This is doubtless old news for those Stateside, but Good Night and Good Luck has just been released here, and I have to say, I was very impressed.
As my wife and I left the cinema many people were, like us, asking "so what did you make of that then?" A film that has no incidental music (though some fabulous jazz numbers), is shot almost entirely within one building and includes some long inserts of original footage of Congressional committees. What did we make of it? Dry. Verbose. And if you can't sit through incredibly important cinema without jingles and fx to keep you interested, you've suckled too much at the Cathode Ray Nipple.
For those who don't know, the film, directed by George Clooney, is about Ed Murrow and his news team, who took on Senator McCarthy and his communist witch-hunt in the early 1950's. They won the war (McCarthy was investigated himself) but lost the peace (they were effectively fired).
Nodding heavily to the current situation in Guantanamo and Iraq, the film is a serious and challenging piece about the supine nature of the media, and their seeming spinelessness in the face of chilling government action, and is framed by Murrows' speech to the Radio-Television News Directors Association.
The full text is of the original speech is here and it is the conclusion that I found absolutely compelling:
"Just once in a while let us exalt the importance of ideas and information. Let us dream to the extent of saying that on a given Sunday night the time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over to a clinical survey of the state of American education, and a week or two later the time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thoroughgoing study of American policy in the Middle East.
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 defence. But I would just like to see it reflect occasionally the hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live.
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."
Like the film, no apologies if this post is dry and verbose. I estimate that most readers will not have got this far. If your internet browsing/blog-reading is anything like mine, the eye scans at speed and clicks away too quickly for regular depth to be plumbed.
I know there are important issues to discuss, and many fantastic posts being written. But one of my persistent worries about the prevalence of blogging and the internet as an information medium is that a) it is so temporal. Blog posts disappear down-screen and are over in a day or two. The issues are not. And b) that, as Murrow predicted, we are living in a culture swamped by an entertainment ethic.
Two points that may be salient, and which are partially contradictory:
Firstly, one of the reasons why I published this blog as a hardcopy book was, for my own purposes, to try to slow down the information flow, to allow further time to meditate on the issues. Perhaps future generations will be different, but I am happy to read an in-depth magazine article of a few thousand words, but find it hard to concentrate on screen-based writing for very long. In order to stay in tune with the issues, I have to do more than browse some blogs and/or news sites. You never get below the surface, and are constantly drawn to click away for entertainment if you do.
Secondly, given that blogs are so popular a medium (ok, this one excepted ;-) we need to make sure that they are more than 'merely wires and lights in a box.' '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.' 'Just once in a while let us exalt the importance of ideas and information.'
No, I don't advocate turning blogs into a 17" wailing wall. But we need to make sure that our practice is 'reflecting the occasionally hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live.' And to do that, we have make sure we do more than browse. Sign the book if you made it this far, and give yourself a bun.
Bun in hand, though it's taken me nearly ten months! Actually came here from TSK and couldn't resist being the first to comment on a great post. I am continually frustrated as a small-time blog writer, that I write a great post and then find I need to address the subject again as new readers ask me about something. I guess the skill is to keep finding new ways of saying the same thing. I like the idea of being more meditative - perhaps I should buy the book.
Posted by: David | December 12, 2006 at 02:25 PM