Upload
liz-horgan
View
562
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Analysis of the movie "Good Night and Good Luck" (2006) from a communications ethics perspective.
Citation preview
Communication Ethics in Action - Good Night and Good Luck
Liz Horgan
Ethics - COM 614 Leanne Pupchek
November 29, 2010
RUNNING HEAD: Ethics in Good Night and Good Luck 1
News programming confronts governmental actions as individuals clash and
organizations chafe under competing views of good in the movie Good Night, and Good Luck
(2005). Good Night, and Good Luck is set in the 1950’s and showcases Edward R. Murrow, an
acclaimed and revered wartime correspondent and newscaster, and Joseph McCarthy, a Senator
made famous by his public accusations labeling people as Communists. The plot is as follows:
An Air Force pilot, Milo Radulovich, had been drummed out of the service due to
McCarthy's charges that he was a Communist agent. However, Radulovich had been
dismissed without a formal hearing of the charges, and he protested that he was innocent
of any wrongdoing. Murrow decided to do a story on Radulovich's case questioning the
legitimacy of his dismissal, which was seen by McCarthy and his supporters as an open
challenge to his campaign. McCarthy responded by accusing Murrow of being a
Communist, leading to a legendary installment of See It Now in which both Murrow and
McCarthy presented their sides of the story, which was seen by many as the first step
toward McCarthy's downfall. Meanwhile, Murrow had to deal with CBS head William
Paley, who was supportive of Murrow but extremely wary of his controversial positions
(Deming, p. 1).
The movie provides distinct examples of communication ethics where competing goods play out
in the historical moment. The film illustrates issues of post-modernity and offers specific
examples of conflicts involving dialogic ethics, interpersonal, business ethics, and public
discourse ethics.
Good Night, and Good Luck (2005) is constructed to highlight a conflict tied in tightly to
a specific period in time. The historical moment captured in the movie was affected by the geo-
RUNNING HEAD: Ethics in Good Night and Good Luck 2
politics of the Cold War and the rise and fear of communism. Added to this was the fact that,
in1953, television and television news was in its infancy as both a new communication tool and
as a business. Public civility and communication protocol during this time differed markedly
from current norms; the movie was set in the Golden Age, a time when manners and expectations
of comportment were formally defined and followed. The ground impacts the issues, dialog and
the temporal outcomes in the film.
Ethical issues in this movie can be seen through two lenses - objective truth and a post-
modern lens. The idea of objective truth is evidenced by the filming technique. The movie is
shot in black and white, which on a symbolic level represent opposites of good and bad, right
and wrong, truth and lies. The use of black and white lends polarity to the points of view shown
in the film (as well as gives a sense of authenticity to this fact-based drama). The objective of
this narrative is to address the gray, the ambiguity, and to provide truth. While the film succeeds
with it’s storyline of Murrow taking on McCarthy to stop him in his anti-communist campaign,
and thus finding the “good” that triumphs over the “bad”, other issues surface as a result that can
not be wrapped up so neatly. The historical moment, with all of its complexity and diversity in
the 1950’s, precludes objective truth. Instead, post modernity reigns.
Post modernity is a condition where there is no universal right or wrong, where multiple
perspectives instead abound; in this era, differing points of view can find temporal agreements
only through communication. Issues of democracy vs. television business interests, the
definition of government and of truth, all are impacted by a variety of contexts and viewpoints in
this film. The resolution/solution explored in Good Night, and Good Luck (2005) is time bound,
it “works” in the 1950’s but would present and play out very differently in 2010. In post
RUNNING HEAD: Ethics in Good Night and Good Luck 3
modernity, the challenge of communication ethics is not to lead to absolute answers and truths/
goods, but rather to a process of dialog, listening, learnings and in-the-moment agreements on
good (Arnett, Harden Fritz, & Bell, 2009).
The following is a look at some of the communication ethics illustrated in this film.
Dialogic ethics, where meaning emerges from discourse with other people, plays out in Good
Night, and Good Luck. Murrow fought to create a dialog with Radulovich case. Murrow aired
the story of Milo Radulovich’s firing from the military without a hearing, where evidence was
sealed and not available to the accused. Murrow allowed Radulovich’s narrative to be told on his
program, and invited the military to respond - they declined, hoping that without dialog the issue
would simply go away. Murrow continued to reference the story, bringing up the bigger value
issues that ultimately made this story take off. Murrow broadcast frames for Milo’s story:
reminding viewers that there is a difference between dissent and disloyalty, that we must not
convict without due process and law, and that it is necessary to investigate before legislate. With
Murrow’s credibility and pursuit of the story, the power equity, as described by Friere (Arnett
et.al., 2009) shifted and equalized so that dialog finally occurred. The military had to respond,
and McCarthy was drawn in and challenged to a stilted dialogic exchange. The importance of
this was immense, because it is only through dialog that social change occurs. Add to this the
particulars of the historic moment - the 1950’s was a period of civility, public discourse was
governed by both respect and fear, the tension apparent and tested as this issued played out in an
arena of respect (which could foster and nurture dialog) and the reluctance to speak out for the
fear of being labeled un-American. Civility can provide a parameters which help when engaging
RUNNING HEAD: Ethics in Good Night and Good Luck 4
in difficult things (Arnett, et. al., 2009), but only if, in this case, individuals like Murrow can find
the personal courage and have positional power to force the dialog.
McCarthy was allotted a full half-hour show one week, with Murrow able to rebut and
comment the following week. McCarthy came out blazing, interested only in “telling”, not in
listening or finding any commonalities. His approach to dialog involved sensationalism, with
comments such as “bleeding hearts scream and cry about our methods” (Hezlov & Clooney,
2005). McCarthy used an ends-justify-the-means approach and smear tactics, criticizing Murrow
and suggesting that he, too, was a secret communist. Instead of communication, McCarthy used
the ethics of consequences to justify his actions and approaches. The challenge in our post-
modern world becomes a question of who gets to decide what is best, who judges that more good
has occurred than bad and that, as a result, more good is a “right” consequence? McCarthy took
himself to be the chief adjudicator, and yet as history shows repeatedly, singular perspectives
supported by fear and unchallenged by dialog can turn into damaging crusades, as played out in
McCarthy’s pursuit of communists in America. Additionally, the use of smear tactics, or
untruths, can live only in the dark, in places where free dialog and open questioning and listening
are not present (Arnett, et. al. , 2009). Until someone stands up, and challenges the false
communications of a more powerful other, true dialog does not exist. Murrow fought to allow
the space for dialog, he was willing to engage, and to open events up to listening and others‘
inputs. Murrow argued for dialog, and eventually, dialog engaged enough people, changed the
power dynamic, and disarmed McCarthy’s messages of hate and fear.
Interpersonal communication ethics show up in the interplays and dynamics of the six
person news team that supports Murrow’s show. Interpersonal communications ethics are
RUNNING HEAD: Ethics in Good Night and Good Luck 5
focused on the importance of the relationship. Different permutations of relationship are shown
in the film, however, I will concentrate and use illustrative examples of Shirley and Joe Wershba,
and Fred Friendly and Murrow. Both of these interpersonal relationships operate with different
levels of distance - Friendly and Murrow are business associates with a close working
relationship and a respectful place with distance for their friendship; Joe and Shirley are married,
yet pretending to put create more distance between them in front of others in order to seem not to
violate Company rules which forbid marriage between co-workers. A key question for
interpersonal communication ethics asks, “do given persons work to honor a relationship,
regardless of the consequences?” (Arnett et. al., p. 131). Joe and Shirley have to face this very
question when layoffs are in the offing and their secret relationship is exposed - they end up
honoring their relationship by putting it above their individual jobs. Friendly and Murrow have
very different personalities and styles, yet that is not what matters in their honoring of their
relationship and in working through conflicts in business - they find ways to continue respecting
each other and work together to find compromise in the difficult moments.
Business ethics were also highlighted in this movie. Organizations need direction, yet
must change and adapt to goods of survival and competition in order to last (Arnett, et. al. ,
2009). Television stations in the 1950’s were new components of broadcast business
organizations. CBS, the television station Murrow worked for, was looking to succeed and
thrive in the new age of television. As Arnett et. al. (2009) detailed, a given direction has a
limited lifespan, things need to be examined, assessed, and change made as necessary to insure
the good of business survival. William Paley was the head of CBS in the 1950’s, and was
working with his Board on shepherding the business in the new and changing dimensions of
RUNNING HEAD: Ethics in Good Night and Good Luck 6
television. Murrow, as an employee and professional news person, was fighting for stories,
fighting for his “good”. Paley was focused on the direction of the Company, and wrestled with
the challenge Murrow threw to him of CBS’s defining character - is CBS a news or an
entertainment organization? “People want to feel good instead of getting a civics lesson” was
Paley’s reply (Hezlov & Clooney, 2005).
William Paley navigated the post modern world of conflict; he listened to Murrow and
ended up seeing multiple sides of the issue, finally supporting Murrow and his challenge to
McCarthy in the face of potentially difficult business consequences. Additionally, Paley was a
voice of reason and moderation to Murrow, on one side he urged him not to try McCarthy in the
press, suggesting that McCarthy had a right to face his accuser, and on the other side Paley
protected Murrow and the editorial news component from the sponsor/corporate side of the
business. Paley acted, concerned about his organization’s direction, calculating the change and
adaptation needed at a critical time in American history. Paley took risk in order to survive and
compete - tried and true sponsors (Alcoa) dropped Murrow’s program, and McCarthy’s power
could have hurt CBS and the individuals involved with the story (in fact, one employee
committed suicide as a result of the pressure placed on the news team). Good Night, and Good
Luck (2005) showcased business communication ethics in practice, and illustrated the difficulties
and nuances of acting in a post modern world.
Public discourse ethics were also evident in the film. The public arena is a place that
protects and promotes discernment among ideas, it can be defined as a marketplace of ideas that
contend for status. Listening, attending to the ground of self, other and the historical moment,
dialogic negotiating, and learning can emerge from the “between” and lead to temporary answers
RUNNING HEAD: Ethics in Good Night and Good Luck 7
(Arnett, et. al., 2009). It is in this context that issues of personal freedom are addressed in Good
Night, and Good Luck (2005). Murrow felt a need to take a stand and to air competing ideas in
the McCarthy anti-communist era. He fought to do the piece on Milo Radulovich, to address in
some way the fear and terror perpetrated by Senator McCarthy. Murrow felt a responsibility to
defend freedom, a value driven into him through his wartime broadcasts in England, and to not
convict people because of rumor or innuendo. Murrow wanted to give a voice to those who did
not have one, what Arnett et. al, (2009) describe as discourse justice - defending the unprotected
and giving them a chance to be heard. Murrow looked to engage in the issues and used his
television program “See It Now’ as a forum for dialog, conversation, airing of points of view, and
ultimately to give citizens a field that could springboard learnings. The public arena had been
predominantly one-sided until Murrow took a stand and broadcast Milo’s story.
Rhetoric impacts public discourse ethics, and can be a powerful tool which can be used
for various purposes, to positively gain attention amid the myriad of competing messages, or to
manipulate and gain advantage for certain messages. Drowning out other voices because of
clever verbal devices and skills precludes leaving space for others (Arnett et. al, 2009). Effective
persuasion can manipulate exchanges in a public forum; the movie illustrated this with its focus
on Senator McCarthy. McCarthy used rhetoric to his advantage, tying disassociated pieces of
information together in order to implicate targeted people as communist sympathizers/traitors -
he would hammer the allegations home with fiery oratory in his efforts to spin out his version of
“truth”. An example of McCarthy’s rhetorical portfolio was on display in his half hour statement
on Murrow’s television show where he began by setting the tone for his comments, saying, “I
make no claim to leadership. In complete humility I ask every American who loves is County to
join with me” (Hezlov & Clooney, 2005). His efforts to invoke patriotism and cloak his
RUNNING HEAD: Ethics in Good Night and Good Luck 8
comments in “humility” were attempts to frame his message. McCarthy then went on the attack,
questioning Murrow’s patriotism by accusing him of being a member of the IWW, a “terrorist”
organization as cited by the Attorney General years earlier. Murrow used his platform as
television host of his show to rebut, and countered with his own rhetorical abilities and personal
power to not only deny the false charges but also to turn the accusational mirror around and point
it at McCarthy. Murrow fought to air what he viewed as right, his truth/good. The public sphere
now had powerfully competing points of view that were heard, and set the stage for others to
publicly question McCarthy’s actions, methods and positions. For public discourse ethics it is
critical to have a forum where a variety of voices, regardless or even in spite of a speaker’s
rhetorical ability, can air their many ideas and views. The public arena is a place that protects
and promotes discernment among ideas, so that possibilities can exist for negotiation of
contending goods (Arnett et. al, 2009).
The film Good Night, and Good Luck (2005) showcases communication ethics by
offering a variety of competing goods that are grounded in the historical moment and influenced
by the post-modern era. The movie shows the importance of taking a stand and of engaging in
the moment. This drama offers specific examples of dialogic ethics, interpersonal, business
ethics, and public discourse ethics. Each example embodies multiple views of good, and goes on
to illustrate elements of communication ethics such as: an invitation to learning and dialog,
listening, distance, exposure of various points of view, negotiation, and the temporal nature of
agreement.
Application of the communication ethics illustrated in this movie raise questions
regarding the future of public communication. The challenge today is not to control the message
or the messenger, rather it is to bring civility back into the public sphere so that a variety of
RUNNING HEAD: Ethics in Good Night and Good Luck 9
messages can be heard and truly listened to. It is by engaging in exchange that consideration of
competing points of view is possible. I believe the challenge is also to find a more balanced
position between the tension of the collective vs. the individual and our current all-or-nothing
world. American politics today is illustrative of this. The American political arena is a mess,
influenced by the factors mentioned above. There is a lack of dialog, where substitutes for
communication come in the form of one-way messaging, delivered as one-sided shouting; the
ethics of listening, distance, variety of information, and give-and-take are overshadowed. Yet I
see glimmers of hope in the emergence of other avenues for dialog. Social media provides
forums and opportunities for thoughtful exchanges, for argument, listening, and active learning.
Messaging power in social media for me harkens back to the days when civility, thoughtfulness,
and discourse with care and listening were sought after and valued. This alternative public
sphere, with its new rules, can be a catalyst that can help provide different forums for dialog and
learning which can ultimately bring balance back to the power field and allow communication
ethics to function in this post modern world. Just as the world was changing in 1953 during the
McCarthy era in Good Night, and Good Luck (2005), so too is it changing now in 2010.
Communication evolves, yet the ethical considerations prevail, providing a framework for
interpersonal and public discourse. My hope is that we can find balance and civility in our time,
and can again find ways to work together to tackle the issues of our day.
RUNNING HEAD: Ethics in Good Night and Good Luck 10
References
Arnett, R., Harden Fritz, J., & Bell, L., (2009). Communication ethics literacy. Los Angeles:
SAGE.
Deming, M., (n.d.). Good night, and good luck summary. Retrieved November 20, 2010 from http://www.starpulse.com/Movies/Good_Night._And_Good_Luck/Summary/
Hezlov, G. (Producer), Clooney, G. (Director). (2005). Good night, and good luck [Film].
Burbank, CA:Warner Independent Pictures.
RUNNING HEAD: Ethics in Good Night and Good Luck 11