Upton Sinclair: Muckraker, Social Activist and More!

Muckrakers, who are they?

            In short, Mukrakers are journalists who uncover the truth behind scandals and expose them to the public. The term first coined by President Theodore Roosevelt initially had a negative connotation but now is seen as a badge of honor to journalists who are referred to as muckrakers. Typically the opposers of muckrakers are the ones who have something to hid and don't want people like investigative journalists looking into their wrongdoings. 

            Muckraking came about during the late 1800s early 1900s and was a way that journalists created massive social reform, bringing to light different issues within society. This time period was known as the Progressive Era of Journalism. 

            Muckrakers not only worked to uncover lies and secrets within the political sphere but also within big corporations called Robber Barons in which companies were running monopolies. A huge story of this time was about the Standard Oil company as shown in the photo. But more than exposing lies or scandals, Mukrakers also provided a platform for issues in many different areas like child labor laws, urban poverty, unsafe working conditions, and so much more.

            A prime example of a muckraker during this time is Upton Sinclair. He's a man of many hats but grew to prominence after the release of his book The Jungle in 1906, which shed light on the meatpacking industry. Sinclair's goal for the book was to raise awareness of the poor working conditions, but instead, people grew concerned about the sanitary quality of their meat. As Sinclair later said after his book became well known, "I aimed at the public's heart, and instead
, by accident, I hit it in the stomach." 

            Due to his book, Sinclair got the attention of President Roosevelt, who launched a formal investigation into the meatpacking industry where he found all the claims made in the book to be true. This eventually lead to the Meat Inspection Act of 1906; alongside that, Sinclair is also the reason for the Food and Drug Administration being formed and is why we have so many regulations. It is ironic that his actions greatly impacted the American Publics Safety and well-being for generations to come, even when it was at first by accident. 

            Sinclair was one of many investigative journalists turned muckraker and even social reformer that used writing as a way to spark social change. This kind of work in journalism is always inspiring and something the world could use a little more of today. 

Sources:

https://www.history.com/news/gilded-age-progressive-era-reforms

https://fee.org/articles/witch-hunting-for-robber-barons-the-standard-oil-story/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIJNjOzowuE&t=246s

Drones, the Future of Journalism Reporting?

            As drones are growing in popularity I began to think about their usefulness in capturing different perspectives and how this is a tool that could be used by Journalists in the near future. The possibilities are endless for being able to report live on events with the quick accessibility of drones. Going forward I can see many news outlets and platforms making use of drones as they easily allow for living streaming breaking stories. Flying a drone will enable them to showcase on air hard to see and reach areas of a conflict whether it be a wildfire, traffic crash, protest, and more. Drones will eventually replace the need for news helicopters as they are smaller and certainly cheaper to maintain, and again, drones can get places a lot easier because of their size. The video above describes some of the other aspects that give journalists an advantage in their reporting when they use drones. It will be interesting to see how the use of drones evolve within journalism, it's definitely something to watch. 

Sources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCi49iOzv7M

https://www.fastcompany.com/1835533/why-flying-drones-are-future-journalism
https://www.journaliststoolbox.org/2021/05/01/drones-and-vr-journalism/

EOTO #2- Reflection JOU Heros Jackie Ormes

 During our second EOTO Journalism Hero presentations, I was excited to learn about groundbreaking modern journalists. The presentation that stood out to me most was by my peer Bianca Bullock. She covered the life and work of Jackie Ormes.

Jackie Ormes was the first-ever syndicated black female cartoonist; within her work, she was able to speak out about social justice through her art. Even when the cartoons were sometimes shocking and provocative for the publics' mindset, she didn't let that fear hold her back from using her platform and standing up for what she thought was right. 

In her early years, Ormes got her start through drawing for her high school yearbook, illustrating her peers and teachers. Her first official publication came after sending a letter to the editor of the Pittsburgh Courier, an African-American weekly newspaper. She then was given a job at the paper as a proofreader. Many years later, Ormes made her first comic strip titles "Torchy Brown in Dixie, to Harlem." The cartoon follows a story narrative about a singer. 

The part of the presentation on Jackie Ormes that made me want to write about her is the cartoon below. It conveys a pointed sentence criticizing society for the reason behind the brutal lynching and murder of Emmit Till: whistling. Although in this cartoon, Ormes flips the race and portrays it as if it had been a white person whistling. Not to mention how clever she was in being able to convey all this through a subtle cartoon depicting a kettle. I was very impressed by her forethought and genius to depict this social justice through a simple yet deep cartoon. 

Final Blog: Wars, the Press and the Public

Credit The Daily Star

            The power of the press to influence public opinion is unmatched, and government officials understand that very well. Thinking about the fourth estate and what it means in terms of journalism, it's an idea of journalists working hand in hand with the government, reporting on what government officials want to be reported and how they want that specific story relayed. This, of course, is an inappropriate relationship. The press should stay out of any tight nit relationships they may have with government officials, as doing so leads to biased reporting. It's reasonable and expected for the press to have clear communication with the government as to have a clear understanding of issues at hand, but it gets tricky
when those relationships turn into favoring certain politicians and trying to alter the public's perception of events; rather than just stating the facts "as is" and leaving it up to the public to make up their own minds. A fundamental role of being a journalist is to present the public with "point-blank" knowledge and facts. Due to this, it is increasingly essential what and how the news media reports on the government because what the news sources say influences public opinion, and public opinion turns into how citizens vote and controls who is elected into office. 

            When referencing the term "Watchdog Journalism," it implies a protective oversight that journalists have over the government reporting on any misdemeanors or discrepancies. Journalists in this role essentially check the government and make sure nothing suspicious is going on behind the scenes that the public is unaware of, even when those things are critical, and paint the government in a negative light. The "Watchdog" roles of a journalist are even more critical when it comes to war times as it allows for supervision over government official's actions and how their choices impact the public and the greater world. In recent years, this watchdog role was primarily missing in action during the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. Many journalists spoke in favor of the president's choice. They didn't do much to examine the facts or see outside of what he and his administration were projecting, which unfortunately turned out to be primarily false claims and whims.  

            With social media and the ability to receive news within seconds of it occurring growing at alarming rates, journalists are scrutinized more with how they report. Looking at even 20 years ago, when this sensation first started to happen with the Bush Administration, Journalists were under much pressure to write positively and in favor of President Bushes' policies. For historical context, at the time, the United States had just undergone the 2001 September 11th terrorist attacks, which struck a chord with every American. Across the country, the public shared in this incredible level of American patriotism, as everyone came together and commiserated over this horrific tragedy. 

Iraqi Journalist Throws a shoe at Bush in 2008

               Due to this, the Bush Administration was under a high amount of pressure to hold someone accountable for the events of September 11th. So they kept projecting to every news outlet that the person responsible for the attacks was Saddam Hussein which later turn out to be wrong. Unfortunately, no one wanted to go against the administration. Doing so was seen as unpatriotic and therefore unamerican, so primarily, all mainstream media remained supportive of the Bush Administration's claims without looking further or criticizing his decision to go to war. Everyone was too afraid to be chastised or to say something that was unpopular, it is a ruthless, cutthroat environment to live in. During President Bush's second term he was holding a press conference and an Iraqi journalist even threw both his shoes at him saying "This is a farewell kiss from the Iraqi people, dog" "This is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq." Today, the Bush Administration remains controversial for his decision to go to war with Iraq.      

            After watching the Bill Moyers special on PBS about the press's behavior during the U.S government's invasion of Iraq, I was shocked. One clip that stood out to me most was when President Bush was holding a press conference discussing the attacks of 9/11, and he reads off a pre-selected list of journalists he was meant to call on in a very scripted manner. It was crazy to see the rapport these journalists seemed to have with him; it was very "buddy-buddy" and accurately showed how swayed in favor most of these journalists were of the Bush administration at the time. It makes me wonder what the publics' position would have been on entering a war with Iraq had the coverage from the press been more objective and neutral. This ties into "today" and how there is this business of news. Publications and broadcast networks only project popular opinions because they are too concerned with ratings and subscribers not out of care for the public but for the money. It's something the news industry should be wary of, and I hope this growing trend stops. We need outlets that report facts, not popular opinion, because it is what everyone wants to hear or read.   

Yellow Journalism & Sensationalism

Credit Movieposters.com

            Prior to taking this course, I had a fundamental understanding of what Yellow Journalism was. Before, I understood Yellow Journalism as false reporting or propaganda and the press exaggerating narratives. But now I know that it goes a little deeper than that, and Yello Journalism can be very pointed and personal in the way it covers stories and almost attacks people. Watching the 1937 film "They Won't Forget" gave an interesting depiction of yellow journalism in relation to how the press interacts in court cases. As we've discussed in class, news outlets are crucial for controlling how the public obtains information and how they grasp it, so journalists need to be unbiased and keep personal opinions or subjective comments out of their writing. However, this was not the case in the movie. 

            The film's plot follows the case of Robert Hale being suspected of an innocent school girl's death. Throughout the film, the viewer can see the reporter's manipulative attitude with the main detective, who is very concerned with finding who is responsible for the murder, not because he wanted justice, but because he was concerned with his reelection bid. He knew his role was hanging in the balance and would be determined by whether or not he prosecuted someone for this crime... even if it were the wrong person. For the reporter, on the other hand, it was all about having access to the information and story first; no matter what the spin was he was relaying, the report just wanted the hot story and to be the first covering it.  The reporter felt a lot of pressure to make the news interesting and inflammatory so that the public would be interested in reading and following his coverage of the trial.

             As we learn at the end of the film, the innocent school teacher from New York, Robert Hales, ends up being lynched and murdered by angry townspeople who have been "drummed up" to do so by the reporting from the press. There's even one scene in court where the reporter makes inflammatory comments about the two mothers, one being Rober Hale's mom, and the other is the mother of the dead girl. The report goes on to exaggerate the facial expression and builds tension and drama further between the two. During high-profile cases like murder trials, what the press covers and how they relay information is crucial as it affects how people react. In this film, there was a clear representation of the journalists falling into sensational yellow journalism, gaslighting public opinion.

            Paralleling to today there have been many murder trials that have drawn similar public attention and sensationalism from journalists. A prime example of a case in recent memory is the trial of Casey Anthony and the coverage by Nancy Grace.