn^J —Chicago Tribune ^Xnnnbias in reporting the news. When thenClA story broke, Schorr was irretrievablynimmersed in the issue, heart as well asnmind. Inevitably, he became an issue.nThe issue, as he saw it, was the public’snright to know the story of abuses by thenCIA at home and abroad. “I perceivedn… an obligation to resist the suppressionnof information . . .,” he explains.nInstinctively, it seems, the newsmannrushes to the defense of the FirstnAmendment by releasing classifiedninformation. The fact that the alreadynthorough airing of CIA misbehavior hadnnot caused an uproar among the Americannpeople is irrelevant to Schorr.nThe true issue of Schorr’s odyssey wasnnot the criminality of releasing a classifiedndocument, a document, which, whennpublished, contained little that was news.nNeither was it the hypocrisy of Congress,nindignant at leaks it encouraged andnpurveyed. Rather, the issue is the powernof the modern press, and the frighteningnvulnerability of intelligent men to selfhypnosis.nFor Schorr is an intelligentnman. But he is drawn, gradually, andnperhaps irresistibly into the web of illusionnthat permeates modern journalism:nthat the First Amendment justifies anynbehavior, any perspective, no matter hownobtrusive or offensive, that is useful innferreting out “the news.” And it isnSchorr’s recognition of this illusion,nfinally, that hints at his intellectualnsalvation.nIncreasingly, toward the end of hisnstory, and explosively, in his final chapter,nSchorr focuses on the preoccupation withntrivia and nonsense of so much of thenpress. As he was pestered by reporters innthe same way he pestered others, henremarks: “I found myself echoing thensentiments of many critics of the press—nin the feeling that the mass media werenon a different wavelength from grassrootsnpeople. During that period, I fell out ofnlove with the press, and into love withnthe People.”nIt is a telling observation. In “ThenNational Seance,” Schorr tells of a youngnboy who is ordered by a robber to watchntelevision. The child stares at the tuben