Talk:Muckraker

This article seems hugely incomplete and to start a good time after the primary relevance of the topic. see http://www.academicamerican.com/progressive/topics/progressive.html

Include James O'Keefe

Acorn Investigation, New Jersey Teachers Union and more

You have to be kidding. Calicocat (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid the poster was not kidding. That's what delusions "true believers" can maintain.

O'Keefe is actually a burglar:

ACORN filmmaker James O’Keefe sentenced in Sen. Mary Landrieu break-in The Hill By Chritina Wilkie - 05/26/10 07:15 PM ET

Conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe was sentenced to three years of probation, 100 hours of community service and a $1,500 fine after he pleaded guilty on Wednesday to misdemeanor charges stemming from his involvement in a break-in at Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D-La.) office.

In January, O’Keefe and three others were arrested by federal authorities at Landrieu’s office on allegations of phone-tampering.

Prosecutors initially said they caught four individuals in the process of committing a felony, but the charges were later reduced to misdemeanors.Activist (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Include Safran Foer?

Should Jonathan Safran Foer be included in the contemporary muckraker list? He recently wrote a book (Eating Animals) in which he extensively criticizes the bio-industry in the US. In the sense that he's seeking to expose the poor conditions for animals in the industry and the risks involved for consumers, one could argue he's trying to expose the way this big business is really working. There may be no fraud, but there is certainly a very big problem, and he's arguing against it. This could be considered an attack on a big institution (the bio-industry). Would this pass for muckracking? Jhmommers (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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, 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-

Pulling Moore off the list. There is a great deal of doubt about his truthfulness. Having him listed here would lead to the conclusion that muckraking is propagandism or yellow journalism. If we're going to include Moore, then we need to include journalists on the right, such as Hannity. Izuko (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

MM belongs on the list for the very reason that he is the quintessential 21st century muckraker (truth-challenged and all). And for that same reason Drudge does not belong here. I'll try to dig up my old notes on this from J-school and add some sources. I actually studied it for a semester. Stop the revisionism. This is ridiculous.Konastephen (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

Agree. Drudge is a polemicist. Though he runs a news aggregation site, he doesn't do any real investigative journalism of his own. Not that it makes what he does any more or any less important. It just means he doesn't really fit the definition here. He doesn't rake the muck, he lets people know that other people raked it. Izuko (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Drudge is a polemicist? How so? Just because he scooped a huge story that turned out to be a highly inconvenient truth to the progressives in power at the time? Tell us exactly how his "news aggregation" is any different than what the desk editors at any major media outlet do and how that relegates Drudge to the status of non-journalist.Konastephen (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2010 (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)

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)

I just want to be on record that imho this intro is too POV. "Muckraking" has been a controversial practice in journalism. At the very very least it should be noted that there are other less dewy-eyed views of the term (let alone the practice). Here's a citation that ought to be plugged in somewhere. Kelter, Diana (25 February 2009). "Muckraking:The good and the bad". http://iowajournalism.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/muckraking-the-good-and-the-bad/. 

I particularly object to the immediate association of muckraking with truthfulness in the opening sentence. That does disservice to all the journalists throughout the centuries who have held themselves to higher standards than the Progressivist muckrakers of Roosevelt's time. As I recall, muckraking is more connected to sensationalism and shock-value than truthfulness. Konastephen (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

American "muckrakers" have held to a high standard of factual accuracy, in the U.K. the term is sometimes used to indicate sensationalism. However, the primary focus of this article is about those writers and reporters in the United States, such as Ida Tarbel and so on. Calicocat (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

-No, Calicocat, YankeeRoman is right. I just read the entire speech. The snippet in the article is taken out of context. In fact, before AND after that portion of the speech, he talks down about what the contemporary muckrakers of his time were doing. At one point he says that some of them should be put in a penitentiary. If that isn't slamming, I don;t know what is. CONTEXT is important in this one. Nicklink483 (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

I agree that focus on the practice would be better knowledge management. Of course our unquenchable ideological divide will continue to act as a watershed in terms of who falls where. For some the term muckraker (like the term progressive) will never be more than a dismissive pejorative epithet. For others it's a badge of honor like the red star on the crowns of their revolution-retro Kurtz caps. The best that could be done here is to fully and fairly elucidate all angles of that reality in conjunction with this concept. I think that would be better done under the rubric of the practice. A≠non-A (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

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)

This article needs some vandalism cleaned up, I'm just not the one to do it. Here's the problem:

"An example of a contemporary muckraker work is Ralph Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed (1965) and one of the more unknown from the early period is Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, (1906) which, respectively, led to yee-haw!'s automotive manufacturing and meat packing in the United States." [Emphasis added]

The Jungle is a classic book, and the farthest thing from an "unknown."

Also, "yee-haw!" has no place in this article, but I'm not sure what was originally there. I'm not sure how to repair all the damage in this sentence.

Pigactor (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a ton of vandalism throughout this talk page. If I had more WP-powers I would camp on this article and this talk page until it's reliably legit. For now, someone ought to flag the snot out of this thing. POV for starters. Vandalism. And the issue of whether or not it ought to be a sub-section of a better-written article on the practice of muckraking. Is there any way to ensure that lefty student activists with their freshly-washed brains and their brand new little grind-axes can't sign on after the bars around campus close? A≠non-A (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Al Gore's place on list questionable.

As listed in the article itself, muckraker is defined as "an individual who seeks to expose or reveal the real or apparent corruption of public officials or business to the public". To this point, as Al Gore is not pointing out anything to do with "public officials", he doesn't really belong. Also, as he is only pointing out his opinion on "global warming" and "climate change" and not actual "corruption" his mission doesn't fit. He is only opening up the debate.

It would be more in line to include Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck as muckrakers, as they do dig into the "apparent corruption of public officials". I hope the fact that one is an independant and the other is a conservative and both lean right doesn't disqualify them. 70.108.87.200 (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Every single dumbass in the list of modern day muck rackers is uncited and retarded as hell. Andrew Breitbart? Are you fcking kidding me? He's a shithead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.181.220 (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If Breitbart is a shithead, then all hail shitheads! He took down ACORN. So muck off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeypanto (talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

As for the issue of O'Reilly or Beck, the issue is that their truthfulness is debatable. I think Beck gets it mostly right, most of the time, but that's not consensus. Muckrakers from time past are easier to confirm with the spotlight of history being able to verify their claims. In short, we haven't had enough time to determine whether O'Reilly and Beck belong in a category with the muckrakers, or with Michael Moore. Actually, from that perspective, the modern muckraker section might ought to be removed for anyone who's been in the practice in the past ten years. Izuko (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

See now I would have said that we have had time to know that the Fox folks belong in a new 21st century class of truth-focused journalists and not with Michael Moore, the three big networks, the NYT and the rest of the obsolete muckraker holdovers from the 20th century. So I suppose that having said that, I ought to brace myself for a stream of pseudo-eloquent expletives. A≠non-A (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary muckrakers list OR?

The Contemporary muckrakers list strikes me as OR By what criteria do we establish that someone is a muckraker? Do we have a reliable source that says that these people are muckrackers? If so, lets see it. Bonewah (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely agree that reliable sources are needed for such a section. As it is, I think a majority of the article requires a re-write to provide not only a suitable historical background but contemporary influences. Perhaps this should be a future project/collaboration. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

While any article can be improved with more references and so on, the writers mentioned herein also have articles and those articles list their works, many of the works also have articles. Links are given to the writers and their major works. These links to other articles about the writers and links to their works seem sufficient to me, but, of course, any article can be improved. This article has suffered from systemic vandalism in the past and so, before making bold edits, please discuss them here first so that consensus can be achieved. Calicocat (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue with using other Wikipedia articles for references, of course, is original research by synthesis. It also goes against WP:V, WP:RS, etc. There are several books dedicated to "Modern Muckrakers" and contemporary investigative journalism, so finding reliable sources to flesh out such a section would certainly not be difficult. The problem I see with such a section in its current format is the fact that it's a catch-all for anyone's idea of a muckraker. This article truly needs to be stripped and rewritten, with an emphasis on the historical -- since that's where the essence of a muckraker truly lies. Were I to completely rewrite the article from scratch (which I am seriously considering), I'll be sure to post updates to the talk page. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest you do it in your sandbox and then work to build some consensus on it. I tend to agree regarding the catch-all nature of the contemporary muckrakers section and have had to remove several names that people just slam in without good cause. As I mentioned before, this article has been subjected to systemic vandalism and I have twice had to pull it back to something more valid with sources and examples. Let's hope we're not going to see that happen again. Calicocat (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I tend to not work with sandboxes, although of course that's a valid suggestion. I've had the article watched for several days now, and I must say that from the look of the talk page and article history, it doesn't seem to attract too much in the way vandalism or edit warring; it is stable and there are seemingly no disputes, other than the crufty lists of muckraking participants that seem to attract flies. I've seen much worse. Anyway, I won't be getting my hands dirty anytime soon, but as you can see from what I added earlier today, there are numerous works to pull from to create a far more encyclopedic article. Such an important subject matter really deserves better coverage. María (habla conmigo) 00:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, however you like to work is fine. I'm always glad to have good editor involved in any article; I'm sure your attention and contributions will be useful.Calicocat (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that the contemporary list is OR but it has to do with the real influence of the original muckrakers beyond their era. In most of the contemparary individual instances, I think anybody would have a hard time verifying the assertion of a direct influence. Overall, I think the article needs tweakd. Muckraking refers both to an era of journalism -- one that occurred during the Progressive Period in the United States -- and the use of investigative journalism to improve conditions. I would propose a new section for all of those who have been influenced by the muckrakers in later years and continue to use investigative reporting techniques to affect change in that tradition. Tightening of the definition would lead to changes in the introduction. Of course, there will be some overlap with investigative journalists and alternative journalists. I'm interested in a reaction about this proposal. Dobry 08:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DobryDamour (talk • contribs)

I think it's a bit odd that Woodward and Bernstein are listed together, like a pair of Siamese twins.

Of course, both became famous for the exposure of the Watergate affair, working together. The relationship became more frayed as time wore on and Bernstein became less productive and his behavior more problematic. Woodward, however, turned into a suckup.

There's a good quote that I serendipitiously ran across in WikiQuotes, a moment ago:

"The job of the writer is to kiss no ass, no matter how big and holy and white and tempting and powerful."

Ken Kesey

That might be helpful in sorting out who is, and who is not, a "muckraker" in the non-pejorative sense.

Breitbart? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha... Activist (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to make a suggestion that would not resolve the existence of different points of view on this topic, but might help readers:

Why don't we insert a short, explanatory paragraph, right underneath the headline "Contemporary Muckrakers", in which we briefly sum up a couple of the issues raised here and in other sections of the talk page. Such as: is the term "muckraker" fitting for non-journalists?; is ist fitting for jounalists who are working some 100 years after the term was coined?; what are the criteria for someone to make the list?; etc. Just so that readers will not gobble up that list without thinking or judging for themselves, or throwing in one of this lot with one of the early muckrakers without pause for thought. -- Otto von B (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Would Wikileaks be considered a Muckraker?

Would Wikileaks be considered a Muckraker? 99.155.153.68 (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Wikileaks is an example of a Muckraker per se. The site has published some important documents but since they have not engaged in reporting or writing as such, I don't think they are appropriately characterized as such, but it's an interesting question. Calicocat (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

On November 25, 2010 CNN referred to Wikileaks as a Muckraker: "The threat of publication of thousands of sensitive diplomatic cables by a muckraker website has prompted a massive review of documents at U.S. embassies around the world, a U.S. official says." ChrisBrown (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Focus

If one looks at all of the headings and comments here, then the general theme and the problem with this article becomes apparent. Editors are more concerned with contemporaries who have been influenced by the muckraker tradition. The problem is that muckraking is an era of journalism tied to the first 20 years of the 20th century. Its adherents used in-depth reporting and investigative techniques. They also, in the spirit of the time, believed that they could improve conditions of modern society. What is problematic? Their later influence on reporters and those who are not necessarily journalists was real. The problem is that the attention to those who came afterward detracts from the main topic of the article. A refocused article may still have to address their later influence. Is there a way to revise this in a collective spirit that would not be disruptive but would account for one of major reasons why so many people are interested in the original muckrakers. The article is about them. Isn't it? (I stated some of these point below under "OR"/"original research by synthesis," but focus is also a big picture problem with this particular article.) It goes back to the definition of muckraking and how strict or loose one uses the term. Right now it's so loose that it lumps journalists, non-journalists, alternative journalists, bloggers, an investigative reporters into one big grab bag that is essentially useless. Dobry 18:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC) comment added by DobryDamour (talk • contribs)

Conservative Muckrakers COMPLETELY ignored in this article

This article was edited by leftists exclusively. Conservative commentators who have skewered faulty distortions of "progressive" American values are also muckrakers because they attack the egalitarian and anti-capitalist assumptions of progressives in power. They need not be journalists to be a muckraker, just well-published in periodicals and topical. Here's a brief list: 1. H. L. Mencken 2. Ayn Rand 3. W. F. Buckley 4. Robert Welch 5. Phyllis Schlafly 6. Pat Buchanan 7. Robert Novak 8. William Safire 9. Thomas Sowell 10. Rush Limbaugh 11. Matt Drudge 12. Arianna Huffington (before her defection) 13. Roger Ailes 14. Bill O'Reilly 15. Dennis Prager 16. Andrew Breitbart 17. Sean Hannity 18. Brent Bozell 19. R. Emmett Tyrell 20. Ann Coulter 21. Nick Gillespie 22. John Stossel 23. Andrew Napolitano 24. Larry Elder 25. James O'Keefe 26. Mark Levin 27. Bernard Goldberg 28. Hugh Hewitt 29. Neil Boortz 30. Dennis Miller 31. Glenn Beck

{{citations needed}}. See WP:V, and edit accordingly. Also AGF of your fellow editors. María (habla conmigo) 17:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

I would like to do a major edit on this article to completely strip away any modern as "muckraker" is a textbook journalist from the first decades of the 20th century. My proposal is that if someone feels strongly about a journalist from the present eera who has been influenced by the early muckrakers, then they find a reference that says the person was influenced by those journalists and then edit that journalist's page and put a link to the Muckrakers. Every discussion of a journalist after the 1930s ruins the focus of the article. My proposal is to tighten the definition to the era, professional journalists, and delete ALL references to journalists after 1930. Can I get some feedback first? --Dobry 17:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DobryDamour (talk • contribs)

While I agree that the article desperately needs an overhaul (a year ago I made similar comments in an above thread), I don't think it possible to completely strip away all contemporary mentions of muckrakers/muckraking. A quick glance at WorldCat shows that there are several books that refer to mid and/or late 20th century authors as "muckrakers". Perhaps a "Legacy" section would suit this article better than the largely unsourced "Contemporary muckrakers" list. If you do plan on overhauling the article,keep in mind that reliable sources need to be utilized per WP:RS and WP:V. If you need help in this department, let me know. María (habla conmigo) 18:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yllosubmarine! I don't doubt that there are references to modern muckrakers in WorldCat. The problem is that there are two uses of the term. One use is the specific term used to define an era of journalism. The other use is a more general expression that covers those journalists or even non-journalists who investigate for real change and were inspired by the original muckrakers. Any textbook in journalism or mass communication (e.g., the classic Emery & Emery) refers to Muckrakers by the more specific meaning. I think Wikipedia loses some credibility by not being precise. Btw, I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm confused about whether I should use the sandbox or just make the change. What do you suggest? -- DobryDamour (talk —Preceding undated comment added 04:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC).

Sandbox edits are not required, although if you would like input from other editors before those changes go "live", you could certainly create a sandbox to write a mock-up of what you envision for the article. I see several issues with your proposed structure. Although I certainly agree with your overall point (this article sucks), the word "muckraker", which is the title of this article, it is such that it doesn't make a distinction between its historical definition and what it means for writers/journalists of the mid- to late-20th century. A distinction can be made in various headings and subheadings within the article itself, but the latter definition cannot be entirely ignored. This article isn't titled Muckrakers (early 19th century). As this talk page shows, users and editors who stumble upon this page of course see muckraking's implications in today's media, and the sources show that the term has evolved and grown to incorporate authors other than those who made the term famous in the 1910s and 20s. To erase this modern definition would be to ignore a large part of what muckraking has become, which would create an article just as imbalanced as if it were to only discuss Rachel Carson, Glenn Beck, and others. Our goal here is to create a balanced and comprehensive article. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Also, remember to sign your name with four tildes (~~~~), not three. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yllosubmarine, you're making some very good points. As I see it, you are saying you would rather be descriptive rather than proscriptive. What requirements would you suggest in order for a journalist (/non-journalist?) to be included as a contemporary? That's the key question people (see above) are asking. (I used 4 tildes this time! Hope it works) -- Dobry 16:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DobryDamour (talk • contribs)

It all comes down to what reliable, third-party sources say. It's not enough for some reason person on a talk page (including me!) to say that so-and-so reporter/journalist is a modern-day muckraker, it has to be substantiated. Quite a bit of research needs to be done with this topic, so the contemporary/legacy section(s) may only a small part of the whole picture, of course. My main point, however, is that it cannot be ignored completely because sources re: contemporary examples do exist, from what I've seen with a quick, preliminary search. María (habla conmigo) 16:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Include Louis D. Brandeis?

I think Brandeis schould definitely make the list, especially for his 1914 book "Other People's Money And How the Bankers Use It".

Check here for details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_People%27s_Money_And_How_the_Bankers_Use_It

If no-one is objecting, I will insert him into the article one day. -- Otto von B (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)