The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Good Friday, the State Department warned members of Congress about travel to the Middle East. Libyan leader Qaddafi claimed a glittering victory in the confrontation with the U.S. And the leading indicators showed good economic times ahead. We'll have the details in our news summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: After the news summary, we have three main focuses and an essay on the NewsHour tonight. First we look at the week's clashes between the U.S. and Libya and Nicaragua with a trio of editors from around the country. Then a documentary look at ithe changing business of Broadway. Next a debate about whether employers are responsible for sexual harassment on the job. And we close with an essay about what some say is the sellout of rock music. News Summary

LEHRER: There was more concern today about revenge from Libya. Members of Congress were among those cautioned about possible acts of terrorism as a result of the Gulf of Sidra confrontation. State Department spokesman Charles Redman issued the warning.

CHARLES REDMAN, State Department spokesman: We have been in contact with senators, representatives and congressional staff members who had planned to travel to the Middle East during the Easter recess. We have asked that they reassess whether their trips are essential at this time or whether they could rescheduled for a later date. We have not recommended that any planned trips be cancelled. But we have, however, expressed our belief that the need for travel at this time should be carefully evaluated. Though we have not issued any general travel advisory, nor do we think one is necessary, we have expressed our belief that the need for official, highly visible congressional travel at this time be carefully evaluated.

LEHRER: Two U.S. senators, Gary Hart of ColoraHKo and Bennett Johnston of Louisiana, acted on the warnings. Both postponed their planned trips to Israel, Egypt and Jordan. A spokesman for Vice President Bush said the Vice President, however, will go ahead with his trip next week to Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations. In San Diego, California, the terrorism threat was felt by motorists going into naval bases. Long lines formed outside the bases, as stepped-up security measures were used to look for weapons and other contraband. Authorities refused to say if there had been a specific threat against the San Diego facilities.

WOODRUFF: Secretary of State Shultz' plane received a fighter escort on its flight today from Athens to Rome. He told reporters the unusual security measure did not make him nervous. He also said the U.S. would continue to confront Qaddafi's outrageous behavior in the Mediterranean and elsewhere. In Libya, state radio today boasted of a "glittering victory" over what it called the "imperialist invaders." It claimed that the United States has declared war on Arabs and that they should attack "every American presence in the region, be it an interest, goods, a ship, a plane or a person." In a speech tonight in Tripoli before thousands of schoolchildren, students and soldiers, Colonel Qaddafi claimed the U.S. was lying for not admitting that three of its planes had been shot down and six American pilots killed. He also said one of the American missiles fired at Libyan radar had failed to explode. Qaddafi said he would let the Soviet Union study the missile's design. At the end of the speech, a cow with "Reagan" written on its side was slaughtered by a ritual in the crowd.

LEHRER: The Senate's approval of aid to the contra guerrillas does not mean automatic House approval the second time around. That was the word today from House Republican leader Robert Michel. He said it will still be a very close vote when it does come up a second time on April 15th. The House voted down the $100 million aid package by 12 votes last week. The Senate approved it last night by six votes. For the second day there were no reports of fresh fighting in Honduras between Nicaraguan and Honduran forces. Nicaragua radio today denounced yesterday's U.S. Senate vote and warned the Nicaraguan people of a possible invasion by the United States.

WOODRUFF: Soviet leader Gorbachev has sent a letter to the U.N. saying he is ready to make a deal to ban nuclear tests and dismantle superpower medium-range missiles in Europe. Gorbachev said the Soviet Union was willing to do this without linkages, a term the Kremlin has used to refer to limits it wants on British and French rockets. Meanwhile, a Soviet Foreign Ministry official said today that his country will take into account the recent U.S. nuclear test in deciding on a date for a new U.S.-Soviet summit. But he did not rule out a summit this year.

LEHRER: The Augustine volcano was still erupting in Alaska. Clouds of ash and a smell of sulfur continue to spew from it, causing health warnings to be issued in Anchorage 170 miles away. A column of ash reached more than nine miles into the air and it's expected to circle the earth several times before it's settles. Augustine had been quiet since 1976. It sits on an uninhabited island, and no people or property are in danger.

WOODRUFF: The government reported today that a cheap and deadly new form of Mexican heroin is flooding many American cities and could lead to an increase in the total number of addicts for the first time in more than five years. Officials of the Drug Enforcement Administration said that black tar, as it is called by its users, has spread to 27 states since being introduced in the U.S. in 1983, and caused at least dozens of overdose deaths last year. They also said that there seems to be a developing trend toward use by people in the middle- and upper-income brackets in the northwest-western U.S.

And there was still another scare reported today about contaminated drug capsules. The Walgreen Drug Company reported that an anonymous caller asserted that Encaprin nonprescription pain reliever capsules in its stores in Chicago and Detroit had been tainted with cyanide. The company said it has found no evidence of tampering, but as a precaution pulled the product off the shelves in its more than 1,000 stores. The drug manufacturer, Procter & Gamble, said the whole thing may be a hoax.

LEHRER: The government's main economic forecasting tool today showed good times coming. It's called the index of leading economic indicators and it was up 0.7 in February, said the Commerce Department. Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldrige said it is a clear signal the economy is on the rebound.

And finally in the news, another economic story of sorts. A jury in Philadelphia awarded $988,000 in damages to a woman who claimed her powers as a psychic had been ruined by a 1976 CAT-scan examination of her brain. Lawyers for her doctor and hospital said they would appeal.

WOODRUFF: That ends our summary of the news of the day. Ahead is our focus sections. Three regional editors discuss this week's confrontations with Libya and Nicaragua; a documentary look at the business of Broadway; a debate about sexual harassment on the job -- just how responsible is a company for the conduct of its employees; and we close with an essayist's look at the changing world of rock music. Views from the Press

LEHRER: It was a week for overseas military drama, in the waters off Libya, in the jungle inside the border of Honduras. For many Americans it was a time to worry and then argue about what was going on. And part of the catalyst for the worry and arguing, as usual, was what the local newspaper had to say about it all. We sample that reaction now, as we often do after major news events. First Libya, and some newspaper editorial words from around the country, most of them of support for the U.S. action.

RENA PEDERSON, The Dallas Morning News: Let's just say hooray for the U.S. Navy. What it has done to the Libyan armed forces -- and to Colonel Qaddafi's vanity -- is a lot less than they deserve.

DON FEDER, The Boston Herald: America didn't go to the Gulf of Sidra looking for a fight. But when aggression came, this nation was prepared.

JOHN WOLFE, The Knoxville Journal: It was, as the Reagan administration said, a measured response to a rash provocation. Not one provocation, but six.

TOM DEARMORE, San Francisco Examiner: When Libya's missiles came at our planes, the answer came back, in terms that Colonel Qaddafi could understand. Qaddafi's credibility is decreased because he drew a line of death that he had no conceivable right to draw, and challenged the United States to cross it if we dared.

JIM HAMPTON, The Miami Herald: It is easy to portray the U.S. Sixth Fleet's retaliation against Libyan missile attacks, and indeed the fleet's provocative presence in the Gulf of Sidra itself, as Rambo diplomacy gone amok. Easy -- but inaccurate.

LEHRER: That broad support was not present for the week's activities involving Central America.

ROBERT LANDAUER, The Oregonian: A line has been drawn in Honduras, but until the Congress forces the President to try serious diplomatic initiatives, it will continue to be a line drawn in blood.

TONY SNOW, The Detroit News: The nightmare in Nicaragua thus will not go away. It can only become uglier. Having been burnt twice by Commandante Ortega, the House now should embrace reality and approve the President's request to buttress the contras with fresh supplies and arms.

TOM TEEPEN, The Atlanta Constitution: Honduras should be given the U.S. military supplies it needs to protect itself from Nicaragua in the short term. But U.S. policy will better protect Honduras by phasing out the contras than by building them up.

DON FEDER, The Boston Herald: Perhaps now enough legislators will at last see the light and approve aid to the contras. If not, be assured that recent Nicaraguan aggression will be repeated and magnified in the years to come.

RANDOLPH RYAN, The Boston Globe: The administration goal has never been humanitarian aid for the contras, nor mere shipments of military hardware. It has been to bring about the collapse of the Managua government%%%% This requires enlarging the war.

VAN A. CAVETT, The Courier-Journal: This isn't the first time the Sandinistas have played into Mr. Reagan's hands. Members of Congress who are tempted to reconsider their position on Mr. Reagan's latest request for contra aid should demand independent confirmation of the scope of the alleged Nicaraguan incursion, or even that it occurred.

LEHRER: Pursuing the discussion now with three regional editors: Edward Fike, editorial page editor of the San Diego Union in California, who is in the studios of public station KTBS; Arnold Rosenfeld, editor of the Austin American-Statesman in Texas, at public station KLRU-Austin; and Clarence Page, columnist and editorial board member of the Chicago Tribune, who joins us from Chicago.

Mr. Fike, was this a good week for the United States of America?

EDWARD FIKE: I think so. It was an outstanding week for the United States of America.

LEHRER: Why?

Mr. FIKE: I think we reasserted the right, the international right, of all nations to use international waters. And at the same time, we punished Qaddafi for his role in the terrorist attacks against Americans and others during the last year.

LEHRER: Clarence Page, in Chicago, how would you assess the total -- the two events?

CLARENCE PAGE: Well, it looks sort of like, certainly prior to the Senate vote, the President, while foiled at the halls of Montezuma, decided to invade the shores of Tripoli. I'm not so sure it was such a great week. I think that it was a week that made us feel good, and that was our editorial reaction here. We of course know that you can't lose by attacking Qaddafi. His popularity is virtually nonexistent around here. None of us has any respect for him. But we are very concerned about the way the assault or our defensive measures turned into an assault -- the way we pounded away at his shore. And similarly, in Nicaragua I think the President could owe his victory as much to Ortega's naivete or whatever his personal agenda is, than he can to the valiance of his freedom fighters or the sympathy for his contras back here. So on the whole, I think in the cool light of day we may look back on this week and raise some serious questions.

LEHRER: Do you agree with that, Mr. Rosenfeld?

ARNOLD ROSENFELD: I think it was a -- in the long run, it's going to be a pretty tough week for us. I think it was a case of misplaced priorities. I think the priority in Central America and south of the border is really our concern with Mexico. I think in the Middle East we should be concerned about what's happening in Egypt. I think it's fairly easy for the administration to have gone to Libya, put a chip on its shoulder and tell somebody to knock it off. I think if we had seen 12-year-olds behave about the same way we'd ground them and send them to bed.

LEHRER: Ed Fike, in San Diego, what do you make of this? Easy target, taking quick, easy shots at Qaddafi, etc. What do you think of all that?

Mr. FIKE: Well, I think the administration planned this ahead and it was carefully executed. It -- the administration took the high ground in asserting its right to travel in international waters. At the same time, it let it be known that Qaddafi was paying a price if he challenged us, which he did. I think that the great powers need to serve as policemen in the world, and I think Americans feel proud of what happened off the coast of Libya this week. I have a photograph from UPI which illustrates this. A Texas car dealer, and he's put on his billboard, "Hey, Muammar, what do you think of them apples?"

Mr. ROSENFELD: I'm sorry. I'm from Texas, but I don't think you can precisely say that a sign from a Texas car dealer is exactly the making of foreign policy. The excuse about freedom of the seas was simply the legalistic chip we put on our shoulder. And I think over the long run, Qaddafi has gained. I think we have a problem understanding the political nature of terrorism. Nobody -- I think I ought to say -- wishes Qaddafi any good luck. He deserves about anything he gets. But the question is, was it right for us to do? And I can't quite reconcile that in my mind.

LEHRER: Mr. Page, in Chicago -- yeah, go ahead.

Mr. PAGE: I was going to say, there are some very serious questions raised that suggest how much long-range good has been done. No doubt that this move made a lot of Americans feel good -- those Americans who are fans of Rambo and Rambo diplomacy, as was mentioned earlier. But there's a real question insofar as dealing with Qaddafi: should we take the military option first, or should we first have tried at least to have taken some diplomatic routes with other allied neighbors, talking to other states about our complaint in regard to the Gulf of Sidra, before we went into the area? There are a lot of questions about how we are so quick to want to prove our military might against a fifth-rate power.

LEHRER: Mr. Rosenfeld, back in Austin, you weren't suggesting to Mr. Fike, were you not, that that Texas car dealer did not represent majority feeling in Texas, were you, about the Libya thing?

Mr. ROSENFELD: No, not at all, but I don't necessarily believe our foreign policy should be guided by a public opinion poll of car dealers or anyone else. It's supposed to be conducted wisely and at times bravely, and at times going against public opinion. I think the issue really wasn't our right to sail the seven seas, but in fact terrorism and our desire to punish it. There's really nothing wrong with that, but I think again you really have to understand the political nature of terrorism, what it's trying to achieve. I think perhaps in the audience that he's playing to, Qaddafi has gained something of a victory. Reluctant Arab governments have rallied around him. I think that his denial that -- or assertion that he shot down a number of American planes will be believed in certain parts of the world. I don't think we come out of it all as well as it looks, although I grant you, we feel better.

LEHRER: Yeah. Mr. Fike, how's public opinion running on this in San Diego?

Mr. FIKE: It's very favorable to the President. I would like to address one of the points that Mr. Page brought up, and that was his call for negotiations. This is always the fallback position of the liberals when faced with a tough situation: negotiate. If you remember after the December terrorist attack in the Rome airport, the United States called upon its European allies to boycott Libya and take certain steps against Libya, and no one came forward. We have tried negotiations. To do less than what we did was to mean that Qaddafi got away unpunished. I think instead of creating more terrorism in the world he will now think twice before he threatens another attack against Americans.

LEHRER: Mr. Page --

Mr. PAGE: That's not a bad point, but I think in dealing with Qaddafi you first have to try to isolate him from any allies or potential allies. Qaddafi doesn't really have allies; he's got customers, he has people who either fear him or want his oil business. But we really pushed the Arab states into at least posturing as though they are friends of his, rallying somewhat to his side, although I'm sure privately they really agree with what we did. We shouldn't be so quick to just overlook the diplomatic route and just exert our military might, because we could in the long run work against our own interests and actually encourage more terrorism in the future.

LEHRER: Mr. Fike, you support also the President's action, I assume, in sending $20 million and U.S. helicopters, etcetera, to help the Honduran effort?

Mr. FIKE: Yes. If he were not advocating this, we would be calling upon him to do so.

LEHRER: What have you said about it in your newspaper, Mr. Page?

Mr. PAGE: I'm sorry, what was that question again?

LEHRER: What have you said in the Chicago Tribune editorially about the U.S. support for the Honduran effort, sending the $20 million?

Mr. PAGE: Oh, regarding the Honduran effort, we have been supportive of the President; we've been supportive of the idea of sending the $100 million in aid. However, we are very hesitant to go all the way with the President's language, the context he's put this in. And there are some serious questions about whether the contras deserve to be compared to our founding fathers, whether they should be called freedom fighters, and whether to be critical of his policy automatically puts you in a league with communist sympathizers. His language has been very unfortunate here. But our goal, our policy here, we feel as though Nicaragua should be Finlandized in some way, if that's possible, and Mr. Ortega has obviously not cooperated with that viewpoint.

LEHRER: And Mr. Rosenfeld, your paper does not support U.S. policy in Central America, correct?

Mr. ROSENFELD: No, we haven't. I enjoyed, by the way, a second ago hearing the Chicago Tribune described as a pack of liberals.

Mr. PAGE: Ain't it the truth.

LEHRER: What did you say, Mr. -- you deny that?

Mr. PAGE: I said ain't it the truth.

LEHRER: Oh, I got you, okay.

Mr. PAGE: We do have a diversity of opinion on our board. We've got nine members, and we feel as though if all nine agree, then eight of them are useless.

LEHRER: Okay, okay. Well, look --

Mr. ROSENFELD: We --

LEHRER: Yes, go ahead, Mr. Rosenfeld.

Mr. ROSENFELD: Well, what we have tried to say once again is the issue of what are the priorities south of our border. There is a major economic and social disaster percolating along very nicely in Mexico, and yet we give our attention to what's going on in Nicaragua, probably building up once again the same regime. I'm beginning to suspect that it's extraordinarily cheap to send $100 million in arms into that area to the contras, but it's extraordinarily expensive to do what we should be doing in Mexico.

LEHRER: All right, gentlemen. Thank you, all three, very much for disagreeing on just about everything. Mr. Rosenfeld, in Austin; Mr. Fike, in San Diego; Mr. Page, in Chicago. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Coming up on the NewsHour, we take a documentary look at the economic reality behind the show business glitter on Broadway. We debate the newest legal twist in sexual harassment cases: how responsible is the employer? And end with an essay surveying the changing world of rock music. Broadway: Stage Stricken?

LEHRER: Just about every city in America has a Broadway, but only New York City has the Broadway. And as always, it's in trouble, and as always there is no agreement on how much trouble, why it's in it, or what to do about it. It is a business story that is also a show business story, and it is told now by Dion Anderson, a special correspondent with a special interest, because he makes his real living as an actor.

DION ANDERSON [voice-over]: Wind in the Willows, a new American musical based on the classic book by Kenneth Grahame. A few weeks ago it came up to roll in American theater's greatest crapshoot: opening night on Broadway. Hopes were high for that elusive combination: artistic success and big profits. It took five years and $2.5 million to get here. Just four days later, Wind in the Willows closed. It is not unusual that a new show failed on Broadway. What is unusual is that Wind in the Willows even made the effort. Many observers feel that the brutal economic odds against new productions is strangling Broadway.

FRED ZOLLO, producer: Today we have very few good plays being produced on Broadway. The quality of what's being done is sadly lacking.

ANDERSON [voice-over]: The health of Broadway is an old concern on this street. In 1928 the legendary producer Flo Ziegfeld said that Broadway was dead. Now we call that the golden age of Broadway: several hundred shows running, several hundred new productions each year, tickets under a buck. Today's statistics tell a different story. Attendance steadily declining over the past five years. Only five years ago, 60 new productions were introduced on Broadway. In the first half of this season, 16 new shows have opened, 11 survive. Yet with $45 for best seats, Broadway box office grosses continue to set records.

CLIVE BARNES, drama critic: To say Broadway is dead is really naive. Broadway has changed. How can you say Broadway is dead when for the past few years it's been making more money than it's ever made in its life? You can say it's dead creatively -- it ain't what it was, and it never will be. It never can be. Its economic circumstances have changed, and that is a permanent change.

ANDERSON [voice-over]: June 1984. The first auditions for the Broadway production of Wind in the Willows. This is a good example of how much time, sweat and especially money it takes for new shows to reach Broadway. Work on this show actually began four years before, when producer Richard Ericson fell in love with the story. He and co-producers Renny Serre, Michael Bright and Laura Harris thought it would make a charming Broadway show, and perhaps make them rich in the process.

RICHARD ERICSON, producer: It is not your normal run-of-the-mill thing that gets adapted for Broadway. It's not glitzy, it's not loud.

LAURA HARRIS, producer: It is a show with heart. It really is. And I think there's a place for a gentle musical.

ANDERSON [voice-over]: They tried to keep to the spirit of the book, but made some changes that critics were later to dislike intensely. The male character Mole was changed to a girl to provide a romantic interest for Ratty. Vicki Lewis got the part at this audition. It had taken four years of creative effort to get the show this far, four years of writing and rewriting and fund raising and retrenching and more fund raising and auditions and out-of-town productions. Finally, in September of 1984, after four years of getting their acts together, the producers started all over again, this time bound for Broadway. The backers' audition is the major financial hurdle for aspiring Broadway producers. These potential investors are being offered good returns for their money, and an even better chance of losing it all.

RENNY SERRE, producer: We were raising money during two years where every week there was an article on how not to invest in Broadway and how Broadway's going down the drain and there were no good musicals anymore, and etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. That didn't help.

ANDERSON [voice-over]: Theatrical offerings are governed by the same laws that govern the Fortune 500 companies. The prospectus has two pages of warnings about the risks and the good chance of total ruin. Hal Prince has been through this process many times.

HAL PRINCE, producer: When I went into the theater it cost $250,000 to do a musical. Most of us were neophytes; we got our experience right on the spot. It is overwhelming, the experience of having a $4 million investment on your shoulders. Artistically stifling. Totally counterproductive. It's like you gave Picasso a slab of gold and said, "Okay, go for it. Paint a work of art." Gold that's by the way worth $100 million and you can only do it once. To hell with it.

ANDERSON [voice-over]: The producers of Wind in the Willows wanted to raise $3.5 million. They got 2.5. The money went fast: $70,000 to rehearse the cast, $9,200 for the piano player, $9,000 for the piano, $86,000 to rent the lights, a quarter of a million dollars to make the costumes, a third of a million dollars to build a set. And this was a small musical. But even a big musical, like Cats, had similar problems. The Shubert Organization, producer of Cats and other Broadway hits, also owns half the Broadway theaters. They are very much the Broadway establishment, big enough to afford the latest computerized ticket sales technology. But in theater, introducing high-tech efficiencies to bring down costs only goes so far.

GERALD SCHOENFELD, Shubert Theaters: We are basically a handcraft business. Everything is made in our business by hand. Our sets are made by hand, our costumes are made by hand; our shows are performed, obviously, by, and worked backstage by people, not by automation, not by robots. And a show today -- the same show, by the way, written by Shaw 100 years ago or by Shakespeare, if you will, 300 years ago, 350 years ago, is the same three-hour show today as it was then. Our ability to introduce any kind of productivity in our business is severely limited.

ANDERSON [voice-over]: And of course all this handcrafting is unionized handcrafting.

BERNARD JACOBS, Shubert Theaters: We have to deal with the stagehands, the musicians, the actors, managers, the box office people, the treasurers, the ushers, ticket takers and doormen, the matrons and porters, the engineers, and the Dramatists Guild, the SSD&C, which is the Society of Stage Directors and Choreographers, the wardrobe union, the hairdressers and wig union.

ANDERSON [voice-over]: And each of these unions has its own work rules.

ARTHUR CANTOR, producer: The musicians' union, for example, have rules that involve certain theaters where if a show was scored for 14 people and their rules call for 25, you have to pay 25 people, and they get paid every week and they get a lot of money every week. They even get vacations for not showing up.

ANDERSON: If you were a standby musician, wouldn't it be embarrassing to you to go into a theater and sit?

JOHN GLASEL, musicians' union: Yeah, unless I needed the money, I suppose it would be. But there's a lot of people that need the money. Employment is hard to come by in our industry.

ANDERSON [voice-over]: Even harder to come by is a theater to rent at a reasonable price. Although about a third of Broadway theaters are dark, a witches' brew of costs keep the rents high. And when a theater has too large a proportion of its seating capacity in the balcony, it's hard to rent at any price. Like the Belasco, built in 1907 and empty for over a year now. It has two balconies. Today's audiences don't like to sit in balconies.

Mr. SCHOENFELD: These seats upstairs at the ticket booth would probably be sold for somewhere in the neighborhood of $10, in that range, but they don't sell at $10. These downstairs selling at $17.50, reduced from $35, will be the ones that will walk away first. And those will not walk away; they'll lay there and won't be sold at $10. They wouldn't be sold at $5.

ANDERSON [voice-over]: And finally, even when a theater is rented, union work rules make it too expensive to use for anything other than actual performances. Auditions, rehearsals and other theater business are conducted off-Broadway in spaces where there is no union jurisdiction. Consequently, even rented theaters stay dark about 20 hours a day.

December 11th. Wind in the Willows moved rehearsals into the Nederlander Theater -- as close to opening night as possible to save money. There was not much rehearsal time left before they met a paying audience. Talented people were working harder. Money was going faster. All of this will be paid for at the box office by the theatergoer. Wind in the Willows, unfinished and untested, was unashamed to ask $45 for best seats, even in previews. High ticket prices are a constant source of controversy.

[interviewing] Which do you think about the ticket prices?

1st WOMAN: They're high.

2nd WOMAN: Oh, it's very expensive.

1st MAN: I think they're too high. Period.

Mr. SCHOENFELD: There are more people able to pay today's ticket price than they were 15, 20 or 40 years ago, paying the then-price. I believe that the price of the ticket has not inflated as much as the general cost of living has gone up. I believe that ticket prices have not inflated any more than tickets to sporting events, motion pictures, television costs or even nonprofit theater.

ANDERSON [voice-over]: Unsold seats for most Broadway shows are offered on a same-day basis at the half-price ticket booth. It stays busy. Theatergoers don't like it, but they pay. High ticket prices have not driven them away, but they have been driven to the big hit shows. And for those hits, even these bargain hunters buy the most expensive seats first. Some Broadway observers believe that the people buying these seats are not the traditional Broadway audience. Many of these people are not regular theatergoers; many are tourists. And for many of them, theatergoing is now a special event.

[interviewing] What show are you going to see?

2nd MAN: 42nd Street or Cats, whatever I can get better tickets to.

ANDERSON: Why did you pick a Broadway show, especially a musical that expensive, as opposed to some other entertainment?

2nd MAN: Well, I'm only here for four days, and you want to get to make the most of it. And it's a name show. Safe.

Mr. SCHOENFELD: We used to have an audience in this country which used to say, "Let's go to the movies." We don't have that anymore. We have, as you have suggested, event-oriented, critic-directed kind of audience. And we have a 10 mentality in this country. If it's a perfect 10, everybody wants to go to see it. If it is something less than perfect, people don't want to go.

ANDERSON [voice-over]: Ten mentality or not, what Broadway audiences want are the best $45 seats to the biggest musical they can find.

Mr. ZOLLO: They're looking for that blockbuster, and they'll spend anything to get that blockbuster. That's what's happened on Broadway. I mean, Cats has supported the Shubert Organization very nicely for the last three-and-a-half-or-so years.

TICKET SELLER: Song and Dance, the Blood Knot, The Caretaker. We will have the Robert Klein show through January the fourth, and also The Mystery of Edwin Drood, The Odd Couple and The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe starring Lily Tomlin.

ANDERSON [voice-over]: The search for signs of new American plays on Broadway has not been so successful. Only two new American plays opened on Broadway this season. The Boys of Winter was a drama. I'm Not Rappaport was a comedy. The comedy survives.

Mr. ZOLLO: I think it's essential to maintain the play on Broadway, the new play on Broadway, because if we stop doing even the few plays we're doing now, then we're giving in to the hyena, we're giving in to the tap dancers, we're giving in to the image of the theater as being a bunch of people tap dancing and twirling and jumping up and down, and bad sets moving in and out and lousy music being played over amplifiers. I mean, if we kill the spoken word on Broadway, then we're giving in.

ANDERSON [voice-over]: Clive Barnes says there never have been that many well-spoken words on Broadway anyway.

Mr. BARNES: The myth is that Broadway was once some whited sepulchre of artistic genius. It never has been that. It's always been 90 fluff, 5 bilge and 5 genius.

[commercial for "Wind in the Willows"]

ANDERSON [voice-over]: On November 27th, Wind in the Willows met its first preview audience. Preview performances allow further polishing of a show before facing critics on opening night. Some material was cut or reworked. New material was added. Progress had not been easy. Ratty's costume was redesigned and replaced. So was Weasel's jacket. This scene at Badger's house was cut before opening night, so the set was never used. Choreographer Margery Beddon replaced the original choreographer, who didn't work fast enough for the producers.Three preview performances were cancelled when Vicki Lewis developed laryngitis. Froggy's car needed contant tinkering to get the effect right -- $15,000 worth of tinkering.

Mr. SERRE: A musical, which is a complicated and expensive thing, does not last very long if it's only a mediocre show. It either has to be a really good show or it doesn't run for very long.

Mr. ERICSON: It's still a $2.5 million crapshoot. But we're proud of it.

ANDERSON: A little scared?

Mr. ERICSON: Sure.

ANDERSON [voice-over]: On December 19th, a cold winter's night in New York, Wind in the Willows officially opened, ready to be judged by the all-important critics.

JUDITH CHRIST: Kenneth Grahame's fantasy, Wind in the Willows, has survived as a children's classic since 1908, and it will certainly survive the Broadway musical at the Nederlander. I'm not sure about the audiences.

PIA LINDSTROM: Mole is a girl! Ratty and Mole fall in love? Weasel comes on to Mole? I mean, what is this? This isn't Wind in the Willows. I mean, it helps to read the book before you make a musical of it.

STEWART KLEIN: Wind in the Willows. Somebody call the ASPCA. This is Stewart Klein.

ANDERSON [voice-over]: Wind in the Willows closed Sunday, December 22nd, after four performances. That same week, Cats grossed almost half a million dollars. What has not changed on Broadway is the glory or despair of opening night. What can be changed to make Broadway better is the subject of much talk and effort. Ideas range from a nonprofit, tax-supported Broadway%%%

Mr. BARNES: When one says a completely subsidized Broadway, it sounds like pie in the sky. Perhaps it is pie in the sky. But it's a very nutritious pie.

ANDERSON [voice-over]: %%%to the simplicity of just plain reducing costs.

Mr. PRINCE: I think it's not a hell of a lot more complicated than that. The complicated part is how you do that.

ANDERSON: You'd be asking unions to give up very hard-won benefits. You'd be asking --

Mr. PRINCE: Yes, sir.

ANDERSON: -- businessmen to charge less --

Mr. PRINCE: That is not unprecedented, is it?

ANDERSON: No, out it's hard.

Mr. PRINCE: Avarice is easy, and take what you can get now because, after all, you're not going to be here in how-so-many years. I mean, either you have a sense of continuity, either you have a sense of your own responsibility to the future, or you don't. If you don't, you don't. There's a lot of that selfish thinking around. Always has been. Maybe more right now.

ANDERSON: While the thinking goes on, the costs go up and the jobs go down. There's a great collection of theatrical specialists in this town, perhaps the greatest collection in the world. They're up against long odds and a tough marketplace. If nothing is done about rising costs and diminishing work, that great collection of talent will disperse to other places and other media. When they do, these streets will be a little meaner, and America a little poorer. Unwelcome Advances

WOODRUFF: We focus now on the delicate issue of sexual harassment on the job and whether employers should be held responsible. That was the issue before the Supreme Court this week in the first sexual harassment case it has ever heard. The case involves a bank teller who sued the bank where she worked for an affair she had with a supervisor, who she says coerced her into having sex on the job. The woman claims the bank is responsible, even though it did not know about the problem. Joining us now are representatives of two groups who have taken an interest in the case on opposite sides. First, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, its vice president and general counsel, Stephen Bokat. And representing some 40 women's and civil rights organizations, Linda Singer, a Washington attorney.

Ms. Singer, let me begin with you. Why should companies be held responsible for sexual harassment, particularly when they didn't know what was going on?

LINDA SINGER: Well, first of all, sexual harassment is the kind of thing that really can make it impossible for a woman to work at a company. It takes all kinds of forms: verbal taunts, physical attacks. When we say the company didn't know what was going on, I'm not sure exactly what we mean. A company isn't really an it. I mean, the bank operates through its supervisory personnel. In the case that we're talking about, the teller testified that she was harassed by a supervisor, by an assistant vice president, as a matter of fact. So when we say the bank didn't know, I suppose is board of directors didn't know, but certainly a supervisor did. Traditionally, we hold employers liable for what their agents do. Otherwise nobody higher up would really have an incentive to know anything about the problem and to cure it.

WOODRUFF: So rather than a personal suit against the supervisor, the assistant vice president or whatever, the suit was filed against the bank itself.

Ms. SINGER: Which operates through its supervisors.

WOODRUFF: All right. Mr. Bokat, the point is that the bank should have known what was going on, that this man who was an executive at the bank, you know, that his superiors were responsible.

STEPHEN BOKAT: Well, the facts here indicate that the woman was not demoted; she received consistent promotions, raises and so on. So there was nothing from that sense that would give notice to the bank. Her position's very simple, and I should point out, we certainly don't condone sexual harassment in the workplace. It is a big problem nationwide. It's a problem that needs to be dealt with. We think it can be dealt with most effectively if a very simple requirement is imposed, and that is that the employee tell a superior officer, someone superior to the person who is harassing them, that there's a problem and let them deal with it. And if the bank doesn't deal with it, then you can hold them responsible, and it's fair to hold them responsible.

WOODRUFF: All right. Ms. Singer, let me ask you that. This woman continued to work at the bank, as I understand it, for three years. Why did she not during that period go over the head of her supervisor?

Ms. SINGER: Well, first of all, she testified that he had threatened that he would have her raped or killed if she did so. Second, the bank in this case did have an internal grievance procedure of the sort that Mr. Bokat talks about. Interestingly, it required her to complain first to the assistant vice president, who was the person who was harassing her. So I'm not sure that that was a very welcoming kind of procedure to use.

Mr. BOKAT: However, let me point out here that she had -- there was an EEO officer, an Equal Employment Opportunity officer, who was the person responsible for dealing with these kinds of problems. And in the course of her work she had steady contact with him through the years, yet she never said anything to him. It would have been so easy. She was meeting with him -- she never said a word.

WOODRUFF: Let me get back to the first point, Ms. Singer. I think a lot of people are still going to come back and ask this question. Technically, perhaps the bank was responsible, but how can you hold an employer responsible when they didn't know anything about it?

Ms. SINGER: Well, we do it all the time. In fact, I think what Mr. Bokat is asking for would, in effect, amend the discrimination law. Never have we imposed on an employer [sic] the obligation of complaining internally before he or she can use the remedies that have been provided by Congress. So this would be a very unusual step if we took it, and I haven't heard any reasons why it's more important to take this kind of step in a sexual harassment case than in any other kind of harassment case.

WOODRUFF: What do you mean, for example?

Ms. SINGER: If the harassment were in the form of racial taunts or degradation, we have a long line of cases that says quite clearly that the employee would have to do nothing before he or she could complain on the outside.

WOODRUFF: What about that?

Mr. BOKAT: Sex is different than race. Sexual harassment is different than the race problem, and that is that sexual relations are part of normal life; race discrimination is not -- it is not something that's accepted in society. And so where they may be a consensual sexual relationship between a supervisor --

WOODRUFF: You're not saying sexual harassment is accepted in society.

Mr. BOKAT: No, no, no, no, no. No. That sexual relationships can be accepted and normal, not harassing, whereas any kind of racial action is never accepted; that will never be an accepted --

WOODRUFF: So your point is what?

Mr. BOKAT: The point is that the employer, anyone observing it, seeing it, say, "Well, they're doing it consensually, this is fine. I'm not going to interfere." Whereas in the race discrimination area, any other employee observing it would immediately know that this is unacceptable.

WOODRUFF: Do you buy that?

Ms. SINGER: No. We're not talking about private consensual sex. We're talking about harassment. In the present case the woman claimed that she was repeatedly raped. We are talking about the kinds of cases that I think are pretty clear would outrage anybody, whether the motivation was sexual or racial.

WOODRUFF: What will it mean, Ms. Singer, if the court in this case rules against the woman who has brought the suit? What does it mean down the road for other cases like this?

Ms. SINGER: Well, if the court rules against her on this basis, it would mean that there is a new administrative notice requirement being imposed, and that before an employee can use the legislatively provided remedies, she's got to go through the internal chain of command, which in many cases, women have said, they're just too frightened to do.

WOODRUFF: Because it risks their job, is that your point?

Ms. SINGER: Their job or their physical safety, as she testified in this case. There's always an incentive to use a sensitive grievance procedure if it exists.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Bokat?

Mr. BOKAT: If her job is in danger, if she complains and loses her job it does not offend the Chamber at all that that -- there's a remedy provided by law, that she should be reinstated. What we're saying is, let the employer deal with it before we get into the years of delay and time and expense that's involved with going to the government agencies and the courts that drag these things on for years. It can be usually dealt with very effectively and efficiently.

WOODRUFF: Do I understand you to say that it's better for an individual employee to lose a job than to go through this whole procedure and to sue the employer?

Mr. BOKAT: No, no. Well, if the worker loses a job and then has to sue, it can take years. What I'm saying is if the person is being harassed, they go to the supervisor in the workplace -- obviously not the one that's harassing them -- and says, "I've got a problem here," and let the employer deal with it efficiently and quickly, rather than going the litigation route immediately. Now, if that doesn't work, if it's an employer who for whatever reason says, "I don't want to hear this. You're fired," then there should be a remedy and that's not correct.

WOODRUFF: Well, I wish -- this is one that I know we will be watching for some time to come. And thank you both for being with us, Ms. Singer. Mr. Bokat. Selling Out the Songs

LEHRER: Finally tonight, an essay about a crime of theft. The indictment is returned by essayist Penny Stallings, a writer who specializes in matters of the pop culture, matters such as rock music.

PENNY STALLINGS: They just don't write them like that anymore. Those were the good old days, back when rock and roll was verbot3n, pagan jungle music played by perverts, pinkos, and worse.

ED SULLIVAN: And now here is Elvis Presley.

STALLINGS: It rarely showed up on television, and when it did it was so hot it had to be photographed from the waist up. Now of course all that's changed. Rock and roll is everywhere, especially on the small screen. It's got its own prime-time slots, its own network, and now it's even being used to sell fabric softeners for the Big Chill set. The Big Chill set. You remember them. They're the ones who didn't trust anyone over 30, who hoped they'd die before they got old. Well, today those very same baby boomers have children, mortgages and middle-aged spread, but their eyes still glaze over when they hear a Beatles tune. It's this, the old counterculture generation of the '60s, that's the target audience for upscale product pitches in the '80s. Play them Little Richard and you've got yourself a sale.

It's true that there's something slightly creepy about hearing your favorite teenage anthem played over a 30-second spot.

But there's something satisfying about it too. They know who I am, you say to yourself. But wait a minute. Who's been going through my drawers? Those are my fragile emotions you're toying with there, my youthful memories you're running up the mercantile flagpole. Is nothing sacred? If "Love Me Tender" can be recycled as a bubble bath jingle, can it be long before "Blowin' in the Wind" becomes a spray net campaign? Soon you'll be hearing ex-acid queen Grace Slick etotrollingxD the virtues of Dial soap. What next? Ozzie Osborne for Compoz?

Somehow all that seems okay. It's a star's prerogative to sell out. But it's quite another thing for the songs to sell out. After all, it's not as if they had any say in their commercial exploitation, or their original creators, for that matter, since most of them signed away the rights to those songs years ago. The way I see it, that smacks of pop culture crime. Perhaps not a crime on the order of Chuck Berry's imprisonment in 1959, on what many thought were trumped-up charges, or even Pat Boone's wimpy cover version of "Tutti Frutti." But a crime nonetheless.

Worst of all, it means that rock has come out of the closet. Nowadays, it's cheerful, brave, obedient and clean. It wants you to get whiter whites, better mileage, and have a nice day. Bring mom, bring dad, bring the kids. But oh, baby, look what they done to my song.

WOODRUFF: The U.S.-Libya confrontation and Colonel Qaddafi's claim of victory is grist for cartoonist's Ranon Lurie's mill tonight.

[Ranon Lurie cartoon -- Qaddafi in body cast and traction, lifts one arm with boxing glove and shouts "I've won" louder and louder]

LEHRER: Again, the major story of this Good Friday. The State Department asked members of the Congress to consider postponing Easter break trips to the Middle East because of Libyan threats of terrorism against Americans. Senators Gary Hart and Bennett Johnston immediately acted on the warning by postponing trips to Israel, Egypt and Jordan.

Good night, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back Monday night. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and have a good weekend.