“MUCKRACKING IN 21ST CENTURY U.S. MEDIA

                  “ Today technology is in its golden age. Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell and many other muckraker never imagined the tools and techniques; spy cams, computers, Freedom of Information searches now make muckraking a very potent form of journalism in 21^st century. The internet has done in the newsroom what the telephone a hundred and more years ago did not. There are no inadequacies, but substantial methods to reach sources and facts rapidly more than ever today. While it is true that the supplemental tools of news gathering has enormously emerged, the days of traditional news organizations as gatekeepers of information are nearly over. They’ve almost lost their watchdog function. This is why we can’t see contemporary muckraking examples in dominating media organizations today.

 The general conception on contemporary muckraking today is not quite optimistic as it is evident by the unsubstantial performance of mainstream media organizations to support this institution. The investigation units have been agonizing for financial and timing props and are often sacrificed for rating wars. Media executives tend to outsource watchdog mission of journalism to non-profit organizations and think-thanks.

 On the other hand we can’t see widespread public demand on muckraking today as much as that was in 18^th and early 19^th centuries. The   public  has always clamored to know more during American Revolution, Vietnam War and Watergate.

   “Muckraking”, in other words “Exposé-Investigative Journalism”, has been eroding in last century, exclusively on major TV networks because of the media executives’ inclination to prevent rising costs, law-suits rather than supporting journalistic efforts. They intend to maximize their revenues which are conducted on weaver ratings and advertisers. This inclination generates sort of chain effects in media industry. As a result, the business of journalism has been emerging to business of entertaining. To see celebrities on primetime news is not surprising and absurd anymore in the middle of a news story reported from Baghdad. The other outcome of this transformation is prognosis of punditry.  Media organizations don’t give any credit to investigative units as they give to their precious pundits.

 Fortunately there are solutions and alternatives to keep muckraking and non-profit news sustainable.  Blogs, non-governmental and non-profit organizations, Investigative Reporters and Editors, Inc. (IRE), philanthropists who support muckrakers, many advocated newspaper reporters who provides deep, detailed and analytical reporting on their books seem to be alternative solutions. Yet re-activating public demand would be the most influential method to remind media organizations their watchdog responsibility.

 In this context, my study aims to analyze the obstacles and solutions in 21st century muckraking with the assistance of recent trends. The first part of the study includes determinative factors of decline of muckraking today in the context of investigative journalism. The second part implicates the solutions and alternatives. 

 I’ve consulted a variety of academic and journalistic resources. I’ve also analyzed studies conducted by PEW Research Center, Columbia Journalism Review, and American Journalism Review, Neiman Foundation, Investigative Reporters and Editors, Inc. (IRE).

 MONEY AND TIMING MATTERS 

 Before we analyzing determinants of declining muckraking, we need to observe general trends in news reporting in U.S media outlets today.  When we ask the question: “How healthy is news reporting in 21^st century?” most of the journalists’ responses are pessimistic. They are not satisfied with the quality of news that has depreciated due to increased bottom-line and financial pressures. These pressures generally tempt news organization to emphasize journalism that’s easier and cheaper to do, that targets the audience that advertisers desire most, and that intends to entertain rather than to inform.  

 According to PEW Research Center’s 2007 survey financial pressure is now overshadowing concern about the quality of news coverage, the flagging credibility of the news media, and other problems that have been very much on the minds of journalists over the past decade. Large majorities of local print journalists (82%) and national print journalists (69%) say staffs at their news organizations have decreased over the past three years. Two-thirds of internet (69%), national and local journalists (68% each) say that increased financial pressure is seriously hurting the quality of news coverage. [i]

 Evidently financial pressure on journalists and highly increased cost of news gathering makes investigative journalism less popular. Investigation reporting has been perceived as financially expensive by media executives after the market-driven journalism start to rise in 1980’s. The new trend has put profit maximization at the first place. Once they face with financial crisis, the investigation units would be the first  to make cutbacks. Therefore financing long-term, rough, expensive and risky muckraking stories an became unfavorable option in newsrooms.

 MARKET-DRIVEN MEDIA

 The consolidation wave in media industry, high amount of dependency to the market conditions and advertisers are other vital facts to determine the diagnosis.  Media consolidations has been lessening independence of journalism and limiting distinct voices. How can we expect the major networks to chase after the scandal where their sister companies are involved and then to report it? Rupert Murdoch, AOL, General Electric or Walt Disney Company would never worry about contingent investigations on their other divisions.

 Furthermore, TV’s sole revenue is their advertisers. In the past, news and documentary programs were funded by a single sponsor who exercised great influence over the program like Murrow days.  As television production grew more expensive and networks demanded greater control over their programming, financial support shifted from sole to multiple sponsors. This has fostered more commercialism on broadcast news reporting. As a result the proportion of national and local journalists saying that commercial pressure is negatively affecting coverage has climbed dramatically since the 1990s. Reporters are under the pressure to make commercially viable products because of

The TV program sponsors. If the news stories hurt one of the advertisers, they may suggest to change the story or not to air it.  

 IRRESISTIBLE ATRACTIVENESS OF ENTERTAINMENT AND RATING WARS

  As a consequence of seeking less expensive way of news making and maximizing ratings, entertainment became a favorite phenomenon for  media executives. As journalism is losing its major responsibility, informing people, media gurus discovered “INFOTAINMET” notion of media which well-worked in TV’s.

 Infotainmet became the most efficient way to be successful in rating wars. To maintain their audiences’ attention before they switch their channel, TV outlets bear to make less comprehensive and analytical coverage of news instead of investigative-hard news stories. Then who needs boring investigating stories and facts?

 This is the reason why public intellectuals, pundits, commentators cooperate and celebrities cover all 24 hours news cycles. Besides they are less expensive, the speculations and comments they make are the most efficient ways to entertain and attract the viewers’ attention. Once they are able to entertain ratings start to flow.

 Consequently, since TV’s began to intertwine news and entertainment, news reporting has become tenuous and poor quality.

 OLD FASHION MUCKRAKERS OUT MARKETABLE PUNDITS IN

 Since it is far cheaper and efficient to fill their airtime with the live political stand-ups, pundits, experts, commentators and freaky news shows, today TV news rooms are like 24 hours open-CVS pharmacy stores. They have to have 24 hours available pundits to supply viewers demand. If you are a marketable pundit no matter how much expertise you have even outside of your field, you would be welcome to the air. Therefore TV news cycles are stuffed by experts who have an expertise on almost everything such as infotainers, friction creators, and agitators and so on.                              

  SOLUTIONS

 Even so if we are not able to see a muckraker on TV’s because of TV the  executives choose ratings, money and punditry what are the alternatives and solutions going to be? Especially on TV’s, news became almost commercial products; narrowed, softened and rendered to entertain. However public demand would always be there to know more detailed, analyzed and investigated new stories. Thus potential muckraking cannot be restrained by prominent media organizations.

  Although traditional media organizations are still preeminent actors to determine what is going to be the “NEWS”. There is tremendous amount of news sources that feed public demand today. Blogs, philanthropists, think-thanks, non-profit organizations, public interest groups and academic institutions who supports investigative reporting intensively are the crucial alternative solutions.

 For instance there are already powerful non-profit news organizations, such as National Public Radio, Christian Science Monitor; Journalism’s founders include those affiliated with legacy news media-such as Annenberg, Scripps, Tribune, Reynolds, Gannett-plus long time supporters like Carnegie, Ford and Pew Charitable Trusts.

 There is also rising trend among non-governmental and non-profit organizations that support muckraking and citizen journalism voluntarily. AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) is one of the biggest supporters of journalistic works. In 2005, U.S Foundations granted $158 million for media and communications. Knight, the leading journalism founder, announced more than $21 million in journalism grants in 2006 and more than $50 million in 2007.

 There are also many individuals and organizations which have been funding specifically investigative journalism today. For instance McDonald’s Joan Kroc gifted $200 million to National Public Radio and also left $5 million to KPBS, NPR’s San Diego affiliate in 2003. Also the Carnegie Corp. of New York,, gave NPR $200 million last year to support education coverage.

  Who are these people? They are part of the public. Then we can interpret that people want to see more journalism from journalists and media organizations. Otherwise they would not gift big amounts of money. While these funds can be a good budget relief for media organizations, they could also reinvigorate journalistic ambitions. Who knows how many successful investigative journalists would join the profession in the future in spite of the big erosion of citizen journalism in today. 

  The digital media is another convenient place to carry on muckraking today. Bloggers, journalists who operate online overwhelmingly seem to advocate muckraking. They emphasize getting information quickly, investigation government claims, analyzing complex problems and discussing policy. In general they tend to believe interpretive function of journalism than distributive. This inclination would not be harmful unless they violate accuracy, objectiveness and seeking truth codes of journalism. 

 In addition to non-profit organizations, online media and foundations, the most crucial element that needs to foster muckrakers is public demand. The public should clamour for more news programs like the ones Edward Murrow, Bill Moyers, Walter Cronkite have advocated. They’ve exalted them and many others in their days. Supply and demand for investigating journalism were extremely high in those days. What has changed today? Info-entertainment, commercial and advertorial journalism should not be a destiny of this society. The public demand needs to be awakened again also in favor of democracy and future of citizen journalism.

 CONCLUSION

  Today American Society stands in greater need of change in muckraking because it is almost disappeared.  The central problem of muckraking is the prominent media itself. Newspapers, News Magazines and TV’s were the sole promoter of muckraking in last centuries. Surprising now they are the ones who outsource watchdog function of journalism to non-profit organizations.  

 On the one hand, traditional media has been looking for more profit-less expense.  They prefer to retreat their TV studios or offices to provide more entertaining and titillating news to public. Thus the investigation units have been agonizing for financial and timing props and often sacrificed for rating wars.

 On the other hand there is a philanthropist who can gift $200 million to media organization, fostering them to follow investigative reporting. Blogs, non-governmental and non-profit organizations, advocated journalists, individuals who support muckrakers are the solutions and alternatives to keep muckraking and non-profit news sustainable. 

 In conclusion, despite the fact that public demand is dramatically less for muckraking today, re-activating this is the crucial element to remind real function of journalists and muckrakers. No one would believe that nonprofits going to overthrow commercial media 20 years ago. Now this is happening and with the help of sensitive citizens and journalists of the society, muckraking will flourish again like in the old days.