Good Night, and Good Luck

I have rarely discussed politics on my blog; and, on the few occasions that I have done so, I have studiously avoided taking a stand on any political issue. This is not by accident, nor is it the result of indifference. I have long been interested in politics myself, and I believe that all citizens have an obligation to take an active part in politics. In particular, I believe that all citizens have a duty to educate themselves about political issues as best as they are able, and that they have a duty to discuss politics with their fellow citizens. For how can a voter be truly informed if he does not understand something of how his fellow citizens see the state of the country? And don’t we all have an obligation to test our beliefs and to encourage others to do the same? I certainly think so. Nevertheless, I have often shied away from talking about politics with others. The reason is simple - in my experience, few people are willing to participate in a calm, reasoned discussion of political issues. And, since I generally prefer to avoid conflict whenever possible, I made the decision long ago to simply refrain from talking about politics. In fairness, my decision to refrain from talking about politics was also motivated by the concern that such conversation was pointless, and that I was wasting my time on it. However, if I am honest with myself, my decision was motivated more by a desire to avoid conflict than by a concern not to waste my time. At any rate, the decision was wrong, as I shall explain below. But first I want to say a few words about the proper model for political discourse.

When we enter into a political discussion, we should always treat the other person with dignity, and we should always be open to learning something new. Our goal should not be to impose our views on others, but to hear from others that may be better informed than we, or who may have thought through the issues better than we. If we are fortunate enough to meet with such individuals, then we should consider revising our beliefs accordingly. If not, then the effort will still be worthwhile if only the discussion has been conducted in the proper spirit. Sadly, too few political discussions in this country - private or public - are conducted in this way. We need more maturity in this country. We need more patriotism. We also need more compassion and humility. We need to remember that no one person or political party has a monopoly on intelligence, wisdom, or moral integrity. We need to remember that men and women have shed their blood in the defense of this country, and that many continue to risk their lives every day for this same reason. Some of these men and women have been registered Democrats; others have been registered Republicans. But they are all heroes, and neither major party can lay claim to their service. Finally, we need to remember that we are all Americans, and, more importantly, that we are all human beings. How could we forget these things? They're so obvious, but somehow we manage to lose sight of them regularly. Let's not do that anymore. 

When I think of how reluctant I have been to talk about politics with others in recent years, I'm ashamed of myself. It is never acceptable to stop trying; it is never acceptable to check out. The stakes are too high, and too many people have made the ultimate sacrifice to help ensure our freedom. We cannot waste that freedom on petty squabbling, small-mindedness, or meanness. But neither can we allow it to rust through disuse. This is a great country, and we must not take it for granted. We must all do our part to contribute to the common good. There are conflicts that we would be wise to avoid. Nonetheless, it is neither possible nor desirable to avoid all conflicts, and there are many conflicts that we must have the courage to face. Similarly, it may be wise to avoid wasting one’s time on some ventures, but success is never guaranteed in this world, and there are many ventures that demand our commitment regardless of the odds of success. It is wrong to avoid all political discussion out of concern to avoid conflict or to safeguard one’s time. We must actively participate in politics; our obligation is clear.

In the coming months, I won't have many opportunities to contribute to this blog, and I want to use most of the opportunities that I will have writing about faith issues. Still, I would like to begin writing about politics when I have the time - in a few months, perhaps. In the meantime, I would like to share a speech by the journalist Edward R. Murrow. The speech was given at the RTNDA Convention (Radio and Television News Directors Association) in Chicago in October, 1958. I don't know much about Murrow himself, though I do know that he strongly opposed Senator Joseph McCarthy during the Red Scare that followed WWII, and that he greatly influenced broadcast journalism. In his speech, Murrow addresses the importance of active, informed political participation through a critical discussion of television and radio journalism. He argues that television and radio must not be used simply to entertain, and that people in the media have an obligation to provide the public with serious, intelligent reporting about the important political issues of the day. I think that Murrow was right to argue for the existence for such an obligation, and I think that his concern about the proper use of media is just as relevant today as it was in the 1950's - though, of course, we today have the internet in addition to television and radio. In the movie Good Night, and Good Luck, the actor who plays Murrow (David Strathairn) delivers a highly truncated - though still powerful - version of the speech. Here is the video:



There are several lessons that can be drawn from this speech, but perhaps the most practical one is this: we need to hold the media to a higher standard of accountability by decreasing the demand for cheap, partisan opinion pieces and increasing the demand for balanced, critical journalism. If more people desired quality news coverage, then the media companies would have no choice but to provide it. After all, we're the ones paying their salaries. If this lesson isn't clear from the video, it's should be clear from the original text of the speech, of which the following is a long excerpt:

"This just might do nobody any good. At the end of this discourse a few people may accuse this reporter of fouling his own comfortable nest, and your organization may be accused of having given hospitality to heretical and even dangerous thoughts. But the elaborate structure of networks, advertising agencies and sponsors will not be shaken or altered. It is my desire, if not my duty, to try to talk to you journeymen with some candor about what is happening to radio and television.

I have no technical advice or counsel to offer those of you who labor in this vineyard that produces words and pictures. You will forgive me for not telling you that instruments with which you work are miraculous, that your responsibility is unprecedented or that your aspirations are frequently frustrated. It is not necessary to remind you that the fact that your voice is amplified to the degree where it reaches from one end of the country to the other does not confer upon you greater wisdom or understanding than you possessed when your voice reached only from one end of the bar to the other. All of these things you know.

You should also know at the outset that, in the manner of witnesses before Congressional committees, I appear here voluntarily -- by invitation -- that I am an employee of the Columbia Broadcasting System, that I am neither an officer nor a director of that corporation and that these remarks are of a "do-it-yourself" nature. If what I have to say is irresponsible, then I alone am responsible for the saying of it. Seeking neither approbation from my employers, nor new sponsors, nor acclaim from the critics of radio and television, I cannot well be disappointed. Believing that potentially the commercial system of broadcasting as practiced in this country is the best and freest yet devised, I have decided to express my concern about what I believe to be happening to radio and television. These instruments have been good to me beyond my due. There exists in my mind no reasonable grounds for personal complaint. I have no feud, either with my employers, any sponsors, or with the professional critics of radio and television. But I am seized with an abiding fear regarding what these two instruments are doing to our society, our culture and our heritage.

Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about 50 or 100 years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER.

For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must be faced if we are to survive. I mean the word survive literally. If there were to be a competition in indifference, or perhaps in insulation from reality, then Nero and his fiddle, Chamberlain and his umbrella, could not find a place on an early afternoon sustaining show. If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition. Then some courageous soul with a small budget might be able to do a documentary telling what, in fact, we have done -- and are still doing -- to the Indians in this country. But that would be unpleasant. And we must at all costs shield the sensitive citizens from anything that is unpleasant.

I am entirely persuaded that the American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry's program planners believe. Their fear of controversy is not warranted by the evidence. I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is -- an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate.

Several years ago, when we undertook to do a program on Egypt and Israel, well-meaning, experienced and intelligent friends shook their heads and said, "This you cannot do -- you will be handed your head. It is an emotion-packed controversy, and there is no room for reason in it." We did the program. Zionists, anti-Zionists, the friends of the Middle East, Egyptian and Israeli officials said, with a faint tone of surprise, "It was a fair account. The information was there. We have no complaints."

Our experience was similar with two half-hour programs dealing with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Both the medical profession and the tobacco industry cooperated in a rather wary fashion. But in the end of the day they were both reasonably content. The subject of radioactive fall-out and the banning of nuclear tests was, and is, highly controversial. But according to what little evidence there is, viewers were prepared to listen to both sides with reason and restraint. This is not said to claim any special or unusual competence in the presentation of controversial subjects, but rather to indicate that timidity in these areas is not warranted by the evidence...

One of the basic troubles with radio and television news is that both instruments have grown up as an incompatible combination of show business, advertising and news. Each of the three is a rather bizarre and demanding profession. And when you get all three under one roof, the dust never settles. The top management of the networks, with a few notable exceptions, has been trained in advertising, research, sales or show business. But by the nature of the corporate structure, they also make the final and crucial decisions having to do with news and public affairs. Frequently they have neither the time nor the competence to do this. It is not easy for the same small group of men to decide whether to buy a new station for millions of dollars, build a new building, alter the rate card, buy a new Western, sell a soap opera, decide what defensive line to take in connection with the latest Congressional inquiry, how much money to spend on promoting a new program, what additions or deletions should be made in the existing covey or clutch of vice-presidents, and at the same time -- frequently on the same long day -- to give mature, thoughtful consideration to the manifold problems that confront those who are charged with the responsibility for news and public affairs...

I do not advocate that we turn television into a 27-inch wailing wall, where longhairs constantly moan about the state of our culture and our defense. But I would just like to see it reflect occasionally the hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live. I would like to see it done inside the existing framework, and I would like to see the doing of it redound to the credit of those who finance and program it. Measure the results by Nielsen, Trendex or Silex -- it doesn't matter. The main thing is to try. The responsibility can be easily placed, in spite of all the mouthings about giving the public what it wants. It rests on big business, and on big television, and it rests at the top. Responsibility is not something that can be assigned or delegated. And it promises its own reward: good business and good television.

Perhaps no one will do anything about it. I have ventured to outline it against a background of criticism that may have been too harsh only because I could think of nothing better. Someone once said -- I think it was Max Eastman -- that "that publisher serves his advertiser best who best serves his readers." I cannot believe that radio and television, or the corporation that finance the programs, are serving well or truly their viewers or listeners, or themselves.

I began by saying that our history will be what we make it. If we go on as we are, then history will take its revenge, and retribution will not limp in catching up with us.

We are to a large extent an imitative society. If one or two or three corporations would undertake to devote just a small fraction of their advertising appropriation along the lines that I have suggested, the procedure would grow by contagion; the economic burden would be bearable, and there might ensue a most exciting adventure -- exposure to ideas and the bringing of reality into the homes of the nation.

To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.

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. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.

Stonewall Jackson, who knew something about the use of weapons, is reported to have said, "When war comes, you must draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." The trouble with television is that it is rusting in the scabbard during a battle for survival."

The full text of the speech can be found here and here.

God bless the United States of America.