TV Brings War to the Home Front : News: In an age of instant satellite transmission, the networks are challenged to provide responsible coverage.

A new nightmare entered the American psyche this week--a live war on television.

How do we watch it without being battered senseless and filled with false information?

How do ABC, CBS and NBC--as well as the new heavyweight on the block, CNN--adjust to this incredible challenge of responsible coverage in the age of live and instant satellite transmission?

As U.S.-led United Nations forces attacked Iraq when Saddam Hussein refused to pull his troops out of Kuwait, TV immediately was plunged into the new age.

“This is truly the first television war,” says ABC’s Ted Koppel. “We spoke of Vietnam in those terms. But believe me, I can recall sending pieces off from Vietnam that would be 36 hours in transit, and then they’d be processed and edited back in the States.

“And while it was clearly a television war in the sense that the material was appearing on television and the images were having an impact on the people back home, for the first time television now has truly networked the world together. It’s truly bizarre. We’re watching ourselves watching ourselves.”

And this bizarre situation has created a new mine-field of dangers for traditional TV coverage in the race to be first with the most dramatic reports. From a pessimistic view, it threatens to create, on an international scale, the kind of local news mentality in which the picture is everything and there’s nothing like opening a newscast with shots of a fire.

On the optimistic side, the lessons of the first few days of the war have also clearly impressed on many in TV the need for heightened restraint and more analysis and perspective so that viewers retain trust in the declining networks and their most treasured images--their news departments.

“I think from here on in, the main thing is keeping perspective,” says Koppel. “Before we get too intrigued by the technology and swept away by the fact that we’re seeing pictures that are only minutes old--or in some instances, live pictures from around the world while the war is going on--the truly important thing now is to be able to step back and keep our eye on the ball.

“And that means, what are the objectives? And if there are opportunities for peace--that they not be missed. And that people are actually listening to one another, and that we don’t get so wrapped up in the day’s events that we lose sight of the larger issues.”

It is a TV revolution, pure and simple. And one of the reasons that CNN jumped to the forefront was not only the Iraqi-approved 24-hour phone line that allowed it to dominate the opening coverage from Baghdad, but also the fact that CNN broadcasts nothing but news and is geared--mentally as well as technically--to handling news as an individual TV entity.

Consider, on the other hand, the conflicting demands of the traditional Big Three networks. As early as the second day of the war--Thursday--CBS announced plans to return with an hour of entertainment that night, “Knots Landing,” and NBC announced its own plans to put on “The Cosby Show,” “A Different World,” “Cheers” and “Wings” the same night.

Those plans were swept away within a few hours when Iraq launched a missile attack on Israel. But CNN, because of its 24-hour news format, never had to consider such alternatives as entertainment.

And if the Big Three are looking for the reason for CNN’s phenomenal growth--and its stupendous ratings during the early days of the Persian Gulf crisis--they must face the hard fact that viewers know instinctively they will find exactly what they want on CNN when they want it, and will not have to sit around frustrated waiting for a network to give them the news when it’s convenient for business.

For this reason, CNN is almost unbeatable on a breaking story. It has plugged into the television generation in its full absorption with the medium--and has won older viewers as well with its dedication to its sole product.

During a 3-hour period on the war’s first day Wednesday, CNN commanded an astounding 25% of the cable TV audience and was watched in nearly 11 million homes.

Its performance all but destroyed the traditional network argument that CNN, on its best days, does not approach the audience of the Big Three on their worst days. ABC, NBC and CBS still retained two-thirds of their shrinking audience in 25 major markets, but CNN had become the network of record and of trust.

NBC’s Tom Brokaw was not only being gentlemanly, but factual as well, when he acknowledged on the air, “CNN used to be called the little network that could. It’s no longer a little network.”

The threat to the old-line networks was emphasized when ABC and CBS rejected an interview with CNN’s Bernard Shaw from his dramatic reporting site in a Baghdad hotel. NBC interviewed him because, said the network, it was news from the front.

As many Big Three affiliates defected to carry CNN, some observers were even asking whether all of the traditional network news departments would be necessary or survive in the future.

But the war has provided some valuable lessons for ABC, CBS and NBC, most importantly that serious thought and analysis may be their salvation--not only because it is cheaper to program but also because they are well-equipped to provide such expertise.

Koppel, Brokaw, Peter Jennings and Dan Rather are just some of the obvious names who have skills well beyond reading the news. It is significant that CNN reportedly is after Bill Moyers, and CBS must deeply regret letting such a resource get away.

While footage of the raids against Baghdad did not surface on TV until Thursday, it was talk--dramatic, admittedly, but still talk--that riveted the nation as CNN’s correspondents in Iraq reported the initial events. It was simply radio--on television. And it destroyed a retarded TV myth--that talking heads are dull and drive away audiences.

Not when there’s something to say.

Strivings toward more in-depth analysis began quickly as the war unfolded. NBC announced expansion of Brokaw’s nightly newscast from 30 minutes to an hour for the duration of the crisis. “It will give us the opportunity to let things breathe, to use the things we ordinarily have to take out,” said the program’s executive producer, Steve Friedman.

Over at PBS, which normally doesn’t plug into breaking events, a clear new direction seemed in evidence as the “MacNeil/Lehrer” report was allotted hours of time for analysis, and a new nightly series, “America Goes to War,” was launched with Hodding Carter III as host.

After the first-day domination by CNN, the Big Three were more competitive--CBS broke the story of Iraq’s attack on Israel--but the traditional anxiety to get back to money-making entertainment was still there.

However, the need for thoughtfulness emerged more than ever as tough stories unfolded:

ABC suggested there were nerve-gas injuries in Israel from the Iraqi attack. NBC shot the story down. CBS tied itself in knots with back-and-forth reports over whether Israel had retaliated against Iraq. Every network had shots of its correspondents in Israel in gas masks, justifiably so given uncertainty over the nature of the warheads.

But these images and stories may well be the ones that last longest in memory, more than the meaning and context of what is going on in the Middle East.

Add to that the fact that the military, remembering media influence during the Vietnam War and determined not to let it be repeated, is clearly sensitive to the immediate dissemination of news during a live television war. What could emerge under such circumstances is an attempt at a good-news war.

Given the responsibilities of TV news to the public under all these circumstances, the need for top-flight thinkers on TV--provided with sufficient air time--must be one of the overriding priorities of its coverage as the age of television wars unfolds.

Koppel speaks of “phase two” of the coverage and says, “It is going to be a more thoughtful phase.” It’s the right direction for the nation’s sanity.