This week I had the opportunity to see Good Night, and Good Luck, a documentary movie about the life of Edward R. Murrow, a famous CBS reporter. Murrow reported live during bombing raids in London and even took on Senator Joseph McCarthy.
The movie is mostly about Murrow's historic fight against McCarthy, who used fear and intimidation tactics in trying to portray some famous and influential Americans as Communists. It later came to be known that McCarthy had little to no real proof for his allegations. McCarthy used the fear of communism to his own political advantages. And Murrow called McCarthy's bluff.
In the movie, the Murrow character said, “I have searched my conscious. And I can’t for the life of me find any justification for this. And I simply cannot accept that there are on every story two equal and logical sides to an argument. Call it editorializing if you like.”
While I don't know if Murrow said this exact quote, it certainly captures his attitude toward some situations, especially the allegations by McCarthy. I really enjoyed the movie and believe that it hit on some key issues that we must consider. We must always be careful to never let fear get in the way of reason. People should be given an opportunity to defend themselves. Allegations are not the same as real proof. And journalists don't have to sit on the sidelines when one side is clearly doing something wrong.
When I was in journalism school at the University of Missouri, I remember talking about ethics. Nobody mentioned Murrow then. I wish that some one had. At that time, I did not know about Murrow. But I have since then come to view him as a hero and a model for what a good reporter should be.
At journalism school, I remember arguing that journalists should be fair at all times, but that does not mean that you have to equally report and present both sides as valid. I felt that a good reporter has an obligation to point out things that are obviously wrong. Many of my fellow classmates talked about the importance of being impartial. They challenged me on my opinion. All the while they never admitted their own biases. I contended that the real aim of journalism was the truth not to keep all sides happy.
Looking back on the debates, I now see that the big difference is that I was proceeding from a world view that believes in a right and wrong answer to many things. They came from a postmodern philosophy, which held to many different equally valid viewpoints.
Times haven't changed that much. The only major change is that our attention span is shorter.
The real problem with journalism today is not that we don't have reporters who are brave enough to tackle tough issues. We do. The press seems very eager to build up or tear down whatever or whomever they can find. The real problem is that most people don't want to see anything other than sound bites. And sometimes, the truth just can't be captured in thirty seconds. Sometimes the real important issues aren't sexy enough for cable news because details take too long to accurately cover.
http://wip.warnerbros.com/goodnightgoodluck/index1.html
