I watched a DVD of George Clooney’s 2005 film, “Good Night and Good Luck.” It’s as relevant now as it was two decades ago in theaters.
It’s the story of American news (radio, print and television) Edward R. Murrow when he stood up to Sen, Joe McCarthy.
Murrow won fame during World War II when he ran the CBS European Bureau sometimes broadcasting from the stairs of St. Martins in the Field Church while the Germans bombed London.
The film was named after his signature sign-off line.
After the war, Murrow set the standard for TV reporting. He was trusted and excellent, but not always revered by his employers at CBS because he dared to challenge those, especially in politics, who wanted to stifle free speech.
McCarthy had made a name for himself by attacking anyone who had liberal leanings that made them a threat to the United States. He labeled them “reds, pinkos and lavenders.” Murrow and all other mainstream reporters were in his sights.
Also among his targets were civil servants in the State Department and other government agencies, writers, Hollywood professionals from A-list actors to the technicians,
The public interrogation began with, “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party.” Some witnesses admitted they had been in the past but renounced its ideology, others said they had never joined and some refused to answer. Thus, a lot of careers were ruined.
Once people realized that their First Amendment rights were threatened, some of the best-known actors in Hollywood reacted. Henry Fonda, Humphrey Bogart, wife Lauren Bacall, Lucille Ball and more organized a Committee for the First Amendment. They issued a challenge and battle was engaged.
Murrow wanted to do an exposé on McCarthy, his tactics and the destruction he was causing to so many people. CBS executives stopped him because they feared McCarthy and how they might lose their licenses to broadcast.
Eventually, Murrow prevailed and presented his expose on the senator, which drew sharp reactions from liberals and the conservatives alike
It was the start of the end for McCarthyism. He was censored by the Senate, went home to Wisconsin and died in disgrace. Murrow, the TV networks and right to continue exercising free speech prevailed.
The battle is constant on many fronts. All religions have sets of belied. Those who subscribe to them are considered orthodox; those who do not are labeled heretics.
The same is true in many social and hard sciences, but above all, politics. Being a heretic can have life-threatening repercussions. As so with visual arts as well.
Few things are more important and divisive than First Amendment rights. It remains a constant struggle on many fronts.
All religions have a set of beliefs. Those who subscribe to them are considered orthodox; those who do not are labeled heretics.
The same is true in many of the social and hard sciences, but above all, in politics. Being a heretic can have life-threatening repercussions. It is true of the performing and visual arts as well.
First Amendment rights have divided friends and family since the American Revolution, through the Civil War and Reconstruction on up to now. Some of us may not be joining family members this year for the holidays because of different views. That is just the way it is.
There has been much chatter about the U.S. becoming like Germany or Italy in the 1920s and 1930s. We over-look the comparisons between now and the early 1950s.
To do that is a mistake. None of us wants to be told what we may or may not read, what news we follow, what music we listen to or anything else.
We do not want to live in fear of those who accuse us of being a heretic. In fact, we defiantly refuse to live in fear.
In the sixth grade, Mrs. Wilson had stacks of anti-red pamphlets on a classroom counter. They were provided by the John Birch Society, the same group who tried to outlaw chlorine from our water.
Not only did we have to read them, we could get extra credit for writing a report on pamphlet’s merits. On Mondays as we turned in our reports. she asked if our parents had read the pamphlets and agreed with the writers.
The extra credit was a bright shiny sticky star. Mine was red, although at the time I did not see the irony in earning a red star for reading anti-communist propaganda.
I think Mrs. Wilson lived in fear of the JBS, PTA and other self-appointed watchdogs over our morals and politics. Like the made-up characters in the pamphlets, she was worried a student might say something bad about her to their parent. Worse, a parent might snitch on her to one of the local groups as a possible “Commie.”
I did not care for her at the time, but she did not deserve to be scared of false accusations at work.
All of which explains why Henry Fonda’s daughter Jane and many of today’s Hollywood actors and directors, along with journalists, reporters and others have joined the re-launching of the Committee for the First Amendment.
For for many of us during the Vietnam War era, “Hanoi Jane” Fonda was toxic. What she said and did on her junket to North Vietnam hurt a lot of people.
I think she was wrong, but we all have to live with our decisions. It is part of a tradition of dissent that is as long as our nation itself.
Members of the Continental Congress and the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were never a bunch of well-behaved choir boys waiting to have tea with a bishop.
Almost every administration has had its own opponents. Every public policy decision was popular among some and opposed by others. Dissent and disagreement are the essence of our common life.
Free speech and the First Amendment rights have come under attack since the beginning of the 19th century when the Alien and Sedition Act was signed into law. It was overturned and President John Adams was turned out of office.
Throughout the years, attempts to limit free speech have arisen. Usually they survive for a short time, then rejected and repealed. The process of debate and argument has saved us from lapsing into a dictatorship.
It is very different now. The New York Times reported that the Department of Homeland Security has subpoenaed giant tech corporations, primarily Silicon Valley ones, for the names, email addresses, and telephone numbers of those who have been critical of DHS and ICE. Several have complied.
That seems spooky because these widespread information sweeps may make dissent and disagreement all but impossible. Should dissent be silenced, it may very well topple our cherished Bill of Rights in the Constitution, and with it, much of what we value as Americans.
