affluent contributes to revolution. Revolutionnoffers the affluent excitement andnpurpose, and, should it feiil, the rich cannseek pleasant exile or even reintegrationnwith the old regime. (Most traditionalnsystems tolerate a bit of youthAil radicalism.n) It is the bored affluent, not the poor,nwho initially sponsor revolution. Thenpeople currendy in power in Nicaraguandisproportionately are children ofnfemilies that enriched themselves undernSomoza.nFifth, although they are a small minority,nthere are persons who stand to benefitnfi-om revolution. Marginal types deniednpower under the previous system cannmove for a time into the political arena.nPersons desirous of wielding absolutenpower often succumb to the revolutionarynappeal. The modem revolution entrustsnthe ruling elite with not only political,nbut also economic and cultural controlnThe new class, in addition to power,nwill enjoy a style of life denied thenmasses who will practice commimal austerity.nFor the masses the primary difierencenwffl be that under the previous sys­nThe Medium & the MessagenRobert Moss and Amaud de Borchgnive:nManitnbo; Simon and Schuster;nNew York.nDesmond Ryan: DeiuUines; W. W.nNorton; New York.nby Gary S. Vasilashn31onimb6 is a problematic book.nThe book is part of the burgeoningnAmerican tradition that is especially evidentnin the cinema: the sequel. It tells thenfiarther adventures of Robert Hockney,nhero of The Spike Readers of the newnbook are constandy reminded of its predecessor;nthe anchoring metaphor evennemerges in Monimbo, as the hot-headed-nMr Vasilash is associate editor q/’Chroniclesnof Culture.n8nChronicles of Culturentem one was poor and complaining;nunder the revolutionary system one isnpoor and regimented.nFinally, the stupidity of the targetnregime contributes to the appeal of revolution.nThe feilure to reform and hencendevelop a clientele with a stake in thensystem leaves a citizenry vulnerable tonrevolutionary polemic. Lack of imagination,nthe absence of a consistent policynof judicious force, the failure to cope innthe propaganda sphere—all these leaventhe initiative with the revolutionaries. Itnis difficult to stimulate heroics for thenstatus quo. Only in retrospect do many—ne.g., the boat people—bemoan their failurento resist the revolutionaries.nJ^ icholas Gage’s Eleni deserves widencirculation. By focusing upon one Greeknvillage under revolutionary communistncontrol, the book presents communism, itsnmethodology, and its objective in a ferndearer perspective than virtually any availablenpolitical tract It confi-onts the readernwith the demonic. Eleni is a magnificentnaddition to the gulag literature. Dnbut-righteous Hockney blasts his editor:n”And I haven’t heard anyone aroimdnthis building say that we ought to spike angood story because it might embarrassnthe CIA in a fairly long time.'” Little hasnchanged. In order to understand whynMonimbo presents difficulties, it’s bestnto approach it through another recentiynpublished novel about a reporter with ansimilar temperament This book is Deadlinesnby Desmond Ryan, a relativelynyoung writer who was bom in Londonnand educated at Oxford. Ryan is now thenfilm critic for the Philadelphia Inquirer.nChristopher Reeves’s efforts notwithstanding,nWoodward and Bernstein havencrushed Clark Kent The modem reportern—investigative is the still-coveted adjective—isnby fer more of an antagonistnthan Jefferson could have dreamed ofnRyan recognizes that there is a reactionnnnformed gainst and a certain revulsionnfelt about those who deem it their noblenpurpose to ferret out not only Achilles’nheels but also cases of athlete’s foot andnto make it public knowledge, to satisfynwhat is sanctimoniously called then”public’s right to know.” The public’sndesire or need to know are never considered.nIf they don’t like it, then they arentold “tough” If the consequences are ofngreat moment, such as the breaching ofnnational security, then the journalistsnwrap the First Amendment around themselvesn(which, through many wearings,nis losing its shape) and say “tough.”nRyan’s protagonist is an investigativenreporter. Instead of skirting the issuenand thereby implying that it’s the statusnquo, he gets into the matter in medias res.nTTie reporter comes up with a storynabout some political shenanigans, butnthe city editor of the paper hesitates tonmn it because people are, he claims,nagainst the media campaigns targeted atnpoliticians. Since the reporter is thensympathetic figure in the book, Ryanndeftly turns the tables: the reporters arenbeleaguered. Ryan must have studiednrhetoric very closely at Oxford, for he isnpersuasive about the plight erf his reporter.nTo his credit, Ryan does raise a pointnabout journalism in America that is oftennoverlooked. It will have a profound effectnon what people will know. Therenare two aspects to this point One is thatnthere are large newspaper corporationsnthat are buying up both big-city and smalltownnnewspapers on a regular basis.nNewspapers are having a tough timenmaking a go of it, given increased operatingncosts and competition from the electronicnmedia and other periodicals. Manynindependents can no longer afford tonmake a go of it The newspaper businessnhas become big business. The bottomnline is the key concern in countingnhouses. News and information are nonlonger treated as things having to do withnfacts; they are products like soap flakesnand cereal. The other aspect takes thenform of USA Today, which is touted asn”The Nation’s Newspaper.” PerhapsnGannett its publisher, is to be commendedn