Ethical dilemmas in Good Night, Good Luck

Ethical Values in Good Night, Good Luck

Jordan Simmons

js676410@ohio.edu

The path to achieving broadcasting fame is depicted in the film Good Night, and Good Luck, through Edward R. Murrow’s efforts to make face of Senator Joseph McCarthy during his involvement with the Red Scare in the 1950s.  One of Edward R. Murrow’s biggest benefits was his bravery in calling out Joseph McCarthy.

The movie does an excellent job portraying how America operated during the Red Scare and how timid people were when it came to talking about it.  Murrow was not that kind of guy.  He was up front taking the risky task of opposing McCarthy and his accusations.  Columbia Broadcasting System, or CBS, must grapple with the unraveling events involving Murrow’s newscasts on McCarthy.  Some of the ethical values that are birthed in this film include the stakeholders, ethical values, and objectivity.

Stakeholders

The biggest stakeholder in this film is the news figure who everyone in America looked up to and trusted.  He was brave enough to speak out about the controversy over communism which put him in danger.  Every ounce of credibility that he had so earnestly earned was on the line and he could have just lost his job altogether.   Had McCarthy himself not been disclaimed for soon after, the public may have condemned Murrow. 

In the decision of CBS to let Murrow report freely on these topics also affected and brought forth numerous other stakeholders and pressures.  The public is a stakeholder because they are affected by his words and may also be supporters of McCarthy.  Senator McCarthy was a stakeholder because as he went forth with the Red Scare campaign, Edward R. Murrow casted doubt on the scares that McCarthy shed light onto. 

Ethical Values

In numerous occurrences in the film Good Night, Good Luck, Edward R. Murrow does a great job in acting ethically for the public.  In ethics class we learn of the significance of being independent reporters and Murrow did a great job of doing this.  When his boss at CBS feared his impact, he maintained his ways of acting independent and saw success in doing so.  Murrow reported on the bases of truth.  He reported in a way that we unfortunately do not see enough in today’s media-truth and nothing but the truth. 

Objectivity

Murrow does a great job by expressing objectivity, although it was very difficult at times.  In the start of CBS’ newscasts on the McCarthy involvement he states first and foremost that in no way do the views presented reflect in any way the views of CBS, nor do they have intentions to accuse the senator.  They express that they are purely working in investigative journalism and reporting their results.  To express objectivity and good reporting, Murrow even invites McCarthy for a chance to share his views.

As journalists, we have goals of digging for the truth, expressing objectivity, and being knowledgeable of our stakeholders and obligations to them.  This film demonstrates how effective Edward R. Murrow was in his reporting ways that are unfortunately dwindling away today.  

Murrow's Crusade

Colin Roose
colinroose42@gmail.com

"Good Night, and Good Luck." How many millions heard this phrase, which added a startling mark of finality to every word that Edward R. Murrow said? One of the most notable causes of this journalism giant was his bravery in calling out Joseph McCarthy, which is commemorated in this film with the same name as his catchphrase.

This movie does a remarkable job of describing the sheer amount of the trepidation with which America in the 1950s spoke of communism, and especially the difficulty approaching it in the world of journalism. Ethics are key here as Murrow takes on the very risky task of opposing McCarthy and his accusations. The key problem presented by the movie is this: should Murrow report on (and criticize) McCarthy's rampage against human rights, or should he leave the issue alone and spare the reputation and business of his network?

source: Shmoop.com

Stakes and Pressures

Short of another political figure, it's hard to imagine a more recognizable figure who had more to lose by going after McCarthy than Murrow. Known to the entire country as a notable news figure who reported on World War II, the news team's decision to enter the firestorm of controversy over communism meant that he would also be targeted. The witch hunt for communism would have claimed one of its highest-profile victims in Murrow. Even though a reporter's duty is to the public, the public would have condemned him if McCarthy himself had not been discredited soon after the report.

But there were many, many other stakeholders in the decision of CBS to let Murrow's team do as they wished with McCarthy. One that was explicitly stated in the film was the network's loss of the sponsorship of Alcoa. Murrow paid for his integrity by losing his show, but it also meant that the other employees also took the hit with everything from layoffs to the threat of being known as a communist network. The co-producer of the show, Fred Friendly, also paid a price as Murrow mentioned his name alongside of his at the beginning of the film. However, the public was the interest that won out above advertisers and those who subscribed to the ubiquitous Red Scare.

Ethical Values

In deciding to report upon what he saw as a violation of civil rights, with the Air Force officer and the woman suspected of being on a communist mailing list, Murrow acted ethically for the public. He was clearly met with intimidation for doing this, both from the army colonels who say that he would compromise national security, and from the CBS boss. But in resisting these interests and staying independent, he kept his journalistic reputation clean by keeping his focus on the audience.

However, Murrow is not perfect. When he is told that he was making the news, not reporting on it, and that he would be putting innocent people at risk for his actions, he accepts these charges. Some could have accused him of grandstanding for his own interests, and would have had a point. But through not attacking his critics, Murrow both stayed accountable for his actions.

What I think was most telling that Murrow was the real deal as a reporter was in how he responded to McCarthy's accusations that he worked for the IWW. Rather than responding with charges of his own, he addresses his story on what was true and what wasn't. As a viewer, I could feel the tension that Murrow had to have felt when he gave that broadcast. If I had gone through that, I don't think I could have believed that the truth and nothing but the truth would have been enough to get me through. But he did, and he survived with his credibility intact. He showed integrity in allowing McCarthy to speak, fairness in not providing his own malicious charges, and was honest about his past.

source: Votingamerican.wordpress.com

So Why Should We Care?

People who are skeptical about the media are often not intimate with the process that almost everyone in the field goes through for their viewers. Good Night, and Good Luck is an analysis of just how far journalists in particular can go in search of the unbiased truth. If anyone needs faith in the purpose of journalism, here it is, in 93 minutes.

Risky Business of Edward R. Murrow

Hallie Rawlinson
hr244210@ohio.edu

In George Clooney's 2005 film, Good Night, and Good Luck, legendary broadcast journalist, Edward R. Murrow faces quite a few ethical challenges, making history as he goes. Murrow takes on the rampant Senator Joseph McCarthy as he runs his historical witch hunt of the American people, searching for anyone with the slightest affiliation with the Communist Party. As a journalism student, I looked at the actions of Murrow and his colleagues as documented in this film and drew my own conclusions.

He set a standard
But how did Murrow determine his role in all of this frenzy? He did so in a professional and objective manner with the American people's interest in mind. Murrow was obviously against Sen. McCarthy's tirades, along with the rest of his station. However, their reporting was not an attack based on political leaning, but rather a check on the government, as we as reporters have the right and the duty to do.

I found one of the quotes Murrow spoke in the film particularly telling. When asked if this is the start of him taking sides, he swiftly answers with, "It's just a little poke with a stick." I believe that this type of investigation and reporting is necessary to journalism. We need to be constantly checking our government and uncovering things that the public needs to know, rather than continue to dance around issues in fear that we might step on some toes.

A scapegoat
Once Murrow had decidedly taken on McCarthy, he was faced with just what he expected when McCarthy began to target him. Angry that he was being poorly represented (in his eyes), he accuses Murrow of having affiliations with the Communist Party nearly 20 years prior. While McCarthy may think he is defending himself, his actions only dig himself a deeper hole in the eyes of the American public. With television still relatively new, trust in the news anchor is high. The people believe Murrow when he denies all of McCarthy's accusations and begin to view the senator as power-hungry, leading to an investigation of his methods.

The risk of the run
This type of exposé is not always without consequence. In the film, Murrow's colleague, Don Hollenbeck commits suicide quite abruptly. While the film shows this event taking place very soon after the McCarthy piece, the reality is that Hollenbeck died about two months after. It can, however, be argued that along with a string of other unpleasant events in Hollenbeck's life, the criticism he and the station received from columnist Jack O'Brian added to the despair that led him to take his own life.

Why do we do it?
Why do men like Edward R. Murrow run this risk to expose men like Senator McCarthy? Why put your neck and possibly even your family on the line when you personally may have nothing to do with the issue at hand? Bravery and commitment to truth. Edward R. Murrow was pivotal in exemplifying the dedication to truth and service to the public that should lie in the heart of every good journalist.