tations makes a useful comparison innthis respect: When he sets out to prove anliraud or conspiracy, as in his shreddingnof Jim Garrison’s indictments of ClaynShaw for a “conspiracy” to assassinatenPresident John Kennedy that existednonly in Garrison’s imagination, Phelannputs individual items of evidence togethernand defines the missing piecesnwith precision. Zion is replete withn•I’lL-iLliiiii 1)1 llli- |)iv.ss ‘i… wh.il h’ciiil Ml .hnill II.’ is:ihout.’nnegate any charge that he has written annuncritical history. In one sense, this isnfitting. A comparison with some of thencompeting luminaries in the journalisticnestablishment provides a perspective onnhow relatively excellent the Wall StreetnJournal is. Messrs. Dow and Jones andntheir heirs have defined the essence ofnsound business journalism over the pastncentury. If a reader wants a thoroughn—I’hi’ tilioiin’ficeldA/fAhiiiilIt: is;i M’\ rciil. iiiiil .(lisI W li:ll :inhiKik!”n—‘Ulu)!yuux’ngrand assertions of conspiracy, fi-omnPresident Nixon to “the bosses” vsiionrun the Democratic Party to recordcompanynexecutives. One almost wondersnif he could write an article withoutnreference to some ambiguous “they”nwho allegedly control the Americannway of life. Zion writes with precisionnabout Israel (where he carefully tracesnthe development of issues in terms ofnreal decisions made by real people) andnabout the New York Yankees undernGeorge Steinbrenner (where he remembersnthat the purpose of professionalnsports is to win games). Henspecializes, however, in the coverage ofnboth legal and domestic political issues.nAlthough he is a lawyer, his lamiliaritynwith American constimtional jurisprudencenextends only from William O.nDouglas to Earl Warren, making his legalnanalyses rather anachronistic. Not onlyndo his own commentaries surround thenpieces reprinted in Read All About It!,nhe also has included reports of the reactionsnof his fellow journalists, who apparentlynspend their waking hours floatingnbetween their fevorite watering holesnand their newsrooms.nJerry Rosenberg is an economisthistoriannwho has surveyed the developmentnof the Wall Street Journal throughnits first century. He reports just enoughnof the trendy criticisms of the paper tonmmmmmmm^mm^nChronicles of Culturenchronology of Dow-Jones, Inc., completenwith names, dates, and conditions of service,nthrough depression and prosperity,nMr. Rosenberg’s volume serves well. Hisnchronicle demonstrates that the perspectivenof the paper is limited, morenlimited than the avowed editorial concernnwith just the economic aspects ofnissues. Rosenberg joins these editors innapparent ignorance of any perceptionnthat there might be some purpose in lifenthat transcends economics.nThese volumes reflect the flaws ofnprint journalism, a format for politicalndiscussion that is older than the Americannrepublic. Despite all of the abusesnthat can be attributed to newspaper andnmagazine writers, their words are set inntype and, once published, provide a fixednformat for deliberation: they remain fornfuture consideration, questioning, andnevaluation. These civilizing virtues ofnprinted news can only remotely be associatednwith television. The absence ofnthese traits causes a shudder when onenis confronted with the assertion thatntwo-thirds of the American people considerntelevision their primary source ofninformation.nAv Westin, Executive Producer ofnABC News, concedes some flaws in televisednnews coverage, but his concessionsnnever go beyond the mechanical.nHe believes that television does as goodnnna job of presenting the news as possible,ngiven the constraints of time, technology,nand the deficiencies he attributes tonthe audience. A television news producer,nafter all, must provide “just enough detailnto satisfy an attention span that isnbeing interrupted by clattering dishes,ndiimer conversation or the fatigue of thenend of the working day.” Westin is boldnenough to recount the criteria that guidenhis selection of stories for these inattentivenviewers. Stories gain priority accordingnto the questions that they addressnfrom the follovraig hierarchy:n* Is my world safe?n* Are my city and home safe?n* If my wife, children, and loved onesnare safe, then what has happened innthe past 24 hours to shock them,namuse them, or make them better offnthan they were?nWestin has been involved in televisionnnews programs since the late 1940’s.nAfter more than 30 years in the business,nhe is thoroughly familiar with every trivialntechnical development in broadcasting,nbut he reveals no cognizance of thenphilosophic ancestor who wrote hisnguiding questions. But let us not indulgenin an academic quarrel with one whonbelieves that all essential informationncan be contained in 30-second tidbitsnarranged in a 30-minute program. WhatnMr. Westin’s book really demonstrates isnthe segmented thinking that exemplifiesntelevision news. Just as the story at 7:10nmay have no relationship to the onenbroadcast at 7:23, the material presentednin one chapter of Newswatch is onlyncoincidentaMy related to the argumentnasserted in another. The reader can benamused by the logistical difficulties ofntransporting the Mormon TabernaclenChoir from Salt Lake City to MountnRushmore to sing as stampeding buffalonare herded by helicopter across SouthnDakota to herald the arrival of globalncommunications satellites. The readerncannot be expected to forget this contrivednspectacle, however, when the authornadmonishes his reporters to filmn