So much has happened so quickly in this era of American Modernization. Today we talked about Theodore Roosevelt's feelings on Muckrakers and corruption present in cities. What are the strengths and weaknesses of TR's argument that hysterical and indiscriminate muckraking was doing more harm than good? Bring anything you have read that could help us evaluate his position.
28 comments:
The reason Roosevelt is upset with the muckrakers is because the muckrakers are exposing the poor sanitation in meat making business and as long as that continues, no one will buy the meat, which is bad for business. The government doesn't care about the people, they care about business. Roosevelt didn't really like the muckrakers because they always got the publics attention.
While cautioning about possible hazards of keeping one's attention downward, "on the muck," Roosevelt emphasized the social benefit of investigative muckraking reporting in his speech, saying:
"There are, in the body politic, economic and social, many and grave evils, and there is urgent necessity for the sternest war upon them. There should be relentless exposure of and attack upon every evil man whether politician or business man, every evil practice, whether in politics, in business, or in social life..." But TR stated that muckraking was doing more harm than good because a muckraker's reporting may span businesses and government, which is bad on his part.
Muckracking is to search for and expose real or alleged corruption, scandal, or the like, especially in politics. In Theodore Roosevelts arguement he expresses disapproval with the muckrakers doings. With the Muckrackers exposing the unsanitation in the meat business effected business overall which Roosevelt didnt like. This arguement did harm to his character because he was keeping health issues from his fellow citizens just to save business that would benefit him.
Mukracking had both its advantages and disadvantages. Muckrackers exposed the corruption within the government and businesses. This gave citizens a chance to see that the government was not worried about the citizens, the government was only looking out for companies and themselves. Muckracking exposed the truth even if it disgusted the people who read their journals, for example the spoiled meat situation. The people may have been disgusted but it opened up a window for change. Muckrackers may have seemed like a nuisance but they were looking out for the people because the government was not.
By stating that the Jungle shouldn't have been written unless backed up " with testimony that would satisfy an honest man of reasonable intelligence", TR's arguement becomes weak. I feel that he's being hypocritical because he isn't exactly an ideal honest man himself.
Roosevelt felt as though that the muckraking was was a big "infestation" because they brought light to numerous problems within his presidency. He sought this to be a problem because the public was begin to question his leadership skills and his ability to run the country.
I agree with Tanisha. Muckraking did have both a good and bad side. The good side to muckracking journalism was that it exposed the "evils" within America; however, the downside was that sometimes muckrakers over exaggerated the situations that they wrote about.
TR's argument that muckraking was doing more harm than good was strong because when muckrakers exposed dangerous, unsanitary working conditions, they provoked the people to not only rebel against their jobs but demand changes, all of which fell back on the president. TR's argument was weak because muckrakers were showing the public the harmful conditions and inciting the people to demand change,which is a good thing for the people and TR claimed to want the best for the people. His argument would be weak because it would be contradicting himself and what he wanted for the country.
I agree with what everyone has stated before. That muckraking was used to expose abuses, and circulating information about the misconduct happening in society. With that being said, in the end, with the pros and cons established, muckraking was doing more good than harm because there were many reforms that developed and legislative changes which occurred.
Theodore Roosevelt argued that muckrakers were focused on the evils of American society, that the muckrakers failed to notice “the vision of America's promise.”
Example: "But the man who never does anything else, who never thinks or speaks or writes, save of his feats with the muck rake, speedily becomes, not a help but one of the most potent forces for evil." (second and third paragraph of the Spirit Book describes that Roosevelt) He believed that muckraker was just going to far.
Of course muckraking was a good thing for American society, it exposed the weaknesses and huge flaws within America's new industries and cities. No regulations or controls were put on these businesses and the government turned a blind eye to the huge trusts that developed, so they pretty much ran wild. Roosevelt had an issue with muckrakers because they showed the frailties of buisnesses that dealt with things that people couldn't do without like coal or clothes or meat, and these industries had control over legislation and enough money to battle it out with the president
I agree with Tanisha, that muckraking had its advantages and disadvantages. I would compare it to a double edged sword, corruption was exposed but it did more harm then good. TR also made that observation by explaining how any corruption should be made known but he is against muckraking because of the harm it does for the government and business.TR further explains how not only do the people guilty of the corruption not get punished but the innocent do.
As We all know Muckrakers were Journalist who turned American society upside down by exposing corruption and informing readers about important social issues. Because Muckrakers exposed the wongdoings of businesses and cooperations. Theodore Roosevelt opposed these muckrakers because not only did they expose cases of government and corporate corruption, child labor, environmental abuse, and rising crime but they also caused "more harm then good" by destroying public faith in the government which upset TR the most. Muckrakers were looking out for the common interest of the people and actually protecting the citizens from the government and businesses which is the governments job. The government and other officials are suppose to "serve and protect the people" but they are only interested in self-success eventhough America is supppose to be a country "by the peope ,for the people".
The goal of the muckrakers were to expose the bad of society to the public. It grasped the attention of the public which angered Roosevelt. He claimed that they were doing more harm than good. Muckrakers thought they were doing good because they exposed the corruption, and the bad of society. In Roosevelt's eyes, he saw that they made the society worse. Roosevelt says that muckrakers are over exaggerating, and were "profit seeking."
After reading Lenice's comment I just had a random thought about cellphone companies....they seem like a trust. Need more competition to lower the prices.
I agree with Tanisha saying that muckraking had its advantages as well as their disadvantages. But I think the advantages of muckraking out weigh the disadvantages that Roosevelt put forth. He claimed that muckraking was for a self gain,some kind of profit. But I disagree, the muckrakers exposed the problems, the dilemmas, the mess of the nation so that it could be changed. The people of the nation would benefit....
I agree with those stated before. Muckracking exposed the weaknesses and huge flaws within America's new industries and cities. . Teddy Roosevelt opposed these muckrakers because they exposed cases of government and corporate corruption, child labor, environmental abuse, and rising crime and they also caused "more harm then good" Because the people lost trust for the government.
It’s true, Muckrakers were held responsible for the people’s rebellion acts toward businesses in the progressive era. However, their only purpose was to expose the wickedness of the on-going government and business' scandalous. In other words, they were FOR the people because they believed that society should be able to have the right to know what’s really going on among America. Personally, I think it was hypercritical of Roosevelt to publicly accuse them for wrong-doing. In this case, it makes society wonders if Roosevelt is as progressive as he makes it seem. So far, all he’s really doing is saving himself and defending his presidency position.
Rooselvelt argued that muckraking was doing more harm than good as it make financial and political profit out of the destruction of character. The muckrakers resented his attacks and clamied that even if they were exaggerated, they were exposing evil conditions and promoting desirable legislation, in which Roosevelt was unconvinced.
I agree with most. The muckracking exposed the poor conditions and wrongdoings of businesses which proved harmful to the people. This of course, plummeted sales and business took a great decline. Roosevelt felt this was unjust but the task of a president is to look out for the people of your nation. Maybe the muckrackers did exaggerate some but the accounts most likely held some substance of truth and Roosevelt should have put the people before money.
Like what Lenice said, "[muckrakers] exposed the weaknesses and huge flaws within America's new industries and cities". I agree, because if muckrakers never stated these concerns or issues it could have led to a huge epidemic. TR's stand was that muckraking was evil and was hurting businesses. Since he was a man for the people he should have took these concerns that muckrakers brought up seriously and try to resolve the issues within the new industries.
I agree with Diana the quote that she uses emphases how TR though pointing out the bad the muckrakers her also emphases what good they could do & the effect in general that they have on society, and the government. TR is obviously against muckrakers but still sees some point in their presents
Muckrakers are necessary for society to highlight its ills. TR did not appreciate the muckrakers because he felt as though they only cause public calamity. I thought about the Philadelphia SD and the recent failing score and little funding. As more and more bad news leaks or is exposed (reminds me of gilded age because favors are being exposed) the more calamity take shape. While some argue the SD is a case of improvement (in certain schools). The truth is that there are ills/ problems and recently the outing of these problems like the those during TR's presidency are sore to the eyes and need to be fixed since they effect the mass.
Like Tanisha said muckrakers help as well as hurt society. Roosevelt failed to mention that what they were saying had some truth to it even if the truth was exaggerated. He focused mainly on the negatives and how they were starting trouble when really they were exposing the unseen horrors that infested Society. Stating both sides of the story would have improved his argument because wouldn't wiuldnt have been so one sided and like he was covering up the bad things.
I agree with most, the muckrakers were exposing the dirt and the corruption in society. TR saw this as a problem because it clearly effected the countries financial state. After hearing about what happened in the meat factories, they didnt want to purchase the meat. This would be seen as a problem for any president.
The Muckrakes were good and bad. The good thing was the Muckrakes showed people the truth about meat productions but Roosevelt exaggerated about the situation to get the people on his side. The bad thing was the Muckrakes only cared about themselves. The Muckrakes didn't care about the people and did anything in their power to people in the middle class. The Muckrakes controlled the government and did everything in their favor.
Muckrakers not only reveal America's corruption but they also shows how America has failed as a democracy. Bailey gives examples of this when he includes political corruption and TD's three c's (control of the corporations, consumer protection, and conservation of natural resources). Since the muckraking is revealing so many of society's flaws, Roosevelt feels that this damages the society, leading to a diverse and brittle nation.
The strengths and weakness of TR's argument vary with view but to point out the obvious you can say his strengths would be the fact that he is muckrakers were doing harsh damage on society by airing their dirty laundry. Which created a riffle in the economic system due to less people purchasing meat products after hearing unsanitary process of it reaching the conveyer belt. But this also is a weakness of his arguement as you then must think if why this effects the economy;it only effects the economy because less people are buying the product less people are buying the product because they now the truth. They know the health risking truth of such products, not only have the muckrakers articles help benefit the health of society but also the sanitation level as they later put in codes or worker to supervise the meat process and make sure none of it is deadly. So in the end although the muckrakers created an economic riffle in society it created more good then harm due to the increase on sanitation and human health.
Based off Roosevelt's arguments he did not approve the way Muckrakers expose society for what it really was.For example,they exposed the unsanitary conditions in the meat packing industry .Sinclair was famous for writing the Jungle which gave ammo to their exposing of America imperfections. This caused business to go bad.the government does not care about the people's welfare; they care about businessire than the publics' safety. This caused muckrakers to gain the publics attention causing Roosevelt to dislike them due to their easy access to the publics attention.
Post a Comment