Muckraker

          Unlike what Theodore Roosevelt intended with the term 'muckraker', the name is now given to two groups of people; one in pursuit of companies or of the government to reveal underground misconducts to which the public holds rights to criticize, and the other keeping a close watch on celebrities for gossip. Either way, they dig out hidden information filthy as 'muck' to expose to the public, which, unfortunately, is often misleading, causing the public to miss out on some other major misconducts that really need attention.

          Muckrakers in any of the possible two ways have their sources of information, usually the economical or political enemies of the target. It is not uncommon for investigative journalists to be used as a tool of retaliation between rival enterprises, celebrities or politicians, as any good reputation can easily be ruined, even with groundless rumors. When suspicion of drug possession, ill treatment of workers, inappropriate relationships or bribery, already made widespread by the press, is proven by fervent muckrakers to be true, the target is severly condemned. The accusation being just, such treatment is well-deserved. Nevertheless it is questionable whether the informant here, or the muckrakers themselves, are entirely free of faults. Considering that a number of able politicians, entrepreneurs and artists have ended their careers with the exposures of trivial flaws triggered by competitors, Jessica Mitford's crown as the queen of muckrakers should be less than glorious, although her accomplishment was entirely of a different nature.

          As for a few muckrakers who are devoted in revealing muck that may actually be of use in making a cleaner world, another obstacle awaits. It is the governments' and the press' wonderful faculty to fabricate conclusions with given information. Julian Assange, the representative of Wikileaks is a perfect example of a muckraker caught in such a trap. In the last few days of November 2010, mass media including CNN, the Guardian, the New York Times etc covered how China was loosing patience with North Korea, showing specific interest in the word 'spoiled child' allegedly used by senior figures in Beijing to describe the regime in the North. The source of this information, as the press mentioned, was Wikileaks. Why this 'leak', of all other 'leaks' shocking enough to keep the public's attention for years, was so worthy of special mention remains a question to be answered. Julian Assange, accused of molesting two women, was arrested in England. Wikileaks has a banner that reads, 'keep us strong', and the battle between Wikileaks and the governments still goes on. While the results are unknown, the broadcasted information about China and North Korea was misleading enough to degrade the term 'muckraker'.

         Those who are accused of being 'Muckrakers' may believe that they are raking muck out of society, but before they become proud of themselves of the name, they must remember that what they throw to the public does not always deserve full attention, and that they have yet to win over giants with accumulated experience in dealing with unwanted exposure. As long as these tasks remain unfinished, being a 'muckraker' should not be a pleasant accusation.

A response to the 'I like turtles' boy

 
    
       Whether this video is funny or not should be a decision left to the viewers. Unfortunately, however, the common crowd is seldom the best judge especially for something as wide ranged as humor, because an individual as a part of the general public tend to follow the opinion of the general public. This tendency has become stronger since the widespread use of the Internet.
     The phrase, 'famous for being famous' not only explains Paris Hilton’s popularity but also shows a possible explanation of the fuss over this ‘I like turtles’ boy. If we were to analyze such factors as the angle of the camera, the boy’s painted facial expression, and his unexpected answer, we could find out an element within the video that would attract 27 million people. Nevertheless, such efforts would be a waste of time because his ‘well-knownness’ has undoubtedly affected his fame more critically than what the video itself displays.
           On youtube, usually the clip with the most clicks within a period of time is the most exposed. If there are few other videos posted at the time, a video needs only a little amount of attention, that is, about a few hundred views in an hour, to be exposed. People who fool around on youtube to find out what’s ‘hot’ at the moment would definitely check out the zombie boy while it stays on the main page, and are likely to think that there must be something funny about the video for it to make it up to the list. As this cycle goes on people post parodies that attracts even more viewers who may or may not like the video. After a few weeks Jonathan finds himself famous on the Internet, although no one knows how the viewers would have responded to this video had they not known that it was well-known.