Talk:Muckraker

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)

As the article states Muckrakers "serve the public interest" but unlike the Man with the Muckrake, from John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, the text quotes 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."

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 financial 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 muckracker. 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-

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)

A lot of the classic muckrakers were selfish hypocrites, so yeah, by that standard, let's throw Michael Moore in there! 2600:1702:1C60:8AB0:E04E:3A0F:27CB:7665 (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Muckraker/Muckraking Perpetuating a Pejorative and a Colloquialism

This whole wiki article legitimizes and perpetuates a term that is intended to marginalize and diminish individuals. It was never intended to exalt or celebrate people that it was applied to - in the past or in the present. It is a pejorative term. And it is a colloquialism in the bargain. No one should be making a list especially in the present stating that certain people should be considered muckrakers; and then as I see in this talk section quibbling about who should be on the list from more recent decades.

I think it is problematic to slant this article in the direction that the term has legitimacy, in the past or in the present. No one would think of doing such a thing with the N-word; muckraker is no more worthy than that. It would be the same as saying these people in the past were referenced as N-words, these people in the present are N-words. No one would ever think to do that.

It should not be acceptable to malign people in the past - and in the present, and act like it is all so academic - when it really isn’t. The article lacks a critical look at the word in terms of the fact it was a slur and is a slur on individuals still. A lot of contributors to this wiki are perpetuating the slur and engaging in slander in the bargain. Then going on to perpetuate a colloquialism.

I would have expected better out of wiki-dom. Bethatuw (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Pejoratives and colloquialisms that are notable are reasonable topics for encyclopedia articles. If you have reliable sources that present significant views on the topic that are not adequately covered in the article, please provide them with suggestions for specific changes to the article. Schazjmd (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)