del Valle, Good Night, and Good Luck

“His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent (opposition) with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. 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." (“Of Murrow, McCarthy & Miller” by Jim Emerson)

In the film, Good Night, and Good Luck, there are many uncertainties surrounding Joseph McCarthy and his approach towards “ridding the country of communism”, that are pointed out in newscasts by the reporter Edward R. Murrow. Joseph McCarthy attempted to gain the support of the country through propaganda, “half-truths”, and some “outright lies”. For example, he had claimed that the American Civil Liberties Union was reported as a Communist Party in disguise, however he was never able to state who had reported the group as this, in fact, there was evidence proving this group as the opposite, as a group known to never have been reported as dissident. McCarthy used lies to not only persuade the country, but to also confuse them into consent, convincing them that those being prosecuted were threats to the country in their loyalty to communism and disloyalty to America. He also had a way of confusing disloyalty with disagreement. He seemed to forget that in our country that all people are innocent until proven guilty. Similarly, in 2005, there was skepticism revolving the Bush and Cheney administration and their choice to begin a war with Iraq. The basis of their choice was evidence they claimed to have that proved that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction being made in the country. However, similar to the way McCarthy’s accusations were always just that, and not based on actual facts or evidence, but instead based more in falsehoods, the “discovery” of the weapons, also, was just an accusation, and when further investigated was in fact proven to be false. However, the government continued on their track, insisting the evidence, which had been falsified, still gave reason to start the invasions and wars. McCarthy’s accusations has more evidence opposing his beliefs, however he carried on with his persecutions, similarly the administration in 2005, did the same. When Cheney received documents from the British, from the Italiams, claiming to confirm Iraq’s purchase of uranium of Niger, the CIA was notified and called for a further investigation of the situation, when the investigation was complete, it was verified that the documents were forged, however, the administration still referred to these documents as a form of validation or as a motive for their actions.

Considering the similarity of the two situations, I think Edward R. Murrow would be successful had he taken the same approach in 2005 that he did in 1953. I don’t think it would happen right away, however, I think, through a few steps, he would gain the support of the country. Through presenting the public with the facts, based on evidence, that would prove the government was lying, he would raise doubts in the public, and therefore make them question the administration. Then through his persistence in presenting these truths, he would eventually persuade, some, and possibly all of the public, to see the truth. Finally, he would gain their full support when pointing out things such as how the government is hurting the public in their decisions, creating a “common enemy”, and then by pointing out that our country was based on the idea that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and without proper evidence supporting otherwise, those being attacked are not guilty.