HEARINGS: WOMAN TO WOMAN

PBS’ live gavel-to-gavel coverage of the House-Senate hearings on the Iran- contra affair--the best show on TV these days--was noteworthy on multiple counts.

First, the commentary was excellent.

Second, the commentators were female.

That’s in sharp contrast to the proceedings inside the Senate caucus room, where nearly everyone visible is male, including the 26-member joint panel, the witnesses and the lawyers for the witnesses. The gender gap there will narrow only briefly and slightly--though spectacularly--when Fawn Hall arrives somewhere down the line to answer questions about shredding documents for her ex-boss, fired National Security Council aide Lt. Col. Oliver L. North.

Meanwhile, it’s rare--and refreshing--when all on-camera authority figures taking part in news coverage are female. That was the case on PBS as it joined CNN in gavel-to-gavel coverage of the first eight days of the hearings, while ABC, NBC and CBS popped in from time to time like transients.

It’s tragic that the gavel-to-gavel coverage by PBS was suspended on the network after Thursday morning because of lack of funds (KCET Channel 28 may carry a special feed; see box, Page 20), not resuming until late June for the expected testimony of North and former National Security Adviser John Poindexter. Now only CNN--available to less than half the nation--will be the network of immediate record.

TV usually delivers its lasting impressions via pictures. So the prevalence of women on the fine PBS coverage is dramatic and perhaps significant.

The PBS all-stars--working under the banner of “The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour” and appearing before, after and during breaks in the hearings--are Judy Woodruff, Elizabeth Drew and Cokie Roberts.

Roberts is the “NewsHour” congressional correspondent, and the familiar dome in the background seemed to rest on her left shoulder as she stood in front of the Capitol and chatted briefly with Woodruff, who sat at an anchor desk with Drew back in the studio.

Most of the commentary load was shouldered by Woodruff, the former NBC reporter who is now chief Washington correspondent for “NewsHour,” and Drew, the Washington correspondent for New Yorker magazine who has covered the Capitol since 1959. They’re a grand team.

Woodruff: “Elizabeth, what is it that (Robert C.) McFarlane has shed light on that’s been significant?”

Drew: “Its been a fascinating morning. . . .”

And they were off--astute, perceptive and conversational. No platitudes. No posturing. No pomposity. None of the deadly, swollen, overreaching rhetoric or empty and meaningless patter that sometimes creeps into other coverage. Instant analysis can be instant disaster. There are few tasks in journalism more difficult than observing lengthy, sometimes convoluted testimony and then immediately processing that information in an illuminating way. Woodruff and Drew have succeeded in doing just that.

Woodruff’s role was largely to set the table for Drew, who was incisive and insightful without being judgmental.

The hearings are a compelling, unpredictable show, yes, but one demanding a savvy, precise, articulate interpreter. Enter Drew, who once had her own interview series on PBS and is currently a regular on the syndicated “Agronsky and Co.”

After former National Security Adviser McFarlane testified that he had favored the Reagan Administration quarantining Nicaragua instead of backing anti-government rebels, the knowledgeable Drew could report that quarantining had indeed been debated within the Administration. What’s more, she has been sufficiently observant to be able to specify even where McFarlane’s recollection of his own testimony was faulty.

“The main pressure in doing this is that you have to pay attention all the time,” Drew said by phone from Washington during a break in Wednesday’s hearings. “You can’t let your mind wander. You never know when an important point is going to be made.”

Even when you hear it, you may not recognize it.

“The proceedings are fairly lawyerly and we need to explain them,” Drew said. “I’ve been told by people who watch--people who are informed--that they often don’t know what everything means.”

She believes that the hearings may be hard to follow because--unlike the Watergate hearings of 14 years ago--they have been relatively subdued and free of histrionics. For good reason.

The stolid chairmen of the select committees--Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.)--”are dignified people themselves,” Drew said. “That’s in part why they were chosen by their colleagues. They don’t want to degrade these hearings. And the members of the committees--particularly on the Senate side--were chosen for the same reason.”

Besides, the Iran-contra hearings may be one of those times when politicians rise to an occasion, when epic events draw epic performances from ordinary men. “I think that Sen. Inouye (who was a member of the Watergate committee) is particularly conscious about avoiding the atmosphere of the Ervin committee during Watergate, when he felt that there was too much showboating and partisanship,” Drew said.

With few exceptions, the present proceedings also have seemed free of political partisanship. Some Republican members have attempted to undercut testimony seeming to damage President Reagan. But that’s small potatoes.

As Drew noted on TV: “The Democrats can’t look like they’re enjoying this too much and the Republicans can’t look like they’re rushing this or covering up.”

So far, the hearings have been fascinating, yet strait-laced and straight-faced.

“But you can sense a sort of show-biz buildup for Fawn Hall,” Drew said. “I suppose it will seem irresistible for the media not to avoid building up the appearance of this perfectly gorgeous woman, and we can expect her subject to be what Oliver North has called the ‘shredding party.’ It doesn’t bother me at all. The hearings can stand some comic relief.”