TNMC

The world of television journalism portrayed in Good Night, and Good Luck is so alien to what we see today as to be almost completely unrecognizable.

Edward R. Murrow’s See It Now news program aired once a week, meaning he and his crew had the chance to seriously analyze and investigate, something virtually missing in today’s 24/7 flying without a net news cycle. It is distinctly odd to watch such thought and care go into a report when I’ve grown used to watching CNN and FoxNews literally try to sort out a story live on the air. Reportedly George Clooney’s father is a newsman from way back, so it is understandable that he would want to do a story about the man considered the height of journalistic ethics.

During the period in which Senator McCarthy from Wisconsin was running the House Committee on Un-American Activities, paranoia was gripping the country. McCarthy’s belief that a couple hundred communist agents had infiltrated the government and wild accusations as to who those people really were, had many people believing they could be investigated for something as simple as having once met a communist. The press was well aware that McCarthy was throwing around a lot of accusations without proof, sometimes flat out lying about information. As a group, they were afraid to challenge the powerful senator and thus had little to say on the issue. Murrow decided that it was time to show the world just what McCarthy was up to. It was a borderline call as it meant really advocating one side over another, something he considered taboo. But it seemed clear to him that one side was clearly wrong here and that providing equal time and consideration to each side was not going to put forth two equally reasoned arguments. He would fire off a series of episodes devoted to McCarthy and side issues of his witch hunt that would eventually lead to an investigation and Congressional reprimand of the senator.

The partisan bickering in this country has grown so severe that I fully expect this movie to be turned into a political football, for no reason other than it appears to have an opinion. What the movie dedicates itself to is advocating journalism that aggressively seeks the truth while offering as little personal bias as possible. Murrow knew that he was wandering dangerously close to the line between reporting and editorializing. So he chose to build reports about Senator McCarthy as much as possible out of McCarthy’s own words to avoid any appearance of skewing the facts against the senator. Naturally some in the press called it clever editing and some in the government immediately moved to smear Murrow as a communist. Hell, even today, decades after McCarthy was publicly disgraced, you can still find hate mongers who consider him a hero. This is no doubt why so many Americans tune out of politics, a fact enjoyed by those who think that power goes to the loudest, regardless of what they have to say. This movie details a bright spot in history where victory went to those with the facts and decency on their side, a moment when the screamers went down in humiliating defeat.

This is not a case of talking about the “good ol’ days.” Clearly the situation was as bad then as it is now. The main difference is the speed at which information flows. Then, as now, corporate parents could lean heavily on their news divisions to control what was reported and how. Murrow certainly was not immune to this influence, which explains why he also did the fluffy celebrity interview program Person to Person. It was something he clearly hated doing but it bought him a bit of freedom for his harder hitting reporting.

I have been as hard a critic of the modern press as anyone, although not for the typical bias complaints. My grousing has to do with a lack of backbone and an unwillingness to challenge politicians on their facts and statements. A press that gives politicians a free pas lays the ground for all manner of bad behavior. It breeds a lack of honesty and a softening of the truth. How can voters hope to understand the situation when both sides will say virtually anything to win the argument?

David Strathairn is perfect as Murrow. His performance is so on the nose that it felt more like watching a documentary about Murrow than a feature film. His fierce intensity and sharp edged voice make his Murrow a dominant presence on the screen. The film is fairly static, rarely having Murrow do anything more than sit on set, his desk, a bar, or the screening room. Despite that, Strathairn owns the screen. Even a movie star presence like Clooney tends to disappear in his presence. He becomes so much the center that I found myself looking for him in crowd shots, just to check his reaction to what was going on. This is a pretty unnatural reaction to an acting performance but it is so convincing that it felt like watching the real thing. The rest of the cast certainly performs ably but Strathairn is in a class all by himself.

This isn’t a perfect film. There is a subplot involving a married couple in the CBS News department that adds nothing to the story. The way the film is shot makes it blend in seamlessly with the archival footage they use but it furthers the feeling that this is closer to a documentary. There isn’t a whole lot of tension to be found. It feels like a history lesson and thus will play out as we know it must. It’s tough to find tension in a story where the outcome is known. What the movie does very well is make us think about the role of the press and provide comparison between our current time period and that of the movie. For that and David Strathairn’s Oscar worthy performance, I can highly recommend the movie.

- This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it