Indeed, the men the anchors chose as political heroes suggests that they were not in ideological lock-step, but instead possessed an independence and diversity that, again, probably enhanced their collective credibility and acceptability. Smith says, for example, "In my order of worship, Roosevelt was separated from God only by Abraham Lincoln." Brinkley had a much different view of FDR:

Roosevelt being the social snob he was, frequently berated reporters covering the White House. . . . He made no attempt to hide his opinion that we were poorly educated . . . and so we could not possibly know enough . . . or understand enough to report to the American people accurately and fairly about the activities of their president, a 'C' student at Harvard.

Notwithstanding their differing views over presidential personalities, the network news programs tended to be supportive of most government policies in foreign affairs, with Vietnam being the notable exception. They were supportive in large measure because that's the way the anchors felt about the policies. Cronkite was the first anchor to assume the "managing editor" title, but all anchors had a role in choosing what was on their programs and how each story would be treated. (That is true even more so today.)

Naturally enough, views on foreign policy and on particular presidents sometimes collided in unexpected ways. Although he had been responsible for a program called "The Political Obituary of Richard Nixon", done after Nixon lost the race for governor of California in 1962, Smith had a high regard for Nixon's handling of foreign affairs, particularly the opening to China. So did Cronkite, who was not otherwise a fan of Nixon: "Nixon, regardless of whatever other opinions people had of him, deserved credit for his studious approach to foreign policy. And he should be recognized for the move toward reconciliation with China that he initiated when most of the powerful members of the Republican hierarchy were deeply opposed. It was an act of great political courage."

Hence, the Nixon of the McCarthy era or of Watergate would be reviled or ridiculed by the anchors, but the Nixon who pursued dŽtente and arms control with the Soviets and took a pragmatic view of China was applauded. When Nixon behaved as a centrist, he could expect the evening news programs to convey the message that his foreign policies were in the best long-term interests of the United States. His national security adviser and then secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, worked effectively behind the scenes with the elite press to reinforce that message.

As foreign policy landmarks go, the March 1979 Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty rates high on the list of diplomatic achievements in the second half of the twentieth century. Israeli Premier Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their respective roles in achieving that peace. I have always thought that President Jimmy Carter should have been included and that, more to the point here, Walter Cronkite might well have received an honorable mention. Cronkite's interviews with Begin and Sadat nailed down Sadat's historic visit to Jerusalem, which led ultimately to the peace agreement.

Cronkite denies that he was actively engaged in any diplomatic midwifery, and he points out that Sadat had been talking privately for months about making such a dramatic gesture. But Cronkite also observes, "The important point is that television journalism, in this case at least, speeded up the process, brought it into the open, removed a lot of possibly obstructionist middlemen, and made it difficult for the principals to renege on their very public agreement." One may add that when world leaders, American or otherwise, were willing to moderate hardline positions in the interests of peace, they were warmly embraced and encouraged by the anchors. It hasn't always been so, but in the classical era of American television the peacemakers got far more air time than the demagogues.

Television news was also the principal cheerleader for what became known as the space race. Cronkite immersed himself in the minutiae of space flight in ways that made him seem like one of the astronauts. But beyond his technical expertise was the subliminal message: His enthusiastic support for the program meant that Cronkite was giving his personal imprimatur to the goal of putting a man on the moon. In so doing, he deflected any opposition to such an uncertain and expensive enterprise that may have emerged at the time. The public's reaction seemed to be that if Walter was for it, it must be good for America.

In the time of Cronkite, Brinkley, and Smith, network television news had its period of greatest influence mainly because it rejected extremes, supported moderation, and had as its symbols men of unquestioned journalistic excellence and integrity. In holding to centrist policies, the anchors and their colleagues contributed at least a little to peace and stability in both foreign and domestic affairs. The daily arguments in their newsrooms were not about what story would be the most broadly interesting, amusing, or titillating, but what was the most intrinsically important; what it was that viewers needed to know to make them better citizens. As Eric Severeid of cbs once said, "My job is not to tell you what to think. It is to suggest what you should think about."

Those days are gone, just as other golden ages have passed away when the unique set of circumstances that created them somehow changed. Peter Jennings, Ted Koppel, Tom Brokaw, and Dan Rather are fine journalists. They learned at the feet of masters like Smith, Brinkley, and Cronkite, and they have made their own important contributions as reporters during the years in question. As anchors, they are struggling to carry on the best of the tradition. But they are struggling under entirely different, and not especially helpful, circumstances.

Thirty years ago the network news divisions did not function for the sole purpose of making money. Bill Paley was first and foremost a businessman, not a journalist, but he enjoyed the prestige that cbs News brought him. He didn't expect the news department to be a principal vehicle for enriching his stockholders, nor did the heads of NBCor ABC think differently. When I joined ABC news in 1965, the annual budget of the news division was five million dollars and it lost money. When I left thirty years later, the budget had ballooned one hundred times to $500 million, and it cleared another $2-300 million above that annually.

This transformation from network loss-leader to cash cow has changed dramatically the nature of network news. It means that the number one preoccupation of those who now run the network news divisions are the ratings, because the amount of money brought in depends on those ratings. This accounts more for the changed nature of the news than the declining number of viewers, a decline to which the cash-cow approach itself probably contributes.

The other major change in network news has been brought about by the end of the Cold War. As long as there was the threat of Armageddon, the networks felt obligated to report on related foreign and U.S. foreign policy news. They no longer feel so obliged. Among other things, this means that the network's role as a force for moderation and general education in the area of foreign affairs has been significantly diminished.

Among many of the younger people who now work in network television news, the common metaphor for the old anchors is that they were "dinosaurs." Superficially that may be true, but, unlike the dinosaurs, we know exactly why the likes of Brinkley, Smith, and Cronkite have disappeared from the airwaves. And after reading their respective memoirs, each of them plain-spoken, evocative, and reflective of the good men who wrote them, we can genuinely regret their extinction.