Good Night and Good Luck: Deconstructing Journalistic Objectivity

Brett Nuckles
brettnuckles@gmail.com


Any journalist worth his salt will tell you that objectivity is one of the major guiding principles of his craft. In the sphere of journalism, objective reporting typically boils down to a need for fairness, getting the facts and non-partisanship.
But what does it mean to be objective?

The 2005 film Good Night and Good Luck depicts former CBS news anchor Edward R. Murrow as he used his broadcast news platform to criticize and ultimately lead to the censure of Joseph McCarthy--the senator who helped to fuel widespread fears of Communist subversion in the 1950s. In the film, Murrow and his CBS team grapple with some major ethical issues. The reporters are clear in their personal convictions—they do not support McCarthy nor his fear mongering ways. But can they present these views to the public in a newscast? Would they not be editorializing the issue? What about objectivity?

Good Night and Good Luck brilliantly demonstrates the dilemma facing every journalist—he or she is bound by numerous obligations, many of which often conflict with the standards of their profession. These include obligations to his employer, viewers, advertisers, and the public at large.

Murrow’s obligations to his employer are demonstrated throughout the film. One CBS executive is especially critical of the focus of Murrow’s newscasts, constantly reminding him that his actions could potentially put the network in dire straits.

These concerns are easily understood. Given the political and social context of the time period, it is very likely CBS’s criticism of McCarthy might have been highly unpopular among a large sector of the population. Murrow reported his criticism to a vulnerable and fearful audience, a large portion of which must have agreed with the sentiments of Senator McCarthy.

It is easy to guess why network executives might have been nervous. These controversial newscasts had the potential to alienate countless viewers. Such scenario would have far-reaching ramifications, as a drop in viewership could lead to a drop in advertising revenue. It is an unfortunate reality that a journalistic enterprise can only operate under a sound business model—the model that is most lucrative is often a far-reach from superlative journalism.

Despite these uncertainties, Murrow and the CBS team go forward with their criticisms of McCarthyism. To ask whether or not they have violated the precept of objectivity is an interesting question. Critics of “true neutrality” in journalism might point out that its inadequacies—namely, that it does not really attempt to get at the truth of a situation. Many would claim that true objectivity is impossibility.

Or have they simply misinterpreted what it means to be an objective journalist?

In the film, Murrow is accused by a network executive of taking sides in the story. “I’ve searched my conscience,” Murrow replies. “I can’t for the life of me find any justification for this. I simply cannot accept that there are, on every story,
two equal and logical sides to an argument. Call it editorializing, if you like.”

Is Murrow truly editorializing—or has he come upon some deeper understanding of the role and duty of a responsible journalist?