I don't usually write about films for Common Cause, although this was something I used to do in a past life. But this film is different. Last night, I had the pleasure of seeing a preview showing of "Good Night. And, Good Luck," a film based on some incidents in the life of distinguished journalist Edward R. Murrow.

The film, directed by George Clooney, the son of a journalist, focuses on Murrow and his colleague Fred Friendly's efforts to speak truth to power: in this case to scrutinize the words and tactics of Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-WI).

The McCarthy era seems strikingly like our own. In the 1950s, we were fighting a war against Communism. We feared "Red" spies were infiltrating all our major domestic institutions. Today, we are fighting a war on terror, and fear that terrorists may penetrate our society. We also are fighting a real war in Iraq, which so far has led to the deaths of more than 1,000 Americans and an estimated tens of thousands of Iraqis. Some wonder whether the war in Iraq has anything to do with the war on terror.

In each case, efforts to confront and capture the guilty often have included the innocent, who often are deprived of civil liberties. Those who assail these efforts, or who have criticized the Iraq War, often have their patriotism called into question.

Joe McCarthy was the poster child for the Communist witch hunts of the 1950s. But many journalists and other elected officials were unwilling to take him on, for fear of having their pasts dredged up for communist leanings. Edward R. Murrow, in some legendary broadcasts on CBS, took up the challenge. Using McCarthy's own words, he painted a picture of a demagogue and a bully who terrified the Americans he summoned to his Senate committee to testify before him. Ultimately, the scrutiny that Murrow began bore fruit and McCarthy lost his influence.

Would Murrow have been able to broadcast those landmark programs in today's media environment? I don't think so. The corporations that now own the major networks would be loath to offend such a powerful elected official, and to ruffle the feathers of the political party that controlled the Executive Branch.

Would Murrow have found a home on public television or National Public Radio and been able to air his hard-hitting reports? One hopes so, but public broadcasting has become increasingly timid, fully aware of the power of Congress to control its purse strings, and harassed by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which cares less about telling the truth than monitoring programs for political "balance."

But let's assume that Murrow was by some miracle able to air his broadcast. What would happen? In the 1950s, Murrow offered McCarthy equal time to rebut his charges on a subsequent broadcast. When McCarthy asked that William Buckley, a smooth, eloquent conservative, make his case for him, the head of CBS, William Paley, refused. To its credit, CBS required that McCarthy speak for himself.

In his rebuttal, McCarthy did not deny any of the facts in Murrow's broadcasts. Rather, he used his time to make unsubstantiated charges suggesting that Murrow was a communist sympathizer.

If McCarthy were alive and assailed today, he likely would get many others to do his dirty work for him. Conservative talk radio would crackle with indignation. The bloggers would start circulating rumors of Murrow's communist leanings, And they would go after his personal life, the state of his marriage, his professional qualifications, whether he'd ever plagiarized. The accusations would be far wilder than what McCarthy said in his broadcast. They would be far harder to rebut, as Murrow did in a follow-up commentary, because they would be coming from every direction. And it is not likely that any mainstream journalist, aside from a few major paper columnists, would come to his defense. Broadcast journalists, one expects, would remain silent.

If speaking truth to power still is valuable to us, we must find ways to change the media environment so that future Murrows can do their work. We must break the stranglehold that a few corporations have over ownership of our major sources of information. We must have diverse and independent news outlets. We must strengthen and protect the editorial integrity of public broadcasting. And we must understand that truth is not the same thing as telling, in equal portions, both sides of a controversy. Speaking truth means evaluating the facts without prejudice or an intention to benefit one political party or one ideology over another, and then coming to a conclusion. We must build a culture that respects the truth.

Since the days of the Old Testament prophets, it has never been easy to speak truth to power. But without the truth-tellers, we cannot function in a democracy. The temptation always is to mask, filter and spin the truth. As Murrow himself observed: "Most truths are so naked that people feel sorry for them and cover them up, at least a little bit."