Is it so different now?

I would personally agree. There are number of items that do apply to contemporary times in this film. One is Murrow's concern that television would become a tool only to entertain, and amuse rather than inform. I think there is still that pull between "serious" news that seek to inform, and the desire for entertainment to pull in viewers. At times, reading posts by people who bemoan the lack of "feel good, happy" news is somewhat disappointing; at times, to understore the gravity of the situation, it is best to feel the brunt of the suffering. I would personally would not want to avoid the stories of those who lost loved ones in the Navy Yard shooting, or those who lost their homes in the floods in Colorado. Those are not "happy" stories, but stories that have to be told.

On the issue of PRISM, I would agree that a lack of transparency and controls on the FISA process is problematic, but I personally would not go far in that PRISM (in and of itself) is an issue. The concern that I have with it is that there are not enough "checks" in the system to prevent abuse and domestic monitoring.

Thankfully, we haven't approached the levels of McCarthy-like hearings of supposed terrorists-by-association-and-heresay though I do not think we have been completely immune. The "birther" movement was one in particular that relied on unsupported accusations to discredit a public official (in this case the President). There was also the so-called "Freedom Fries" that cropped up around the time of the 2003 Iraq invasion and there was also the ugly backlash over the "Ground Zero mosque" controversy that seemed to have an "anti-Muslim" undercurrent.

It's one of the reasons why I just re-watched it. The parallels are striking.

I guess I'll be the voice of dissent. I believe your argument is fallacious in that in a free society, one has the right to believe in any political persuasion of their choosing. One can even choose to be a neo-nazi (I certainly wouldn't).

But you specifically used the term terrorist. That is someone who creates destruction and death. Acts which SHOULD be illegal in a free society. No wiggle room there. Our leaders and the media using these events to control us is a different issue. One I would be far less motivated to argue.

Little HAS changed. Communism was a dangerous regime to be feared. Its regimes murdered hundreds of millions of people, yet liberals would staunchly defend such actions or worse, deny they occurred.

Radical islam, is a dangerous regime to be feared, killing millions and subjugating womens rights, freedom of speech and the rights of homosexuals, yet liberals staunchly decry its critique and worse, even deny that Radical Islam has ever done anything bad.

Agree or disagree?

Totally agree. Especially on severely spun networks like Fox, et al. But as I posted on another thread, it's the use of propaganda which is designed and used for one reason only: to make and keep you scared. Because when you're scared, you're weak and vulnerable—you'll likely believe anything that promises to make whatever the big, bad demon is go away and never come back. So in 1950s America, the big, bad demon was Communism even though the Red Scare was nothing but propaganda, and the Soviet Union's intentions were NEVER world domination. Now, it's terrorism. Funny thing is, it's conservatives who seem to always use this form of bullying; use the media to keep you afraid. We should be able to trust our news and our First Amendment rights of free press. Alas, we can't always rely on media to do the right thing, so we must think for ourselves while it's still allowed.

Drumpf would have been McCarthy's bosom buddy.