RUNNING HEAD: Ethics in Good Night and Good Luck 1

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 2

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 3

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 4

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 5

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 6

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 7

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 8

(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 9

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 10

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 11

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.