Talk:Muckraker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Michael Moore
Could Noam Chomsky be considered a muckracker? - sandiego4
Michael Moore didn't make it onto the combined list. Is this deliberate? --KF 17:25 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
-Michael Moore didn't make it onto the combined list because he is NOT a "muckraker." Since you might have been confused as to the definition of a "muckraker," a closer examination of the text is suggested.
Michael Moore is in fact a socialist zealot, who produces extremely biased filth, that he outrageously tries to pass off as "documentaries." In this aim, he twists facts, neglects contradictory evidence, and misquotes people, among various other shady elements often attributed to yellow journalism. Through the use of pathos, his arguments solely play off of peoples emotions to elicit support for his far-left (AKA Socialist) beliefs; not unlike many of histories other propagandists. Only through these hideous tactics can he mask his true agenda, which is, to transform a democratic nation into a socialist one.
As the article states Muckrakers "serve the public interest" but unlike the Man with the Muckrake, from John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, Moore does not ignore the crown he is offered (by fellow socialists) but eagerly accepts it, seeing it as opportunity to further mold perceptions. In doing so Moore barely manages to veil the real truth, that he is simply serving his own interests.
Furthermore, I think jesus is the savior of the world.the text goes on to quote President Roosevelt warning muckrakers to pursue their claims, "...with merciless severity makes such attack, provided always that he in his turn remembers that the attack is of use only if it is absolutely truthful." Although Moore attacks with merciless severity, his claims are not absolutely truthful.
Hopefully this clears up any lingering confusion as to the "deliberate" failure to draw any parallels between Michael Moore's work and that of a Muckraker.
- (from another user).... hmmm, god forbid somebody puts out a "biased" documentary. and please, enough with the "mask his true agenda" stuff, the dude might be misguided but hes not out to kill you.
-
- Wow - that long and unsigned diatribe really was SO helpful in explaining why MM is not a muckracker...NOT! Plently of other Muckrackers accepted praise and finacnial reward from those who agreed with their desire to expose that which they felt was unjust. Upton Sinclair's profits from The Jungle essentially financed his future works. I would welcome a more reasonable wikipedian to wigh in on this issue and tell us why Michael Moore is or isn't a muchracker. Just leave your POV at the door thank you.Lisapollison 19:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm with you on that. MM belongs. Why can't he be added?
As a teacher in a public school . . . in Michigan . . . Michael Moore was a journalist with a small Flint paper, called the Flint Voice which later became the Michigan Voice, he also went to work for Mother Jones. One could look at his early work to determine if he is 1) a journalist, and 2) if he fits the defination of a Muckraker. Personally, I don't see him as a crazy Socialist zealot, franky he makes a lot of money, has a nice place in Traverse City and doesn't live the life of a somebody trying to take away the American dream of earning $. Is he trying to expose coruption, un-ethical behavior of corporate America or our government by using film or TV? I'd say yes, which frankly puts him in the camp of a a Muckraker. Frankly, Jesus should be listed as a Muckraker too, afterall he tried to show people the corruption of greed, materialism, government officals and some people in the business class, so Michael Moore is in good company and I'd give him a thumbs up vote for Muckraker. But what do I know, I'm just an American History teacher. -Thinking Late-
[edit] Expansion of Article
Drudge's inclusion seems debateable. But I don't know enough about him to argue well. Maurreen 08:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This sentence in the opening paragraph, "The rise of muckraking corresponded with that of Progressivism and the two were correlated, but not intrinsically tied," strikes me as a bit POV. Some of the muckrakers might have been progressive, others considered themselves conservative. Calicocat 21:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sentence changed to read: "The rise of muckraking in the late 19th and early 20th centuries corresponded with the advent of Progressivism yet, while temporally correlated, the two are not intrinsically tied." Calicocat 03:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the article demonstrates a mischaracterization of what Roosevelt said and is not substantiated by the actual quote. The sentences I find fault with are: "President Theodore Roosevelt coined the term 'muckraker' during a speech in 1906 when he criticized the writings of some journalists as being excessive and irresponsible. He disliked the attitude and lack of optimism of muckraking's practitioners." This seems inaccurate and POVish. In reading the excerpt, which I located, I don't see where he says the muck raking journalists are "irresponsbile and excessive" or even that they lack optimism. This paragraph seems to show that the writer has misunderstood what Roosevelt actually said. Calicocat 03:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My major reworking of this article -- reordering famous and contemporary muckrakers, fact-checking and locating exact source of Roosevelt quote, addressing concerns to bring entry to meet NPOV standard, adding external links of relevancy etc. -- has been most instructive to me and I hope of benefit to the project. I think the article is much better than it was when I found it and hope others will benefit from it. Calicocat 04:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This article defintely lacks a more profound history of the Muckraking era. There is no discussion as to what made the muckraking era wane after 1915. Also, there is a definitive correlation between Progressivism and muckraking, and any student of journalism (like myself) will learn this in a history of mass media class. This article defintely lacks a more profound history of the Muckraking era. There is no discussion as to what made the muckraking era wane after 1915. Also, there is a definitive correlation between Progressivism and muckraking, and any student of journalism (like myself) will learn this in a history of mass media class.Syberexile 1:55, 10 May, 2005 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "more profound history?" Can you fill in some examples or sources. Maybe you might expand the article with a section on the decline of the muckrakers with sources...McClure's went out of business and so on. Also there could be more on the legislation passed or a deeper examination of the works of the early muck rakers. I can see several ways this article might be expanded. Let's discuss it. Calicocat
- sections on activists exposing 19th century slave treatment, Native American abuse, child labor, various women's rights issues (domestic violence, abortions, divorce etc) would also be good additions. WBardwin 18:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] better intro needed
The introduction to the article should be clarified -- it needs to answer the question "What is Muckraker?" before going into any details. --Yurik 19:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Consistent list style
I noticed that the lists in the "Early muckrakers" and "Contemporary muckrakers" have no consistent style between the name and description — sometimes there is a hyphen, sometimes a double hyphen, sometimes a comma, and sometimes nothing at all. It would probably be a good idea to convert them all to a common style, so they look neat and tidy. Thoughts? -Wayne Miller 22:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I had the list in this order, the early muckrakers were in ordered by date of death; the contemporary muckrakers were in alphabetical order. Other editors messed around with it and now it's all kind of a mess. Calicocat 06:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and applied a consistent style to the entries and re-ordered the list of early muckrakers. Some of the early muckrakers look pretty late to me, but I'll leave that for someone else to fix. --Wayne Miller 19:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] It should be mentioned
that TR slamed this movement with his speech. He didn't really support these guys at all. He equated them with doing just as much harm than the guys they attacked as he whole speech shows. Taking out ditbits to prove a point it a little POV YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 16:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC))
TR didn't "slam" them as I read it. Calicocat 06:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Muckraker or Muckraking
This article should probably be moved moved to Muckraking. That would put the emphasis on the practice rather than on the individuals engaged in the practice. It would also avoid the difficulty arising from the somewhat more pejorative interpretation given to the word "muckraker" in British usage. Also, if one reads the entire Theodore Roosevelt speech one sees that he speaks of "the man with the muck rake" and even once of "raking the muck", but never does he use the word "muckraker". A person who engages in muckraking is not necessarily an unremitting muckraker, but often engages in other kinds of writing.
I also have some concerns about the listing of modern muckrakers, but that is a different question. Eclecticology 03:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vadalism
Don't think this phrase belongs in this article:
"Although the term muckraking might appear to have Stolen Babies from the villages of the east, and from spartan warriors who said "WHOOOOHAH" All the time," —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.124.108.7 (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

