Communism: a social, political and economic system developed by Karl Marx where each member of society works for communal benefit, so that in theory, all property is held in common with each person contributing and receiving according to their ability and needs; various versions exist, such as Marxism and Stalinism

McCarthyism: anti-communist hysteria caused by naming and black-listing individuals who were suspected of holding left-wing or communist beliefs; inflamed and perpetuated by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the USA in the early 1950s

Cold war: a state of political and military tension after World War II between powers in the Western Bloc (the United States and its allies) and powers in the Eastern Bloc (the Soviet Union and its allies)

Domino theory: prominent in the 1950s, this speculated that if one country in a region came under the influence of communism, then the surrounding countries would follow in a domino effect

Chairman Mao: Mao Zedong (December 26, 1893–September 9, 1976), also known by his courtesy name Mao Runzhi and the title Chairman Mao as Chairman of the Communist Party of China and paramount leader of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), was a Chinese communist revolutionary who led the Communist Party of China (CPC) as Leader of the Communist Party of China from 1943 to his death in 1976 and became the founding father of the PRC when it was established in 1949

Apartheid: a South African policy of segregation and racial discrimination

Knickerbocker: slang for a New Yorker, also the full name of the basketball team known as the New York Knicks

CBS: Television network—the Columbia Broadcasting System

Editorialising: expressing opinions rather than just reporting the news

Yellow journalism: journalism based on sensationalism or exaggeration

Red: slang signifier for a Communist or a communist sympathiser

Pinko: communist sympathiser

American Civil Liberties Union: a national nonpartisan organisation that defends individual’s rights under the Constitution

Alcoa: an American industrial corporation, a large producer of aluminium

The significance of an independent media

During the time period this film depicts, America was in a state of paranoia. Freedom of speech was largely controlled by the government. Any criticism of the government in the press or through the arts meant you were a communist sympathiser and therefore anti-American. Clooney’s film is a story about two television newscasters who put their careers and reputations on the line to expose McCarthy’s tactics and uncompromising authority. The film dramatises the moment in America’s history when both Murrow, one of the most respected journalists in America in at the time, and CBS liberal thinking producer, Fred Friendly, crafted a series of episodes on Murrow’s popular show See it Now to highlight a different side to the dominant rhetoric about communism portrayed by McCarthy in the media. Since McCarthy’s notorious 1950 speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, claiming that there were card-carrying communists working for the state department, McCarthy’s intimidation was overwhelming. The Democrats did not speak up as they feared being considered communist sympathisers, the Republicans rejoiced in the crushing of the liberalism of the Roosevelt era and the American Army General, Dwight Eisenhower, who became president in 1953, did not react, even though his Secretary of State, George Marshall, was criticised. Congress responded by outlawing various organisations considered to be “subversive”, including the Communist Party.

McCarthy used the medium of television by standing in front of the cameras and claimed he had a list of ‘subversives”, although an accurate number of people never eventuated. At this time, the general public had only been exposed to one side of the story. These episodes of See it Now exposed Americans to McCarthy’s deceptive, dishonest, and bullying tactics. The film, therefore, is a statement on the necessity of free media to report the truth, incite criticism and discussion, and inform the public. Despite other journalists in the media tackling the same issue, the popularity of Murrow’s show was influential in bringing down McCarthy’s career.

The way we receive news today is very different to the way news was received in the 1950s, and even when Clooney made the film in 2005. Changes in technology have affected the way news can be produced and distributed. Consider for example, how cable, satellite, digital, national and local channels, and subscription based channels like Netflix and Stan have affected the way we consume not only news and the media, but entertainment as well. Methods of receiving information in the 1950s were much more limited, and news media was far less entertainment driven than it is today. At the same time, audience viewership was much larger than today for any given show, as there were limited choices available. Considering this, it is understandable that individual journalists like Murrow (especially when news was broadcast live) held considerable influence over the population, as did the networks on which these programs were broadcast. Because of this, it is understandable that the character of Murrow considers it his responsibility to challenge McCarthy. Even though his actions put his career in jeopardy, his allegiances are to the audience and to the truth. As he says in his famous speech from the RTNDA Convention on October 25, 1958, that dovetails the film: ‘The only thing that counts is the right to know, to speak, to think – that, and the sanctity of the courts. Otherwise it’s not America.’ Murrow further argues that: ‘We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.’

Here he argues that it is the responsibility of the journalist to tackle issues that are unpopular. In particular, he argues for the right of the citizen to have an opposing view, whilst still being considered loyal. Murrow advocates that the mishandling of the power of television is a grave threat to intellectual freedom and the education of citizens. Hence, the film portrays Murrow’s conviction that news journalism has both a political and intellectual responsibility to transmit the truth and inform viewers, rather than just keep them complacent and entertained.

Considering the current political and social climate, Norman N. Holland, in his essay on the film, ‘George Clooney, Good Night, and Good Luck, 2005’, argues that Murrow’s words from his 1958 speech to his colleagues have gone unheeded. He makes reference to the media’s ‘wretched performance in hyping the Iraq war or the horse-race reporting of presidential elections’. In addition, according to Howard Caulfield, in his review of the film from relevanTomorrow ( June 17, 2007), the film is Clooney’s warning that in ‘today’s post-9/11-YouTube culture that civil liberties and rights can slip away with mass hysteria’. Caulfield sees the film as adopting a Marxist approach that criticises government and corporate influences on the news broadcasting industry. He sees that Clooney is critical of these influences as they have the effect of undermining basic civil liberties, such as freedom of speech. Clooney shows this through Murrow, who argues the merits of editorialising and interpreting the news, even when it means questioning the integrity of the government and corporate entities.

In addition, major networks (CBS, NBC, ABC) limited their shows examining real issues to thirty minutes, which left most of the day’s programming devoted to shallow entertainment. The news shows did not bring in as much advertising money, and so were used primarily to legitimise the networks. Therefore, under Capitalism, more importance is placed on keeping corporate interests happy and avoiding controversy. Contrary to this, news reporting has a responsibility to the public to report on and expose injustices, including those that occur in the government. The news media is thereby meant to inform and educate citizens by disclosing and scrutinising the actions of their nation and world. The Marxist approach finds the favouring of the advertising dollar over uncensored news material as contemptible, as this is an example of how the bourgeoisie dominates the masses. In his 1958 speech, Murrow warns against the favouring of money and shareholder interests over controversial content that is in the public’s interest, by highlighting the dangers of complacency in the television audience.

At France’s César Awards in 2007, whilst receiving an award, Clooney compared the modern era to McCarthyism. He states: ‘I was thinking about Edward R. Murrow as we find ourselves nostalgic for when America was great and when the news wasn’t fake,’ as he goes on to quote Murrow’s speech directly, cautioning the audience to not be ‘driven by fear into an age of unreason’. Here, he evokes the value of truth in the media that is a central idea in his film. In 2019, US President Donald Trump was repeatedly criticised by American journalists for his racist tweets, who similarly used Murrow’s speech to argue for greater balance. Further referring to Murrow’s speech, Brian Stelter, from CNN Business ( July 16, 2019), equates Trump with McCarthy by stating that like McCarthy, Trump’s primary achievement: ‘has been in confusing the public mind’, not about communism, but about issues surrounding race and migration. Stelter further adds that Norah O’Donnell, a CBS Evening News presenter, concluded her debut broadcast with a statement relating to the ‘weapon of television’ being useful:

‘To Mr. Murrow, we will try to use it well — and with integrity.’ Clooney’s film therefore continues to resonate with current audiences as the issues of freedom of speech and the meaningful use of television continue to be of concern.

Government relationships with the media

The McCarthy period began with the setting up of the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1938, as an anti-Communist branch of the government. McCarthy escalated the Un-American campaign by making public claims that large numbers of Communists, Soviet spies and sympathisers lived and worked in the United States, including within the government. These accusations turned an already paranoid American society into a playground of ritualistic behaviour built on a binary of American patriotism and anti-American alliances, which were played out before ‘The House of Un-American Activities Committee’. American citizens were either staunch patriots or enemies of the state – there was no middle ground.

Refusal to comply with the committee’s demands to name people with communist and leftist views or connections, resulted in a jail sentence and black-listing from employment. When Murrow begins to publicly question McCarthy, McCarthy attempts to discredit Murrow’s reputation by suggesting that he himself is a communist sympathiser. The chief executive of CBS, William Paley, calls Murrow to his office to discuss the fact that they are being targeted by McCarthy. In this moment, we see that McCarthy and his followers exercise a kind of fascist control around how information is circulated. The fact that CBS is frightened of what might happen to the network should Murrow proceed with his story highlights to the viewer just how much influence McCarthy had over information and public opinion. Nonetheless, Murrow is not discouraged by the false accusations. However, the smear serves to show that McCarthy has created enough fear about communism that any invocation or suggestion of a person being aligned with this disparaged political ideology is seen as proof. Thereby Clooney shows how the use of rhetoric that perpetuates a culture of hearsay without due process is tantamount to corruption.

Another way Clooney shows this is through the archival footage of the Annie Lee Moss hearing. Considering America’s history of racial discrimination at the time, a blue-collar black woman was an easy target for McCarthy’s ‘shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later approach’ (Caulfield, 2007). In the scene, McCarthy tells Moss’ lawyer, a black man, to speak only through his client. This violation of the defendant’s 5th Amendment right would be less likely to occur if she were a white woman with a white lawyer. Once McCarthy’s charges are discredited, another Senator speaks about the ridiculous nature of the investigation. By editing this real footage into the film towards the climax, the message is clearly conveyed: the threat of lost liberties has happened before and can happen again, if the general public are not vigilant against it.

Editorialising of the news

One of the central debates that underline this film is whether it is ethical to editorialise the news, or better to merely report it in an objective manner. In his 1958 speech, Murrow argues about television: ‘This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire, but it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box.’ Clooney illustrates that Murrow’s approach was to editorialise the news, but to ensure that one’s opinion is defended with facts. As Murrow continues: ‘If what I say is responsible, I am the one who will be responsible for saying it.’ Here, he argues that as an interpreter of the news, the reporter is responsible for opinions put forward and as such needs to ensure that these opinions are justified with reason and facts. Murrow is aware that to simply editorialise is not enough, the facts must accompany the debate in an educated and informed manner. In other words, Murrow lays out the cards for all to see. His determination to tell the truth is represented through his pursuit of the Milo Radulovich case for his weekly program, See It Now, produced by Wershba. Radulovich had been discharged from the Air Force under then Air Force Regulation 35-62, Policy on Fraternization and Professional Relationships, because his mother and sister were suspected of being communist sympathisers. Prophetically, Murrow comments on an aspect that dominated journalism in years to come, where ‘Talking Heads’ perpetuate their opinions on news events. Although Mickelson criticises him for editorialising the news of the case and not presenting an equally compelling argument in McCarthy’s defence, Murrow states: ‘I simply cannot accept that there are two equal and logical sides to an argument.’ In order to placate the network about their fears of losing Alcoa’s advertising dollars, Murrow decides to pay for the airtime, thereby representing the extent to which broadcasters are influenced by sponsors, fearing they will withdraw support. This is turn influences the viewpoints that are permitted to be expressed.

Commercialism and the media

The impact of capitalism on society is another key idea that pervades the film. The way this is shown is through the struggle Murrow experiences with those in power at CBS to report the news in a way that makes the audience think about the world they live in. Rather, the network’s main concern is not to upset the corporations that supply them with advertising revenue. Murrow argues that television has lost its power to educate and inform, as it increasingly focusses on shallow forms of entertainment. One way this is shown in the film is through the segments that interrupt the formal reporting of the news with fluff pieces that advertisers will pay large sums to sponsor, such as ‘Face To Face’/ ‘Person to person’, a populist series of interviews with celebrities like Liberace. Murrow is aware that in order to continue with serious journalism he needs to compromise and so engages in segments that the producers deem popular with audiences. Indeed, this escapist entertainment is the exact kind of television which Murrow rails against in his speech. The ridiculousness of the questions Murrow is made to ask Liberace about getting married to Princess Margaret shows the superficial nature of these segments.

The question represents the overarching 1950s values that dictate traditional family values. Yet, is well known now and most likely suspected then, that Liberace was a homosexual and therefore unable to express his sexuality in public. He politely deflects the suggestion, claiming that he is looking for the right person, when the audience is aware that he will never be able to fully express himself in the society in which he lives.

The complexity of television as a business is further shown when Paley offers Murrow front row seats to a Knickerbockers game. While Paley says he is behind Murrow, he is subjected to the will of the sponsors. He says: ‘I’m with you today Ed, and I’m with you tomorrow.’ Even though Paley is worried that Murrow is putting the well-being of the network at risk in going after a dangerous target (McCarthy), he still has a lot of faith in Murrow, who is the consummate professional journalist. In saying this to Murrow, Paley shows that while he may be apprehensive about the fallout from Murrow’s actions, he still trusts him as a thinker and a journalist, and maintains his loyalty to him.

Paley is represented as the man who brought ‘advertisers into the dominant force in programming’, Holland claims in his essay on the film. In his office, Paley tells Murrow and Friendly that ‘People want to enjoy themselves’, thereby relegating See it Now to the oblivion of Sunday afternoons. In this way, Clooney represents television as a business. As Paley points out, ‘the 64 dollar question brings in $80,000 in sponsors and costs one-third of what you do.’ It is profit that ultimately guides the programming, as is shown through the decision to air Murrow’s interview with Gina Lollobridga instead of the Army-

McCarthy hearings. These hearings were instrumental is turning the tide of public opinion about McCarthy, especially when lawyer Joe Welch looked to McCarthy and said: ‘Have you no sense of decency, sir?’ Yet, they were not shown on the CBS network, even though they had covered the story previously. In spite of the success of Murrow’s program, his relationship with Paley is ultimately compromised by Murrow’s decision to go after McCarthy. When Alcoa pulls sponsorship, Murrow’s argument that they can find another sponsor goes unheeded, as Paley becomes too concerned about the fallout of the story for the network. By aligning with Murrow, the network faces the proposition that they will be perceived as communist sympathisers. Therefore, Murrow’s fight is not wholly successful. By the end of the film we see that he is a sole crusader for integrity in television news reporting. He argues about making the news more informative and educational: ‘Would anything happen other than a few million people would have received a little illumination on subjects that may well determine the future of this country and therefore the future of the corporations?’ Here Clooney shows that Murrow is a man ahead of his time, who prioritises truth and fighting for what is right above all else, even his own professional well-being. The role of the individual as a defender of civil liberties/freedoms

In the scene which shows the news team discussing the consequences of broadcasting the contentious stories of McCarthy’s clampdown on freedom, Murrow tells his team that they are going ahead because ‘the fear is right here in this room’. In this way, Clooney portrays the CBS offices as a microcosm for the McCarthy era and 1950s America in general. In doing so, Clooney can deliver his key messages: fear mongering needs to be stood up against; the necessity of upholding personal integrity; and media is more than mere entertainment. Later, before they go on the air with the Milo Radulovich story, Friendly, Murrow’s closest ally, admits to Murrow that he told the military men that he didn’t want to do the story. Murrow says to him: ‘You always were yellow’ (another word for cowardly) and Friendly replies: ‘Better than red,’ meaning it is better to be cowardly than to be considered a communist, as red is the colour ascribed to the Communist ideology.

Although Friendly’s concerns are understandable, he provides an interesting contrast to Murrow. Despite the rampant fear that McCarthyism stirs up, Murrow maintains an admirable strength of character. He not only allies against corrupt powers, but also stays true to his convictions. This is what makes him a true patriot as Clooney sees it. Clooney strengthens this idea by comparing Murrow’s approach to that of his fellow news anchor, Don Hollenbeck. After being labelled a “pinko” (communist sympathiser) by a conservative publication, Hollenbeck becomes increasingly insecure in his position on television. When he seeks guidance from Murrow, Murrow urges him not to take the criticism to heart, and to keep doing his job without paying too much attention to it. However, Hollenbeck cannot withstand the pressure like Murrow can, further representing Murrow’s strength of character. Clooney represents this difference through his depiction of the men in the newsroom. They stand across the room from each other. Even though they are both faced with resistance from the conservative media, they are distant from one another. While Murrow is often shot alone, Hollenbeck is not comfortable with loneliness.

Textual integrity in Good Night, and Good Luck is shown through the success of George Clooney’s homage to CBS news anchor Edward R Murrow, who signed off his weekly show See it Now with the titular phrase of the film. Murrow’s style of broadcasting focused on meaningful pauses, thorough coverage of stories and his pursuit of the truth. Clooney also pays tribute to a golden age of broadcast journalism, through the medium of television and its potential for truth telling. The film has a personal angle for Clooney, as his father was a news anchor for thirty years and Murrow was well respected in the family. Clooney also studied journalism before becoming an actor and it was in television that Clooney’s acting career began. The main discourse in the film is the commercial battle with the head of CBS News and the network’s president, William Paley, over editorialising, affronting sponsors, isolating audiences, losing associated stations and breaching regulations set by the Federal Communications Commission.

Another way that the film represents textual integrity is through the verisimilitude of the 1950s era it depicts. As the film is set in 1953, the year Murrow dared to challenge McCarthy’s tactics, Clooney optimises elements conducive to the time period. Even though it is a dramatic retelling, the events are depicted through a quasi-documentary style. The film develops authenticity through combining newly created filmic scenes with archival footage reflecting key events of the time, which comes from newsreels and kinescope (when television programs are recorded as movies).

Personal integrity: one of the key ways Clooney portrays the theme of personal integrity is through the archival footage of Senator McCarthy and the HUAC hearings. By showing actual events as they happened, Clooney brings gravity to the story and connects the viewer to the historical context of the issue. As the archival evidence is used, McCarthy can be seen as he actually was. In this way, Clooney shows how the footage would have been viewed at the time. We are also able to perceive these images, and the issues they portray, from a present-day point of view. As Murrow points out, the concern is not that McCarthy is inventive, but merely that he is manipulative, and that it is the general population that has allowed the hysteria he has optimised to occur. In doing so, Clooney highlights the fear mongering tactics used by powerful people, in particular governments, to transform minor suspicions of fear into full-scale panic for political gain, whether for the purpose of power or control. Here, Clooney is able to critique the George W. Bush administration, which was in power at the time of the film’s creation in 2005. The illicit government practices of the 50s, such as secrecy, illegal wire-tapping, alleged corruption and cronyism (the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority), can therefore be seen as a mirror to the government policies of Bush’s time, which was dominated by the War on Terror. This is shown when Murrow says, ‘we cannot defend freedom abroad and abandon it at home’. In doing so, Clooney is prompting the audience to consider the political implications of learning from the past and questions whether that is actually possible. Culture of secrecy: under the control of McCarthyism, it is not that difficult to understand why a culture of secrecy emerged as a side effects of this fearful time. People felt compelled to keep a low profile and to keep secret many personal details that might be used against them. Thematically, Clooney represents this through the subplot about Joe and Shirley Wershba, who are married in secret. While they do not fear being exposed as communists, their marriage is frowned upon at CBS, and puts their jobs in jeopardy. Therefore, they keep their romance hidden, portraying their relationship as strictly professional. At the time CBS had an anti-nepotism rule, whereby the favouring of relatives for jobs was frowned upon. The impact of this is shown when Sig Mickelson confronts them and suggests one of them willingly resign, as staff cuts are imminent.

Clooney uses the October 25, 1958 black-tie gathering, ‘A Salute to Edward R Murrow’, by fellow professionals in honour of his contribution to television. The speech dovetails the film, and becomes the framing device for the extended flashback covering the McCarthy affair. Sig Mickelson, the head of CBS, makes a speech at a podium about Edward Murrow, a broadcast news journalist for CBS. In Murrow’s speech that follows, he appeals to his colleagues for television to become an educational and informational tool rather than a mere distraction or form of entertainment.

Replicating film noir and romanticism techniques of 1950s films like Orwell’s Citizen Cane, the film appears in silky black and white, which also represents the conservative world of 1950s TV. Interestingly, the film was shot in colour, but then colour-corrected to black and white in post-production. Murrow, in seeking to expose the truth, was invested in looking more deeply at the issues and exposing more complex corners of the justice and political system. For him, there is sometimes a clear black and white, or right and wrong, and journalism cannot simply pander to an illusion of even-handedness for all matters. The greyscale of the filmed images themselves calls to mind this interest in complexity, highlighting the seriousness of Murrow’s work. Clooney shoots Strathairn, as Murrow, from dramatic low angles, thereby turning the broadcasts into dramatically charged nightly sermons. Through depicting the workings of the news team in their preparation for a live report,

Clooney takes us behind the scenes to the early days of television when even the most serious news report could be “edited” together at the moment it was being shown.

Edward R. Murrow: previously acclaimed for his World War II radio coverage of the Blitz in London, he hosted the popular news program See it Now. Known for speaking out against corruption and abuse of power, he would utilise his own popularity and the medium of the press to highlight issues that he believed were in the public interest. In the film, this is mostly shown through him taking on McCarthyism.

Fred Friendly: a colleague of Murrow and co-producer of See it Now. With Murrow and their team, he helped tackle McCarthyism on the program. While Murrow was the face of CBS News, Friendly was the man behind the scenes. In the film he is shown to be cool headed like Murrow, but also doubtful about the wisdom of their reporting on Senator McCarthy.

Sig Mickelson: the head of CBS News, although a supporter of Murrow, he is concerned about the fallout of the Milo Radulovich and Senator McCarthy news reports. His priorities lie in developing the ratings and advertising revenue of the network.

William Paley: the head of CBS, he too is concerned about the fallout from the Milo Radulovich and Senator McCarthy reports. He is an astute businessman, who capitalises on the value of Murrow as a celebrity as well as a journalist. Although he does not prevent Friendly and Murrow from airing their program on McCarthy, he does not formally support it either.

Don Hollenbeck: a fellow on-screen reporter for CBS, who is accused of being a communist sympathiser, particularly by a right-wing columnist employed by the ultra-conservative Hearst chain of newspapers. The breakdown of his marriage, coupled with the smear campaign against him by anti-communists causes him to commit suicide.

Joseph and Shirley Wershba: they both work in the same office at the CBS News division. Even though the couple are married, they keep it secret, as co-worker are not allowed to be in a relationship at CBS.

John Aaron: a fellow journalist at CBS News.

RTNDA Convention, October 25, 1958: in the opening scene we see people eating dinner at an event, as gentle jazz music plays. These people are from the Radio and Television News Association. A group of men get their picture taken together. This is where Murrow makes his famous speech.

CBS studio, 1953: scenes unfold in various places that occupy the studio – in one room where Joe and Shirley Wershba discuss whether they should sign a form asking them to denounce communism; in another room where the reporters watch footage; in different room where the reporters discuss the upcoming news stories; in Friendly’s office where he speaks with the military officers; and Paley’s office where he speaks to Friendly and Murrow about their upcoming program.

Jazz club: near the CBS studio, it is where the reporters go to relax, especially after the success of the McCarthy report. The music played there is used to transition between many scenes of the film.

Joe and Shirley’s home: intimate scenes of the two in bed together or getting ready for their day is one of the only times we see the personal space of the characters portrayed.

U.S. Senate: this is where a man follows Joe Wershba up the stairs and wants to talk, even though Joe tells him he’s in a rush. “What if I told you Edward was on the Soviet payroll in 1935?” the man says, which stops Joe. Joe asks the man if McCarthy is going to the Eisenhower dinner, but he doesn’t know. The man then gives Joe a document, which outlines an accusation that Murrow has been a communist sympathizer since the 1930s. Joe insists that it won’t work because everyone knows that Murrow is a patriot, but takes the document to give to Murrow. “I think you guys go too far,” he says, before he leaves.

Figurative language

Murrow’s speech at the 1958 black-tie gathering, ‘A Salute to Edward R Murrow’ is used to illustrate his values around the responsibilities of television broadcasters and the danger of trivialising the medium. Ironically, we come to learn that he is introduced by one of the very people who failed to give him the crucial support he needed in taking on McCarthyism.

Symbolically, Murrow is presented as a dragon challenging the media moguls, as he comes out from the shadows, putting out a cigarette and puffing smoke from his nostrils. Ironically, he is more like the character of St George, as he represents all that is courageous and noble in campaigning journalism. It is through the representation of this fabled moment that Clooney can use the past to make a comment on today’s media, and to remind audiences to address their responsibilities. In this way, his work is similar to Arthur Miller’s The Crucible (1953), which drew on the Salem witch trials to make his fellow Americans face up to the realities of McCarthyism. During the McCarthy era, Miller was questioned about his beliefs, but refused to cooperate with authorities. He experienced first-hand the effects of mass hysteria and its consequences for many people.

It is with some surprise that we observe the amount of smoking that occurs in the newsroom. Almost every journalist at CBS is a chain-smoker. Even though this would not be permitted today, Clooney reflects realistically on the time of his subject, which took place well before the dangers of cigarettes were widely known and corporate environmental policy restricted smoking in the workplace. It is with some irony that we observe the Kent cigarette commercial that claims, due to the company’s market research, that the viewers of Murrow’s program are educated, intelligent and therefore cannot be easily swayed by advertising. Yet this is exactly what they are trying to do. The commercial is even promoted by a doctor. In addition, in Holland’s essay on the film, he argues that Murrow’s smoking on screen adds to his image of a ‘cool, candid, thoughtful commentator’. Ironically, Murrow died of lung cancer at the age of 57. Holland questions why Clooney included smoking so much in the first place and in doing so identifies one of the main themes of the film: ‘what we knew then and what we know now’. In the 1950s the awareness of the health risks of smoking were not as well-known as they are today. In this way, the film provides the reverse of this – we know now that extreme censorship and restrictions to freedom of speech have a negative effect on society. Thereby Clooney is highlighting the folly of the current social and political climate that allows these conditions to flourish. Hence, Clooney is critical of the political rhetoric of the Bush administration around the threat of terrorism, which perpetuates an atmosphere of fear and suspicion akin to the McCarthy era.

‘Good night, and good luck,’ is not only the title of the movie, but was the phrase with which Murrow invariably signed off from his daily radio and TV news programmes, as well as the weekly interpretative radio show, Hear It Now, and its TV successor, See It Now. The solemn remark said directly to the camera can be construed as comforting, but also ambivalent. The fact that Murrow tells his viewers ‘good luck’, suggests that he may think they will need luck if they encounter corruption, and will need some help with remaining critical in the face of adversity and corruption.

Symbolically, Liberace is a metaphorical reflection that the 1950s were a time of abundance in an American society that rose up again after the harshness of World War Two. As Murrow states in his final speech, ‘We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable, and complacent. We have a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information; our mass media reflect this.’ Perhaps due to this, the realities of life were deemed unpopular, as relief was sought to compensate for the horrors of the war years. After atomic bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in Japan, bringing about the end of World War Two, America rose out of a period of death and sadness to a time of freedom and prosperity. Therefore, consumerism was indulged and news programs revealing dark issues and disturbing truths were not considered to be of significant importance. Ironically, this can be seen in the pretentious advertisement selling cigarettes. Thereby, the film advocates for the importance of truth and knowledge in the media and warns against sacrificing justice and equality for wealth and power.

The typewriter is used as a recurring trope to indicate the power of language to create personal agency. In one shot of Murrow, sitting at his typewriter, writing the upcoming story, he is cast as a solitary figure. Everyone except Friendly, who is asleep in a chair, has left for the evening. Here, Murrow is shown to be relentless in his pursuit of justice. His desk is lit by a lamp, whereas the surrounds are in darkness. The camera zooms in on Murrow as he sits at his desk, trying to find the words to capture the best angle for the story. The image shows Murrow’s dedication, but also that he is a man alone, fighting against the odds, armed with only his reason and intellect. Not only is he a loner in the newsroom, but in the world at large. The soundscape adds to the theme of fear and paranoia that permeates the film. Jazz music is utilised at key moments to help take the viewer on an emotional journey. At various points in the film, music overtakes the soundtrack as we see the jazz singer, Dianne Reeves, either in a recording studio or at the bar where the journalists are hanging out. Here, Clooney employs these soulful musical interludes to capture the mood and atmosphere of the moments they appear. At the very beginning, the sound of the 1958 gala is muted, and a jazzy song plays over vision of the event. The singer is used as an audio cue for the viewer to feel the current mood of the scene – one of tension and suspense, foreshadowing the difficulties faced by the CBS employees. After the scene in which Murrow’s criticism of the Radulovich case airs, the sound cuts out and the jazz singer is featured again singing, ‘I’ve got my eye on you, so beware.’ This is an obvious reference to the fact that if the government and advertisers were not watching before, they certainly would be now. The songs not only give the viewer a feel for the 1950s, but provide cues as to where the story is transitioning.

In addition, the film features long stretches of dialogue, largely uncluttered by a musical score, so these songs provide relief and variety. For example, after the success of the McCarthy news story, the scene reflects the reporters enjoying themselves, which is the first time we see them able to do so. They are at the jazz club, with Reeves serenading them. Here, the jazz signifies joy and good feelings, but also the progress of the team in reducing the atmosphere of fear and trepidation that has pervaded society during the McCarthy era. As the reporters smoke cigarettes and drink cocktails, Clooney demonstrates that the risk has paid off and not only has journalism triumphed, but television as a whole as well. This is further highlighted by the extract from The New York Times that points out in its review, journalism often falls prey to popular pressures. Here, we see that Murrow’s and Friendly’s crusade to deliver tougher journalism is largely supported by their colleagues.

Juxtaposition

The film portrays the tensions surrounding the fear of the “Red Terror” during the post-war period in American society, but also the power of the individual to stand up against the destruction of civil liberties. Clooney juxtaposes the values of Murrow and Senator McCarthy to convey the distinction between justice and discrimination, demonstrating the importance of integrity in challenging times. Furthermore, Clooney offers a sense of hope through the values and beliefs of his main protagonist. In doing so, he shows that he believes there are good forces that keep unreasonable values and beliefs in check, thereby awakening people to their humanity and rationality. As Murrow says in his final speech:

We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men – not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.

Clooney uses the juxtaposition of light and dark to show the challenging nature of telling the truth. This is not a clear-cut case. In one shot of Murrow reviewing footage of McCarthy, he is hunched over, with a cigarette in hand in a darkened room. Symbolically, the light from the lamp next to him bathes Murrow in grey shadow. The greyness represents that the challenge he is facing is not necessarily black and white, the answers are somewhere in between. This uncertainty is something difficult to argue for as it can be deemed as ambiguous, or unclear. By tackling McCarthy, Murrow is aware that he is putting his job on the line, but as a journalist of integrity, arguably the likes of which have never been seen since, he determines that he must confront the inequity of McCarthy’s perversion of American ideology. In another example, after every news segment, there is a moment in which we see the studio light illuminating Murrow go out. For a moment, Murrow sits suspended in darkness following his report. Depending on the segment, the suspension can reveal different emotional resonances. For instance, after the interview with Liberace, it shows us that Murrow doesn’t care much for celebrity interviews, and we see his disappointment as he sits in the darkness. Following his segments on Milo Radulovich and McCarthy, the moment represents the fact that Murrow and his team do not know how the segment will be received. Murrow is literally and figuratively ‘in the dark’ about the program.

The lighting effects combined with the black and white colour scheme in the film gives it a neo-noir appeal, and this is appropriate considering the time period and political climate. The lighting is used to provide a visual element to the overall paranoid feeling. An example of this is the first appearance of Joe McCarthy, where the CBS news team is watching his speech. As he speaks, a close-up of Murrow is shown. His face is in darkness, and this offers a clue about the dangerous waters he is about to tread. Another example of this is during the scene with Friendly and the two colonels. Friendly is washed in the white light from the window while the faces of the two colonels are dark. This contrast in illumination gives a clue as to who falls into the roles of protagonist and antagonist.

Through the intertextual link to Shakespeare that both McCarthy and Murrow refer to in their rebuttals, Clooney can explore the value of rhetoric in persuading public opinion. In McCarthy’s rebuttal he cites Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar: ‘On what meat does this our Caesar feed?’ McCarthy’s rebuttal is juxtaposed with Murrow’s own in the following broadcast. Here Clooney shows that on March 9, 1954, Murrow uses McCarthy’s own quote to discredit the Senator and help turn public opinion against him. Murrow uses the words following those quoted by McCarthy: ‘The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars, but in ourselves.’ In doing so, Clooney exemplifies the reason Murrow is held in such regard, as he eloquently undermines McCarthy’s argument by highlighting the narrow-mindedness of criticising the individual. By referencing the line which implies that corruption in government is ‘in ourselves’, Murrow reveals that he believes that McCarthy’s corruption is a symptom of a broader social issue, and that people must remain vigilant against becoming corruptible and uncritical themselves. By using the archival footage of the Senator, Clooney, like Murrow, opts to let McCarthy provide the best argument against himself. Rather than try to control the debate with McCarthy, they fully cede television time to the Senator to say whatever he wants to rebut Murrow’s statements. In playing so fairly, Murrow shows that he is not afraid of what McCarthy has to say. He is confident that he is on the right side of history and McCarthy is not, which ultimately proves true.

Film techniques

Throughout the film, scenes and footage bleed into one another and transitions are loose and fluid rather than abrupt. On one level, this weaves together the history and the drama seamlessly, conflating the past and the present. Additionally, it shows the multifarious and concurrent atmosphere of a TV news station—a lot of things are happening at once. It also highlights the dramatic and political tension at the core of the film. At times, we listen as McCarthy trials play over the top of the newsman who gets drowned out by his voice. The symbolism here is that McCarthy drowned out the voices of the American people during his HUAC investigations. By layering different footage, the film shows the ways that certain voices were getting overpowered at this time, and the ways that Murrow fought back against this phenomena.

Clooney often uses “push in” and “push out” camera movement in order to expand upon or enhance the emotions of any particular scene. For example, when we first see Murrow at his typewriter, Clooney pulls the shot out to create the feeling of the story expanding and to show Murrow as a solitary figure in the newsroom. Later when Clooney zooms in on Murrow giving his closing speech on McCarthy, it enhances the internal and very personal nature of the story for Murrow. Indeed, the movement of Clooney’s camera often mirrors the emotional stakes for the characters involved, whether it is heightening tension or demonstrating the investigative quality of a journalistic assignment.

From the opening scene of the dinner held in his honour, Clooney establishes Murrow as a heroic figure who is not only respected by his colleagues, but on a singular crusade to tackle uncomfortable issues in the media. Mickelson introduces him as a valiant and awe-inspiring journalist. We first see him nervously puffing on a cigarette and reviewing his speech. He is cast in direct contrast to his colleagues sitting at their tables in the audience. When he takes to the stage and speaks at the podium, we see that he is serious and forthright in his opinions. As he conveys his beliefs that the media is complacent, about the limitations placed on viewers to be critical thinkers and how the mainstream media is crafted to “distract” and “delude”, Clooney casts him as a leader amongst his colleagues. The camera pans across the guests to show their reactions to Murrow’s sobering speech. The scene reflects Murrow’s attempts to incite his colleagues to join him in speaking up against the corrupting influences he perceives in the media. His colleagues do not look offended by his provocative speech, instead they remain composed, suggesting that they are supportive of his claims. Even though Clooney clearly presents Murrow as a respected member of the news media at the time, the numerous references to him by future journalists, indicate that his values and beliefs about journalism and television news reporting continue to be respected.

Clooney creates suspense during the initial Murrow broadcast about Radulovich through film techniques. This is a tense scene as the studio is taking a significant risk in reporting on the incident. The tension behind the scenes is shown through the way the camera cross-cuts to various perspectives – from Murrow, puffing away on his cigarette, to his colleagues, to the various television monitors on which the broadcast is pictured. Clooney shows that everyone is watching from their own viewpoint. For example, the shots of Joe watching the footage expectantly and Shirley watching the same footage in a different room. Here, Clooney represents the various ways that the media is being mediated. Another way Clooney conveys the various eyes that will be on the broadcast is through multi-shots of Murrow. For example, there is a two-shot of Murrow’s profile, close-up, along with the camera’s view of him shown on a monitor behind. The camera cross-cuts between the two, thereby illustrating that a journalist must look at a situation from multiple viewpoints and defend their own position from as many angles as possible.

Holland comments in his essay that Clooney uses the long lenses to focus on the busy faces of people in the newsroom to heighten the claustrophobic atmosphere of this space. By doing so he creates a sense of urgency and crowding. In the DVD commentary by Clooney he states that he was trying to create an atmosphere of a busy, noisy “bunker”. This crowdedness accentuates the fact that the team work together. In contrast to the business of the newsroom is the quiet, spacious darkness of Paley’s office, which is accessed via an empty, silent corridor. Here Clooney metaphorically represents Paley’s office as serious and somewhat separate from the realities of the newsroom and the work that goes on there. In addition, Holland argues that television as an image is represented through the various monitors in the CBS studio and the building. As people in the studio watch Murrow on screen, he becomes both the ‘person and the image’, the same of which is applied to McCarthy. This highlights the notion of what is true, a concept central to television news reporting. Clooney plays on this notion, especially when he displays an archival image of Murrow next to Strathairn’s face. It is difficult to ascertain who is the real Murrow.

This idea is further accentuated by the Alcoa Aluminium advertisement, which portrays the company as wholesome and necessary, although the viewer is aware that this is a projected image carefully constructed by the advertiser. As Holland argues, ‘McCarthy never worked with facts only reputation—“image.” Now, both Murrow and McCarthy are represented as “images”, even though they were real. As Holland states, through the use of images, Clooney poses the questions: “What is real? What is truth?” Another image is of Eisenhower, the Republican President from 1953–1961, who did not outwardly condemn McCarthy, even though he publicly denounced him. Holland suggests the reason could be that one does not publicly attack fellow Republicans. In doing so Clooney highlights the slippery nature of truth in politics. It’s inclusion in the film as Murrow leaves Paley’s office after his show has been shifted to the Sunday afternoon spot, further adds to Clooney’s critique of the public and personal representations of truth in government and the impact this has on the public.

Even though Murrow is leading the McCarthy story, he does not operate alone. Here, Clooney shows the significance of a loyal and capable team. Clooney achieves this by focussing on the way Murrow and his fellow journalist work together to put forth the news stories. The tension is often shown through them being unaware of how the segments will be received. After the second report, in which Murrow goes after McCarthy, everyone sits around waiting for the phones to ring. The tension is built successfully through the team’s assumption that no one heard the piece on McCarthy, as the phones did not ring. The ringing phones are a sign that people watched the program and want to know more, and signal that the program was a relative success. Soon enough, however, they realise that a young assistant forgot to turn the phones back on after the program. Friendly tells him to do so urgently, and the whole newsroom feels relief when the calls start flooding in, indicating that people actually watched the segment. It is only when they have confirmation that the reports are being well received that the team can relax. One scene that reflects this at the celebration in the diner after the success of Murrow’s response to McCarthy’s tactics. Clooney creates a sense of intimacy through the focus on his characters. It is a slow-moving scene. For example, the camera does not follow Shirley, but waits for her to return. Using the documentary style, the viewer can experience the moments in between. Instead Clooney shows up close the men smoking, talking and drinking scotch, creating a visceral feel to the scene. Here, Clooney represents the team as a unique kind of family, staying up late, getting the story, working towards a common goal. The intensity is further developed through the juxtaposition of favourable and negative reviews. While Hollenbeck is slammed by one critic for a brief statement he made supporting Murrow’s piece on McCarthy, we are informed the Secretary of the Air Force determines it’s in their best interest not to discharge Lt. Radulovich after all. When Friendly says to Murrow, ‘I think everybody needs a scotch’, after the initial show about Milo Radulovich goes well, it is a light-hearted moment in the film, but shows Friendly’s awareness of the team – he senses that not just Murrow needs to have a drink to unwind from all the tension and hard work he has been subjected to, but the whole team could use a break.

As this is a film reflective of history, it is known that the senate did eventually investigate McCarthy and voted to censure him. However, Murrow’s concerns regarding the state of journalism and our fundamental liberties are not alleviated. Of Murrow’s style, Wershba wrote in the fall 2005 issue of Eve’s Magazine: His writing was simple, direct. He used strong, active verbs. On paper, it looked plain. The voice made the words catch fire. He regarded the news as a sacred trust. Accuracy was everything. And, always, fairness.

This type of journalism, however, has given way to invasive paparazzi and so called “investigative journalists” who seek only to drum up controversy and outrage with little substance or fact to back it up. This can be seen in American shows such as Access Hollywood, gossip networks like E! and shows like A Current Affair in Australia.