Today's Murrow...?

I've been a fan of Edward R. Murrow since I first heard about him and love reading transcripts of his broadcasts and addresses. I really enjoyed the recent movie Good Night and Good Luck about his battle with Sen. Joe McCarthy. More recently, I've become a fan of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann who has become a bit of a modern day Murrow -- though, to his credit, Olbermann modestly refuses to make that claim.

Last night, Olbermann did a very convincing Murrow imitation as he blasted Rumsfeld's ridiculous but dangerous attack on critics of the administration as enemy sympathizers. I've quoted Murrow before but Olbermann really nails this one (and quotes Murrow in doing so). Here is a video link so that you can see for yourself. Here is a link to the transcript on his blog and it's well worth a read.

But there is still some risk in telling the truth to power these days, though not what it was in Murrow's time, but a risk none the less. As Sara at the Last Hurrah says:

In essence, I see Olberman out there on a very very tender limb, and without a back-up, able to be cut down quickly. The key is to make certain that doesn't happen, even though some parts of his commentary are somewhat problematic. The overall point is a fight back on the crazy notion that anyone who is a critic of Iraq is somehow in league with neo-fascists or whatever.

For a taste of what I'm raving about, here is how Olbermann closes:

That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused, is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.

And, as such, all voices count -- not just his.

Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience --— about Osama Bin Laden'’s plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein's weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina's impact one year ago --— we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their "omniscience" as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.

But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris.

Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire "Fog of Fear" which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have --— inadvertently or intentionally --— profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.

And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emperor's New Clothes?

In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?

The confusion we -- as its citizens -- must now address, is stark and forbidding.

But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note -- with hope in your heart --— that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light, and we can, too.

The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.

And about Mr. Rumsfeld's other main assertion, that this country faces a "new type of fascism."

As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that -- though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.

This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.

Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow.

But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: "confused" or "immoral."

Thus, forgive me, for reading Murrow, in full:

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty," he said, in 1954. "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."

And so good night, and good luck.