All in the FamilynTodd Gitlin: The Whole World isnWatching: Mass Media in the Makingn& Unmaking of the New Left;nUniversity of California Press;nBerkeley, California.nby Gary S. VasilashnAmerican journalism, as it’s practicedntoday, has its roots in the nation’snjunior high schools. There, the buddingnjournalist learns one lesson that is nevernforgotten and is neglected only at greatnperil: everyone wants to see his name innprint. That’s why the school papers arenfull of gossip and why adult papers aren’tnfar beyond it. This phenomenon isnpart of the 20th-century state of mind:nremember Bloom in Ulysses contemplatingnthe misspelling of his name innthe newspaper? Joyce recognized thenpower and pervasiveness of the media;nFinnegan’s Wake is, on one level, constructednby the media.nSome people are satisfied with onenproperly spelled citation, but othersncan’t see their name often enough. Andnas this print (and now video) addictionngrows, these egotists want to be ablento direct the camera angle, rephrasenthe quote and so on. A few years downnthe line this will be called “media manipulation.”nSome hire public-relationsnfirms to do it; some go to other extremesn(e.g. kidnapping a newspaper heiress).nBut the junior-high-schooler is not quitenso calculating: it’s just that he or shenfeels ever so self-important and justnknows that everyone else agrees withnthe assessment. And woe to the journalistnwho doesn’t. The student will stormnand rage and tell the world how thenschool paper distorts everything. Moreover,nhe will loose his venom on thenindividual reporter or editor he feels isnresponsible for the grievous error. It’snMr. Vasilash is associate editor ofnManufacturing Engineering magazinenin Detroit.n14nChronicles of Culturenobvious, he asserts, that the journalistna) is blind, deaf and dumb; b) has somethingnpersonal against him; and/or c)nis being manipulated by or is a part of ancabal that aims to destroy him.nIn The Whole World Is WatchingnTodd Gitlin sounds like an angry juniorhigh-schooler.nThe axe he grindsnthroughout the book (in prose that rivalsnsome would-be Marxist theoreticiansnor McLuhanists at their most convoluted)nis against the media; for thensake of convenience, the New YorknTimes and “CBS News” are set up asnvictims for his blade. While many mightnthink that those two organizations arenin need of a little surgery, it probablynisn’t for the same reasons Gitlin has.nHe was a part of the “Movement” innthe 60’s. Indeed, he was president ofnStudents for a Democratic Society (Junen1963 to June 1964), the successor ofnJane Fonda’s husband (a.k.a. Tom Hayden).nIn the book SDS is a synecdoche,nin a sense, for the “Movement.” It’snnot that SDS was snubbed by the press.nNo, Gitlin is filled with indignation becausenthe group didn’t get the kind ofncoverage he knows it should have had.nHe was there, he tells the reader on annumber of occasions: he knows whatnshould have been said and how it shouldnhave been reported. And if he wasn’tnthere, or isn’t too sure about something,nhe doesn’t let that get in the way:nTherefore, the scarcity of hard-andfastnevidence . . . cannot be taken asnconclusive disproof of the hypothesesn. . . We have no evidence that Johnsonndirectly attempted to managennews of the antiwar movement.nBut. . .nAnd so on, throughout. Rules of evidencenstraight out of Alice in Wonderlandnfor the man who bewails the lacknof media objectivity.nIJefore looking at Gitlin’s chargesnand the fanciful way in which he ex­nnnpresses them, a bit of history of SDSnis in order. A history of the organization,ntitled 5D5 (Random House, 1973),nwas written by Kirkpatrick Sale, seeminglyna patron saint of Gitlin. (Gitlinndescribes Sale, circa 1968, as “one ofnthe editors of the New York TimesnMagazine and the one most sympatheticnto SDS.” In the first chapter of SDS,nSale expresses a high opinion of Gitlin,nlisting him along with others who arenin Sale’s view “some of the best of thengeneration”: Tom Hayden, RennienDavis, Marge Piercy and BernardinenDohrn. Quite a crew.) SDS had quite ancolorful family tree—had because itnrotted from within and managed to blownitself up. According to Sale, the taprootnof SDS is the Intercollegiate SocialistnSociety, which was formed by UptonnSinclair and associates including JacknLondon and Clarence Darrow in 1905.nIn 1921 it became the League for IndustrialnDemocracy, since leading membersnthought socialist sounded too radical.nLID formed a Student League fornIndustrial Democracy in 1928. It wasna socialist group, and it lost a communistnfaction in 1931, the New YorknStudent League, which subsequentlynbecame the National Student Leaguen(1932). In 1935 SLID and NSL joinednand became the American Student Union.nIt folded in 1941. LID had beennhanging on. It restarted SLID in 1945,nwhich became SDS in January I960.nThe title, it seems, was picked for cosmeticnpurposes. Like its predecessors,nthis group was torn by divisions. Membersnwere incapable of deciding whethernthey were going to be communists or socialistsnand which causes they would espouse.nThe United Auto Workers gotnSDS on its feet with a $10,000 grantnin 1960 and provided other moniesnlater. Civil rights was the first SDSncause. It provided good visibility. Likenits predecessors, SDS became factionalized,nwhich Gitlin blames on the media,nwhich distorted the problems and wasn