Raking a dirty muck, Making a better society

The word “muckraker” was first used by Theodore Roosevelt, whose tenure was the golden age of the Progressive Era. At that time, progressivism was an ultimate goal of people from so broad areas – including politics, economics, labor and race - so that it cannot be easily defined. Mass media, of course, participated in the progressive movement. Journalists made every effort to search for unpleasant aspects of government affairs and businesses. They did not hesitate to “rake” all the “mucks” in their society. Thus, Theodore Roosevelt named those people as “muckrakers”. Although the word “muckraker” has a negative connotation in itself, muckrakers indeed performed positive roles by revealing all the dirty aspects of the society. They released bribery of politicians, corruption of companies, poor working conditions, unsanitary foods, and other matters.

One of the most prominent muckrakers in the Progressive Era was Upton Sinclair, the winner of Pulitzer Prize in 1943. When he wrote his novel “The Jungle”, he originally intended to rake the muck of harmful working conditions in meatpacking industry. However, people reacted to the novel unlike the expectation of Sinclair. The public focused more on the unsanitary conditions of meatpacking rather than the poor labor situation. Later Sinclair frankly stated that "I aimed at the public's heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach." Although his initial goal was not achieved, he greatly contributed to the society anyway. People, frightened by the lack of sanitation in meatpacking industry, decreased their meat consumption by half. Not only the public, but also the government harshly criticized the meatpacking industry. Thanks to “The Jungle”, the U.S. could introduce Pure Food and Drug Act and Meat Inspection Act. In summation, the whole society was benefited from the dirty work of muckraking.

Muckrakers played a vital role in societies after the Progressive Era as well. Morgan Spurlock, the director of
“Supersize Me”, also pointed out the unpleasant features of America in 2004. In his movie “Supersize Me”, he elaborated on the overweight problem of the U.S., by eating only super-size McDonald’s hamburgers for 30 days. The result of his experiment gave immense shock to the public. He not only gained weights of 11kg, but suffered from mood swings, sexual dysfunction and accumulation of fat in his liver as well. His physical and psychological sacrifice was compensated by the awakening of the public as well as McDonald’s. It can be taken for granted that the revenue of McDonald’s plummeted for a while. In addition, all the super-size hamburgers were removed from menu and McDonald’s opened every ingredient of hamburgers to public. It is hard to doubt that Morgan Spurlock is a beneficial muckraker who made the U.S. healthy.

In addition to Spurlock, the most recent and outstanding case of muckraking is WikiLeaks, which has disclosed countless secrets of governments and nations. Among those secret documents, the reveal of corrupt Tunisia government led to the Jasmine Revolution and raised the public discontent towards military rules in Northern Africa. Such dissatisfaction even spread to Egypt, where Mubarak resigned as a consequence of the public’s needs for democracy. Obviously, WikiLeaks raked the mucks and removed them, too. Although it is controversial to judge whether Julian Assange is a modern Che Guevara in the Digital Age or just an extreme cyber-terrorist since WikiLeaks is so recent, at the very least, the public noticed that their governments and nations have hidden tremendous sums of “mucks”. In other words, the public learned that they are the victims of inequality of information. Such awakening of the public, done by a modern muckraker, should not be underestimated.

In conclusion, as Mitford once said, the term “muckraker” has more to do with “positive” than “negative”. As the aforementioned examples of Upton Sinclair, Morgarn Spurlcok and Julian Assange demonstrate, muckrakers are street cleaners in society. They deal with “muck” that no one feel inclined to be in charge of so that they ultimately contribute to the society.

Viral Infamy

          Fame matters. These days, people are literally obsessed with fame. All the teenagers admire celebrities at their age and so-called superstars are treated as if they have greatly contributed to humanity. From time to time, however, some achieve fame, which is an ultimate goal for others, relatively easily. In fact, they become famous without their purposed intention or calculated plan. In other words, some are forced to be famous regardless of they like it or not. “I Like Turtles” boy is the very apotheosis for this argument. His stupidity made him a national – or global to some extent – celebrity, who is always in people’s and media’s close attention. Although some people may envy the “I Like Turtles” boy’s fortune, it is not a fortune, but a misfortune in core. He boasted his inanity to the public at the expense of his fame. In fact, the fame of “I Like Turtles” boy is misguided in that it is infamy. Like the case of “I Like Turtles” boy, 10-second fame is more to do with infamy, not fame.

             A case in point is the “Subway Immorality Girl” in Korea. On October 4^th 2010, a video taken by phone camera was uploaded on the YouTube and became a popular gossip at that time. At the video, a teenage girl fought with an old lady, who seemed to be more than 70 years old. When netizens first come up with the video, they harshly blamed the teenager for her immorality since such rude behaviors towards the old are hard to be understood in Korea, which has been profoundly influenced by the Cofucian culture. Therefore, netizens actively sought for her personal information such as her name, age, habitat and phone-number. Soon, the teenager was socially ostracized and became the symbol of sin against heaven. However, later it was known that the old lady, who fought with the little girl, was notorious for her provocation to others in subway line 2. According to the witnesses, even if the girl apologized to the old woman for unintended collision between them for several times, the old lady incessantly insulted the girl and even her parents. In summation, both of them deserve to be criticized. In this case, however, the real problem is not the immorality of Korean society, but the thoughtless publication of their individual information. Although they are not people to be respected, it does not necessarily mean that their privacy can be infringed on.

             The identical concern should be considered in a similar case: “Subway Molester” accident. Just like the aforementioned example, a video about this accident was publicized on the Internet so that anyone could have an access to molestation. In the video, a middle-aged man molested a drunken lady who was in lack of consciousness due to excessive alcohol. Although it could be taken for granted that subway is a public space, the man dared to molest her. His boldness – stupidity in other words – led to a sorrowful tragedy to him. Not only he turned himself to the police, his private information, especially his face, became accessible to the public. Accordingly, his ephemeral mistake at the moment consequently wrecked havoc on his whole life. He was punished more than he should be. Also, the privacy of the victim was violated as well in that her face was clearly recorded in the video without any mosaic. Though her only fault was immoderate intake of alcohol, she could do nothing but live with the immense sense of shame and humiliation.

             In both cases, the real problem is that the personal information of malefactors as well as victims was so easily spread to the public. Of course, their immorality, bellicose characteristics and law-breaking should be blamed or punished. However, that their behaviors were recorded in videos cannot justify the publication of their individual information to the public. It is simply an additional punishment that cannot be legitimized. While the “I Like Turtles” boy will ruin Oprah's whole day, the thoughtless publication of trouble-makers’ private information will ruin their whole lives.

KyuhongLee

KyuhongLee