Good Night Ann, and Good Luck Murrow

On this blog posting I am going to focus on the character of Ann Mitchell in the movie Meet John Doe and the character of Edward R. Murrow in the movie Good Night, and Good Luck. In particular, I am going to contrast their differences. Both characters were journalists. However, both took a different approach in delivering the news that they were reporting.

Before I go any further, I just want to elaborate on the context for each movie. Meet John Doe was a movie that was released in 1941. Meanwhile, Goodnight, and Good Luck was released in 2004 and based on actual events that occurred half a century ago.

Ann Mitchell’s character was about to be given the pink slip. However, her final task was to write her last column for the newspaper. She was irked by her boss’s statement that her pieces needed more “fireworks.” So she decided to fabricate an event to create more attention to the newspaper company. Her final column was based on a man named John Doe and how he was going to commit suicide because he could no longer take the pressure of living in the United States. Basically, this is an example of “yellow journalism.”

As a result, this stunt went as planned. It went a step further when Mitchell decided to select a man to portray the role of John Doe. It went so far that he became a national idol, allowing people to identify and sympathize with this John Doe character. Consequently, her boss’s boss saw this as an opportunity to become a political candidate.

The character of Ann Mitchell was a young, good-looking woman that was smart and innovative. She did not portray the stereotypical female. Instead, she was demanding and challenged those above her. However, I believed the movie tried to portray women with Mitchell's characteristics as the root of all of man’s problems. Basically, in that period, the woman's role was perceived to be submissive. (Whatever, that is backwards thinking).

The negative characteristics that can be attributed to Mitchell was that she was manipulative, and money motivative. Since, her decisions were based on her potential financial gains. One example would be her partnering with D.B. Norton. Even after he made his real intentions known, she continued to work with him.

Throughout the movie, her character was not sympathetic or caring. Even in the scene with her children, she was more concerned with finishing her task. It was almost as if the film was trying to tell women how not to act. It was until the end, when she lost everything, that her strong characteristics regressed and she seemed more apologetic, sympathetic and submissive.

Meanwhile, Edward Murrow’s character in Good Night, and Good Luck was obviously the account or a real person. The filmed focused on his role as a journalist, and his drive, when reporting, to take down Senator McCarthy.

His method of reporting was biased and made no attempts of portraying the other side. This was a subject of disagreement between his co-worker Frank, who argued that the code of conduct among journalist is to present both sides of the story without commentary. Murrow had a different belief and stated that he could “call it editorializing." This suggested that he was firm with his method in journalism and he was determined to get the real facts out. (On a side note, George Clooney, who directed the film, drew inspiration from his father, who worked as a journalist. His father believed it was a journalist duties to question authority regardless if they are deemed as unpatriotic.)

In contrast to Mitchell’s decision in Meet John Doe, Murrow’s decision to cover McCarthy in a biased approached may be sympathized by his audience. Since, his motives were not to make money (at least it appeared so) but instead to utilize television as a tool to teach people. The stark contrast between both characters is not only seen in terms of their gender but also in their approach to journalism. Murrow's approach is questionable while Mitchell's method is considered unethical among fellow journalists.

Why Good Night and Good Luck?

I was surprised to read the comments from people on a variety movie message boards on their thoughts about Good Night, and Good Luck. A portion of the people thought the movie was undeserving of the praise and rewards it received. Some even thought it was pointless and boring.

Well, I beg to differ. The movie was subtle and had a lot to offer if the person approached it with an open mind. Even though the subject matter of the movie revolved around events that occurred over 50 years ago, it is still relevant in our current time.

The instructor for my course on Electronic Media and Culture, presented this movie to the class on Monday. Afterwards she posed the question on why this movie was made until now?

The movie, which was based on the accounts of the journalist Edward R. Murrow and his fellow colleagues reporting on Senator McCarthy, who was trying to get rid of Communism within the United States at the expense of innocent people. Murrow and his colleagues on the other hand were on their own crusade of taking down McCarthy.

The US government has opposed Communism for a significant amount of time in its history. During the 1950’s, the United States was opposed with a few Communist Nations such as the following: the then Soviet Union, North Korea, and North Vietnam. Consequently, anyone in the United States that was affiliated with Communism was deemed a threat to National Security. McCarthy along with others opposed to Communism, would go at lengths to exploit people that they consider threats and had affiliations with the party. Yet, most of these people were charged without any significant evidence.

In the present, the US government and media actively used the word “terrorism” for a substantial amount of time after 9/11. The result led to the Arabic, Islamic, or Middle Eastern nations being associated with the words "terrorist" or "terrorism." Consequently, anyone that is considered to condone “terrorism” or a “terrorists” is considered a threat to National Security. If someone doesn’t support the War in Iraq, they are considered “un-Patriotic”. This is analogous to those who were referred to as “pink” because they were sympathetic to Communist ideals or were considered Communists. It is until recently that the US Government and the Bush administration decided to start a linguistic reform in regards to terrorism.

There is saying that history repeats itself if people don’t learn from it. The reason why this movie was made is to highlight that a lot of people didn’t take this flyer after the attacks of 9/11. This approach of singling out individuals without warrant resembles the McCarthism that occurred in the 1950's. I was thinking throughout the movie of the word “terrorism” and how many people of Middle Eastern, Arab, or Islamic background are singled out by the Government and narrow minded U.S. citizens.

You could substitute the word “Communism” with “Terrorism” and the movie would correlate to today’s events. Furthermore, in Murrow’s speech, he referenced the media and television at the time as an instrument “being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us” from other more important matters that can educate and inform people. Looking at television programs today, he was right. I see nothing but crap.

Crap TV = Reality TV

In my opinion I think most television is crap these days. A lot of the shows are uninspiring and unoriginal. This can be exemplified by most shows sharing similar themes or being structured in similar formats. Yet, these shows are constantly being produced and the ratings indicate no drop off. Well, first off we can thank larger corporations for using these television shows as vehicles to promote their products. However, the ultimate demise of television has to be laid upon reality television.

We can place Survivor, Big Brother, the Anna Nicole Smith Show, Flavor of Love, American Idol and countless others into one large garbage dispenser. However, at least in the United States, MTV’s Real World attributed to the success of the shows previously mentioned because it started before them. Real World certainly is not the first reality based show in the history of television. Yet, it remains the most popular. Currently in its 20th season there are no signs of the show slowing down because it has been determined that the location of 21st season is going to be set in Brooklyn, New York.

The structure of the show is that the “cast” is composed of 7 members that fall in the age range between 18-25. In most cases, the cast members are good looking and in good physical condition, which is kind ironic given that not everyone in the United States looks like this. They all live together in a house that was furnished by MTV and is supposed to look to hip/modern. The members are usually from different racial backgrounds and usually consist of 3 female member and 4 male members or vice-versa. The result of this diversity leads to themes of sexuality, ethics, romance, religion, politics, and prejudice. When you combine all of this usually there is tension and/or a mess because people are going to have a difference of opinions. In the present, it is not uncommon to see that other reality shows have incorporated these themes within their shows.

The credibility of Real World and reality shows in general have always been questioned. One such example is from the cast of Real World: Chicago, which later admitted that their reactions to the attacks on September 11 were staged. Even then it is not hard to fathom that all of these “reality” shows follow in the same path. Editing also allows for shows to be altered into a different viewpoint from the original script or events that actually occurred. Another example is Stacey Stillman who was part of Survivor: Borneo. She sued the network on the claim that her being voted off the island was rigged by the executive producer of the show.

My main gripe with these shows is the nature in which people are pinned against each other. The results are cast members fighting against each other. The networks of course are in favor of such events because more people are likely to watch. Shows like American Idol exploit people who lack singing talents. Survivor humiliates people by forcing them to eat bugs and doing other outrageous things. Real World seems more like a frat party for young good-looking college students instead of an actual depiction of the real world. Most of these shows are the furthest thing from reality. Consequently, they provide nothing in terms of valuable content and make a putrid attempt of being "entertainment".

Millennials......WTF?

As reported by Morley Safer, I along with about 80 million people of the U.S. population fall into the category of "Millennials". Millennials are defined as people born between the years of 1981 through 1995. This group is supposed to be "tech savvy", narcissists, and a group that has to be constantly pampered and accommodated by both their employers and parents.

According to Mary Crane, who was interviewed for Safer's "Millennials" segment which aired on CBS's 60 minutes, much of the blame has to fall on the parents for raising their children in an environment that was filled with trophies and excessive admiration. The result has led to many of these children, who are now grown, unprepared for the workplace.

Well, based on my experiences, I would have to disagree. My parents, who came to this country as immigrants from El Salvador, a "Third World country", instilled a “work hard” mentality. They taught me the importance of working hard in both school and work is necessary but at the same time I should not expect praise or admiration. Since this was expected from everyone else. The phrase, "you only get what you put in" holds true and much of my childhood was not filled with trophies or this adulation that Crane claimed was present for Millennials. Furthermore, I have had substantial experience in the workplace that predated my completion of high school and my time during college.

In Brooks article, which was published in the NY Times at the beginning of this century, it states that Millennials were more likely to be non-cynical and would favor a "team first" mentality. I beg to differ and would agree more with Safer’s opening statement during his segment that Millennials are more concerned with themselves.

In this capitalistic society, where people are constantly trying to move forward and the main concern is to secure financial success, it is only natural that our generation is more concerned to fulfill their needs. Furthermore, this motivation is fueled by an uncertain future and by companies that are outsourcing. Bob Herbert's article, "Here Come the Millennials", focuses on the Millennials' employment future which is filled with uncertainty. The prospect of jobs offering perks such as paid vacations; health coverage or pensions appear to be dwindling. I am in accordance with Marian Salzman's comment in which Millenials view themselves as "merchandise on eBay". As an employee, I am not willing to show loyalty, when at any given moment I could be deemed as expandable.

For the most part, I would agree with this generalization of being classified as a "Millennial". I am "tech savvy" because today's society is geared towards new media and technology. At the same time these skills are extremely necessary in order to succeed. I am a narcissist because I want the best for myself because the future is not guaranteed and does not look favorable. No one will give anything to me or anyone else for free. Finally, in the present I do view my parents as a safety net. Only because they are willing to support me during my time in college. Yet, I do realize that I can't always rely on their support and must move on to really obtain adulthood. However, I would have to state that not all of us were subjected to "trophies" or the constant adulation from our parents. I think that depends on the "Millennials" class when they were growing up. At least, in regards to my parents, there was always that "tough love" and money has always been tight.