The Tradition of Muckraking
by Michelle S.
Muckraking as many of us know it refers to the body of literature, during the Gilded Age, to attack government corruption and social injustice and rally the underclass into action. The term was popularized by Teddy Roosevelt who after the publishing of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, vowed to "clean house‚" Sinclair's widely dispersed work in a way forced the President to "acknowledge the prevalent filth of corruption in business and public life." (Tichi, pg.2) Also implying that the industrialists, that Carnegie in his essay had applauded as the most talented men most charged with efficiently manging affairs to better "serve‚ his poorer brethern, were not in fact working towards any public good" (ed. Smith, Dawson, pg. 25-35). To the public, it seemed as though these companies ran took advantage of thousands of people. Some other famous names in this genre include, Jacob Riis (a founder of sorts for this era in journalism), Ida Tarbell (for her work on the Standard Oil Co.) and Susan B. Anthony. In this respect muckraking won a huge victory for social change.
Because this type of journalism has been strongly associated with progressivism, itsperspectives have become as polarized as their respective political parties (ed. Stein, Harrison, pg. 12). Its advocates, usually liberals try to place it in a somewhat precarious position of being absolutely based on fact while trying to
incite the passions of its readers by naming names and pointing fingers (ed. Stein, Harrison, pg.14-16). It‚s opponents, usually conservatives, see it as rabblerousing or "attacking the accepted values of Middle America" (ed. Stein, Harrison, pg.19). Even Roosevelt himself while praising the practice at the same time warned that writers who consistently muckrake will do more harm than good, that, "relentlessly [plying] that rake threatened social order and [is] evil." (Tichi, pg3) One could imagine he was thinking about the people rising up, beating the captains of industry in the streets and tearing down all social institutions, reducing modern civilization to savage anarchy. Although from the description Jacob Riis gives of tenement living conditions, I don't see how those conditions would be better than imaging the conseqences of a broken social order (Serrin pg.3). The fact is that muckraking is a farcry from yellow journalism in that it is truthful and observant of both big seemingly lofty things and common everyday behavior. (ed. Stein, Harrison, pg.14-16) However it is not above picking sides and highlighting or downplaying facts to get their point across (ed. Stein, Harrison, pg.14-16). Some may even use "human interest stories" like its distant journalistic cousin to tug at the readers heartstrings (ed. Stein, Harrison, pg.14-16). Using this tactic no doubt was damaging especially when critics already thought that thought the literature too sentimental and overdramatic (Tichi, pg.14-16). Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel about the cruelties of slavery although read was dismissed as meant for the emotions and not as high a virtue as reason (Tichi, pg. 8). Some of the earlier writers had sacrificed some degree of accuracy for the sake of "emotional appeal" (unfairly I believe) stereotyped the genre as a kind of propoganda even though most of the muckrakers were newspaper reporters (Tichi, pg. 14-16, 64)
Muckraking did climb its way up the levels of public interest eventually, because the public was extremely unhappy with the way things were being handled. Muckraking became an outlet in which to speak out but also proved a progressive tool for change because it spread information to the everyday person, information before only privy to businessmen, government officials and other professionals. It was also much easier to mass produce the magazines and books that published them (Tichi, pg 70).
But like any sponsored venture, muckraking and its rakers were under economic pressures that influenced the kind of work produced. On one side were the companies and political persons who had a vested interest to use it as advertising, on another the picky public and from their editors who tried to satisfy the demands of their readers (ed. Stein, Harrison, pg.21). Writers were encouraged to write about things the public cared about and from the literature produced, it appears the issue of the rights of women and children were not as high on a list of priorities as they are now (ed. Stein, Harrison, pg.31). Some editors who followed the trends were more likely to publish "safe topics, guaranteed to arouse indignation, such as trusts, organized crime or pollution" without any real solutions (ed. Stein, Harrison, pg.21). Authors Stein and Harrison described this as "inside dopesterism", shocking the reader but it doesn't result in any public reaction so it remains just a piece of entertaining news (pg.21).
It seems like all three of these problems affects modern day muckrakers, especially since it has come fashionable again (One only has to look at the bookshelves in the MU Bookstore to see how popular the genre is.) Tracking the long history of muckraking, Stein and Harrison finds it "falls out of favor" with the public when people are feeling better about the nature of things but returns with a zeal when they become dissatisfied again (pg.16-17). But almost every current muckracking book (that I can think of) from poverty, to conservation, to the international political arena, will dedicate a small section to the fact that though there are small grassroots organizations working and getting their opinions out their, but progressive movements on the whole are losing steam in part because of the public's lack of interest. I agrre there is evidence of this but I would like to think that given muckracking's resurging interest and recent protests to immigration legislation, that it is not true that we, the public, are not dragging our feet when it comes to responding to changes in society.
1. (Editors) Harrison, John M. , Stein, Harry E. "Muckraking; Past Present and Future" Penn State University Press. University Park, 1973
2. Serrin, Judith and William, "Muckracking! The Journalism that Changed America", New York Press, New York. 2002
3. (Editors) Smith, Susan Harris, Dawson, Melanie. "American 1890's; a Cultural Reader" Duke University Press 2000
4. Tichi, Cecelia, " Exposes and Excess" Unicersity of Pennsylvannia Press, Philadelphia, 2004
Muckraking as many of us know it refers to the body of literature, during the Gilded Age, to attack government corruption and social injustice and rally the underclass into action. The term was popularized by Teddy Roosevelt who after the publishing of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, vowed to "clean house‚" Sinclair's widely dispersed work in a way forced the President to "acknowledge the prevalent filth of corruption in business and public life." (Tichi, pg.2) Also implying that the industrialists, that Carnegie in his essay had applauded as the most talented men most charged with efficiently manging affairs to better "serve‚ his poorer brethern, were not in fact working towards any public good" (ed. Smith, Dawson, pg. 25-35). To the public, it seemed as though these companies ran took advantage of thousands of people. Some other famous names in this genre include, Jacob Riis (a founder of sorts for this era in journalism), Ida Tarbell (for her work on the Standard Oil Co.) and Susan B. Anthony. In this respect muckraking won a huge victory for social change.
Because this type of journalism has been strongly associated with progressivism, itsperspectives have become as polarized as their respective political parties (ed. Stein, Harrison, pg. 12). Its advocates, usually liberals try to place it in a somewhat precarious position of being absolutely based on fact while trying to
incite the passions of its readers by naming names and pointing fingers (ed. Stein, Harrison, pg.14-16). It‚s opponents, usually conservatives, see it as rabblerousing or "attacking the accepted values of Middle America" (ed. Stein, Harrison, pg.19). Even Roosevelt himself while praising the practice at the same time warned that writers who consistently muckrake will do more harm than good, that, "relentlessly [plying] that rake threatened social order and [is] evil." (Tichi, pg3) One could imagine he was thinking about the people rising up, beating the captains of industry in the streets and tearing down all social institutions, reducing modern civilization to savage anarchy. Although from the description Jacob Riis gives of tenement living conditions, I don't see how those conditions would be better than imaging the conseqences of a broken social order (Serrin pg.3). The fact is that muckraking is a farcry from yellow journalism in that it is truthful and observant of both big seemingly lofty things and common everyday behavior. (ed. Stein, Harrison, pg.14-16) However it is not above picking sides and highlighting or downplaying facts to get their point across (ed. Stein, Harrison, pg.14-16). Some may even use "human interest stories" like its distant journalistic cousin to tug at the readers heartstrings (ed. Stein, Harrison, pg.14-16). Using this tactic no doubt was damaging especially when critics already thought that thought the literature too sentimental and overdramatic (Tichi, pg.14-16). Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel about the cruelties of slavery although read was dismissed as meant for the emotions and not as high a virtue as reason (Tichi, pg. 8). Some of the earlier writers had sacrificed some degree of accuracy for the sake of "emotional appeal" (unfairly I believe) stereotyped the genre as a kind of propoganda even though most of the muckrakers were newspaper reporters (Tichi, pg. 14-16, 64)
Muckraking did climb its way up the levels of public interest eventually, because the public was extremely unhappy with the way things were being handled. Muckraking became an outlet in which to speak out but also proved a progressive tool for change because it spread information to the everyday person, information before only privy to businessmen, government officials and other professionals. It was also much easier to mass produce the magazines and books that published them (Tichi, pg 70).
But like any sponsored venture, muckraking and its rakers were under economic pressures that influenced the kind of work produced. On one side were the companies and political persons who had a vested interest to use it as advertising, on another the picky public and from their editors who tried to satisfy the demands of their readers (ed. Stein, Harrison, pg.21). Writers were encouraged to write about things the public cared about and from the literature produced, it appears the issue of the rights of women and children were not as high on a list of priorities as they are now (ed. Stein, Harrison, pg.31). Some editors who followed the trends were more likely to publish "safe topics, guaranteed to arouse indignation, such as trusts, organized crime or pollution" without any real solutions (ed. Stein, Harrison, pg.21). Authors Stein and Harrison described this as "inside dopesterism", shocking the reader but it doesn't result in any public reaction so it remains just a piece of entertaining news (pg.21).
It seems like all three of these problems affects modern day muckrakers, especially since it has come fashionable again (One only has to look at the bookshelves in the MU Bookstore to see how popular the genre is.) Tracking the long history of muckraking, Stein and Harrison finds it "falls out of favor" with the public when people are feeling better about the nature of things but returns with a zeal when they become dissatisfied again (pg.16-17). But almost every current muckracking book (that I can think of) from poverty, to conservation, to the international political arena, will dedicate a small section to the fact that though there are small grassroots organizations working and getting their opinions out their, but progressive movements on the whole are losing steam in part because of the public's lack of interest. I agrre there is evidence of this but I would like to think that given muckracking's resurging interest and recent protests to immigration legislation, that it is not true that we, the public, are not dragging our feet when it comes to responding to changes in society.
1. (Editors) Harrison, John M. , Stein, Harry E. "Muckraking; Past Present and Future" Penn State University Press. University Park, 1973
2. Serrin, Judith and William, "Muckracking! The Journalism that Changed America", New York Press, New York. 2002
3. (Editors) Smith, Susan Harris, Dawson, Melanie. "American 1890's; a Cultural Reader" Duke University Press 2000
4. Tichi, Cecelia, " Exposes and Excess" Unicersity of Pennsylvannia Press, Philadelphia, 2004
posted by Leslie Madsen-Brooks at 10:38 PM
8 Comments:
It's interesting how the term "muckraking" has changed since the 1890s. After all, when someone is accused of muckraking today, they are being accused of slinging proverbial mud at their political opponent... At the same time, what passed for muckraking back then is seen as strictly factual and not slanted in one political or ideological direction or another and lines not only the bookshelves but fills magazines and newspapers as well.
It seems as though the tradition of muckraking has been a popular one for a long time. Freedom of press and media is supposed to keep people accountable for their actions yet muckraking for its own sake may not be the most effective way promote change. Saying bad things without solutions or positive aspects of a story can also be bad because how does that encourage people to try to fix the things that need to be fixed. Are there any situations in which muckraking has caused some really negative results? I know Upton Sinclair's the Jungle did bring about a lot of reform but there are always ignored parts of society that mabye do deserve some attention.....
I agree with the statement that propaganda must be used in muckracking. By tugging at peoples heart strings and evoking feelings of pity, saddness or anger, perople are more likely to join a cause. This techniques is used quite a bit today on issues dealing with politics and religion.
In response to Lauren's question, a modern day muckraker would be someone like Eric Scholessinger (I don't thing I spelled that right) who wrote Fast Food Nation or Rachel Carson (Silent Spring) and Betty Friedan of the Feminine Mystique. The genre today is extensive which was limited to books and articles but now include movies, photographs and lots of other medium.
In the Constitution of the U.S. we are allowed free speech in our civil liberties. My question is to what extent does muckraking challenge the truth? Are you implying that Sinclair's The Jungle is a form of muckraking? I do find it interesting the parallel of big businesses financing the journalism industry, yet these stories are trying to expose their corruption.
Anything that holds those in political and corporate power accountable to the public has my approval. California pays 25 cents more in gas than the rest of the nation [$3.00] and its expected to rise in the summer months. Now more than ever, those in control of the countries oil management should be held accountable and made to reason any acts of price gaulging.
While I'll admit, in modern times, muckraking can be used for smear campaigns amongst politicians, which dilutes its effectiveness and credibility, as long as it possess the ability to get people alert and involved, it serves more good than bad.
I see a connection between the muckracking journalism in the 1880's and today's investigative journalism. In my opinion, we have always needed and continue to need such brave reporters and journalists to go out and investigate something in our society they feel is out of placed. It is our right to know every single thing that goes on in our country. That is what these journalists are supposed to do. I just find it interesting how the government tries to keep everyone aloof in terms of issues in society.
Would we consider Micheal Moore a modern muckraker? Or are the topics in his first two films, Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine real enough for the public to stand behind? Is Farenheit 9-11 political Muckraking?
Post a Comment
<< Home