the muckrakes

Spamano Week Day 1: Historical

This au takes time in 1918-20 America, NY: The Progressive Era!

Lovino, a NY Times journalist takes on a task to report on the environment in the Jersey City, and meets a Spanish immigrant Antonio, whom later makes Lovino see deeper into the life of the working class, and how awful the living conditions are those men. After being spending time with Antonio and being exposed to these things, Lovino became a muckraker (and gaY) and promised Antonio that he will change his life 

AND HE DID AND IM GOING TO DRAW MORE OF THIS AU IM EMO 

“The younger Hardy’s drawing talent comes by way of his mom, Elizabeth Anne Hardy, an artist. The actor writes and doodles compulsively; a notepad lying on a windowsill in his hotel room is festooned with line drawings reminiscent of Quentin Blake, Roald Dahl’s regular illustrator, sandwiched by blocks of barely legible script. The same iPad that chronicles the glories of Marmalade contains Hardy’s drawings and paintings of his movie characters, including Fitzgerald, Bane, and explorer Sir Ernest Shackleton, whom Hardy will play in an upcoming biopic.

There are individual images of Taboo’s Delaney in poses that Hardy assumes onscreen in full costume, created days or weeks before the shoot. It’s this complex creative lineage that makes Taboo so personal: The FX series is at once a gallery of line drawings, a ghastly bedtime story, a muckraking melodrama, and a family project.”

Full interview in New York Magazine @nymag | Jan 2017 issue
Photo: Ryan Pfluger @ryanpfluger for New York Magazine
Interview: Matt Zoller Seitz
Styling: Nicole Schneider @nschneiderstyle

Drawing: @sonofhorace1814

Follow THV on IG :)

Image via Getty

We’re so sorry to hear about the death of Nat Hentoff. A lover of free jazz and free speech (and someone who understood the connection between those two things), he was a lifelong provocateur who had no problem angering both ends of the political spectrum.

He wrote for the Village Voice for 50 years. In his final column for the Voice in 2009, he recalled advice he received from one of his mentors in journalism, the muckraker I.F. Stone:

“If you’re in this business because you want to change the world, get another day job. If you are able to make a difference, it will come incrementally, and you might not even know about it. You have to get the story and keep on it because it has to be told.“

Our appreciation is here.

– Petra

Anonymous said to unsoundedcomic:November 9th 2016, 9:36:00 pm · 29 minutes ago 

 "You have no idea how wrong I want to be. I want to look back at these posts in a year’s time and glow with shame at what a friggin’ dork I was being.“ Consider the following: every 4 years the losing side says that the other guy winning is going to mean the end of the world, Despite this the sky still hasn’t fallen as far as I know. People have taken political muckraking at face value and worked themselves into a panic.

“Political muckraking” is one way to put it, I suppose. Let me see if I can properly express how I feel this is different.

Keep reading

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Missouri, August 3, 1909

The above is a special design of eyeglasses for the use of policemen looking for lid-lifters.

At the time there were a lot of Sunday “blue laws” (religion-based laws that prohibited a lot of things, mostly drinking, prostitution and gambling, but also stuff like playing baseball). You were supposed to “keep a lid on it” on Sundays. If you weren’t, you were a “lid-lifter”. It came to mean someone or a group of somebodies who were attempting to circumvent “dry” laws in general, not just Sundays, whether that was with legally through legislature or illegally with bootlegging, secretly keeping your saloon open when it shouldn’t be or just drinking. On the other hand, it sometimes meant someone on the side of the law who was trying to uncover unseemly things, sort of like a muckraker.

Around the 20s there was a popular burlesque group who called themselves the Lid Lifters. I think more recently (from the 30s forward at any rate) it’s been used to describe the opening game of a baseball or other sports season.

dylanyonah  asked:

What is your opinion of groups like BtSelem? I know I'm probaby spelling wrong, but I'm just wondering. And if you don't mind two questions, what is your opinion of Haaretz, the news site?

I am all in favor of muckraking human rights organizations that investigate what governments and militaries do. Not much a fan of B'Tselem in particular though, since their staff includes Holocaust deniers and people who conspire to kill Palestinians who had been willing to deal with Jews. They are a “lawfare” stunt group, not actually trying to help anyone, only to hurt Israel.

Haaretz is sort of like a leftist Wall Street Journal - you can find real good reporting in there, but the editors and overall ideological slant are frequently irresponsible and nutty. They began that sick lie about Israel “sterilizing” the Ethiopian Jews, and the legacy of that is on their hands. Haaretz represents about 3% of the Israeli newspaper market share, which you would expect given the bloodcurdling hostility of wacko reporters like Gideon Levy and Amira Hass, coming out and explicitly saying Israel is evil. However, the paper will never reach any comeuppance from its failure in the marketplace of ideas: it is heavily funded by Euro-leftist NGOs, based out of permanently antisemitic European nations, so will be kept afloat forever just so the true believers can point to its sheer existence as being tangible proof that their opinion still matters (in this regard it’s also like a leftist National Review).

Sources:

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/ngos/b_tselem/

http://m.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Media-Comment-The-self-perception-of-Haaretz-316329#article=0RjQ3MkIyNjc0QzE0Q0RFM0Q0NUMzNzc1RUZEQjA2NjA=

3

Here’s my SS chapter 21 vocab! I also made like 20 million bio flashcards tonight to study for my quiz on Tuesday.  (and sorry these photos aren’t the best quality)

If you saw my vocab word muckrakers post from a few days ago, you’d know that some of the sheets were going to be picked to put into a packet going to all of the team members. Although I was very determined to get into the book, mine was not chosen and I still think mine was better than the one that did get in for my word and yes I’m a bit angry and disappointed.  But so be it. That’s life.

How to tell if that new DID/RA survivor friend of yours might be manipulating you.

I’ve seen a lot of muckraking happen in the DID community surrounding one or two individuals who have been called out on their abusive behavior. I’d like to just say “thank you, everyone who has worked hard to document the abuse these individuals have committed against the community,” but I can’t. Not entirely, anyway. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad people are brave enough to speak out. That said, I think we need to address this issue from another angle as well. 

When I first saw people sharing screenshots of abusive and/or manipulating things that the original sprite-wings did, I was hopeful that the conversation would broaden and people would start to take a hard look at who becomes popular in the survivor world and why. I was hopeful that the Kimi situation would launch thoughtful discussions about the fact that there are actually a lot of abusers online who pretend to be survivors. There are also a lot of people who technically are survivors but who are not “on our side.” This is especially true in the ritual abuse survivor community, where some survivors may still be cult-loyal or even running “errands” for active cult members.

I was *badly* abused by a popular RA survivor a few years ago, and sadly I don’t have screenshots. I don’t even know the full extent of what happened thanks to whatever method they were using to make me forget things. This happened to me long before I had ever heard of sprite-wings. Getting rid of individual abusers in communities is a positive step to take, but considering how much harm these abusers can cause, I really think we need to talk about the warning signs. What kinds of things did people notice about sprite-wings before programming triggers were hit off and screenshots were published? What signs can we look for in the future to keep ourselves and our communities safe?

I have some ideas.

If you are trying to evaluate whether or not a new friend in the survivor world is safe, ask yourself these questions:

1.      Did you feel like there was something “oddly familiar” about this new friend or like you had known him forever when you met? Did you feel more in-need of his approval or more desperate for his compliments than you ordinarily would be with a virtual stranger? If you are an RA survivor, be wary of people who feel “so familiar.” It’s possible you just made a fast connection or have a lot in common, but it’s also possible that the person is familiar for a reason – either you actually have met him before, or he’s emulating the behavior of an abuser you don’t fully remember. Be careful with sudden, unexplained familiarity.

2.      Does this person seem unusually fixated on you in spite of the fact that you just met and she has tons of friends already? Does she say things like “you’re the only one that gets me” or “you’re the first person who has ever really cared about me” even though she has 150+ followers who she seems to really enjoy talking to?

3.      Did/does their trauma have a shocking amount in common with trauma you’ve blogged about or shared on forums – down to the abuser’s hair colors, specific abuse dynamics, age ranges, alters created from it, etc?

4.      Does his DID system bear an uncanny resemblance to yours? Is it common for him to copy parts of your system by “suddenly remembering” or “suddenly discovering” new alters every time you introduce one of yours?

5.      Is she constantly revising her trauma story every time you share new information about yours? Did she suddenly grow a ritual abuse history the second you said you went through ritual abuse? Note: Sometimes being around other survivors can trigger memories to the surface, but abusers/manipulators, particularly those who copy other people, tend to go through this every time anyone says anything about their own abuse.

6.      Do her details seem a bit “all over the place?” Is it common to hear her say she was held hostage all through 2005 only to get on Facebook later and share fun vacation photos from that very same year?

7.      Is she constantly playing “hot potato” with the abuser label? Did she come to you in tears three weeks ago, claiming that your mutual friend Karen was an abuser only to change her mind the next week and insist that your mutual friend George manipulated her into believing Karen was an abuser only to change her mind yet again this week to suggest that she was “just upset” when she said all those things and none of them are/were true, then take that back and claim that your mutual friend Sarah is the true abuser, then take that back and accuse you of being an abuser?

8.      Does he fluctuate between candidly giving these intensely triggering, photorealistic details of his trauma and becoming suspiciously “foggy” on details whenever you notice logical inconsistencies in his story?  

9.      Does her story ever feel like a patchwork compilation of everyone else’s stories? Does she have a practical clone of your friend Karen’s trafficker, a system that’s nearly identical to your friend Rob’s system, and the same high school experience as your friend David?

10.  Does she seem to have no emotional connection to anything she’s talking about? Does it sometimes seem like as long as it gets her a lot of comments and “likes,” it doesn’t even matter to her if the words she’s writing are true or not?

11.  Does he frequently “accidentally trigger you? When he found out you were triggered by soap, did he randomly reblog 800 pictures of soap and claim you never told him that was one of your triggers or that he figured it wasn’t a serious trigger? Does he constantly post other people’s programming cues and then try to claim that that’s his way of “processing” something that happened to him?

12.  Was he a whole hell of a lot nicer and easier to get along with when you met him than he is now?

13.  Has at least one person told you that you need to seriously re-evaluate your friendship with your new friend or suggested to you that your new friend is an abuser/manipulative/deceitful/belongs in jail/etc?

14.  Do they tend to only talk about aspects of their trauma that are “en vogue” at the moment? Do they seem magically capable of only ever needing to “process” the same things that everyone else in your group of friends is processing so that their needs will always be compatible with the group’s, making it impossible for anyone to ever ignore them or miss one of their posts? 

15.   Does this person frequently make excuses for a “good abuser,” a cult member who has “changed” and should not be judged, a “kind” programmer, etc? Does this person expect you to feel comfortable spending time with or hearing positive things about their incestuous mother simply because she “sort of apologized,” their abusive ex who “changed,” or the person who trafficked them but “has a good heart?” Does it seem like your new friend barely knows the difference between a good person and an abuser? Is your new friend seemingly unaware that there’s even a problem with this way of thinking? 

Edit/Note: Many survivors deal with feelings of loyalty to abusers, and many survivors who *don’t* feel this way have at least one system member who does. The difference tends to be that survivors make “special exceptions” for their own abusers that they would never make for other abusers in general (ie: “it’s wrong to hit your kids, but MY dad had a good reason’ I’m sure none of your dads did though”), whereas the abusive DID community member will sometimes 100% acknowledge that a person is an abuser but then talk about how that doesn’t take away from how funny, cool, attractive, cuddly, kind-hearted, wonderful, etc their abuser is. Frequently, these “devotional” statements are made right after you’ve said something about not wanting to forgive your own abuser or having recently stood up to/reported/cut off your abuser. It’s meant as manipulation/guilt-tripping in a way. 

16.  Does this friend seem like he’s in a constant one-uppmanship battle trying to prove he’s the most damaged survivor on the planet?

17.  Is this person manipulating you into letting them stay at your house?

18.  Does this person or one of this person’s alters have a porn blog full of sadistic imagery that they constantly share with people without bothering to trigger warn or without adequately warning them that it’s a violent porn blog?

19.  Does this person ask for tons of details about your story but then never really respond when you share them? This is a particularly bad sign if you’re an RA survivor or anyone whose abusers might want “reports” on what you do and don’t remember. Avoid sharing your entire story with people who have not earned your trust.

20.  Does this person try to convince you that your friends are actually abusers when there’s not really a good reason to do so?  

This is not a complete list and these items may not mean someone is an abuser on their own. However, they should all raise red flags.

Civil War II: Choosing Sides #4 (of 6)


  • Declan Shalvey, John Allison, & Derek Landy (w)
  • Declan Shalvey, Rosi Kampe, & More (a)
    • • The battle is heating up, but nothing’s hotter than the limelight! When the media starts muckraking, how far will heroes go to stay out of the public eye?
    • • Featuring Nick Fury, Power Pack and jolly J. Jonah Jameson himself!

|Cover by Jim Cheung & Declan Shalvey|

Rita Skeeter: A Parable of Perseverence and Positivity

15 June 2015  

Queen of the Quills, Mistress of the Muckrake, five-time number 1 Best Selling Author, The Daily Prophet’s Gossip Correspondent are just some of her titles; there are few reporters who have attained such a notorious reputation as the luminary Rita Skeeter. Throughout her four decades of publication, Skeeter’s remorseless writing style has pierced the most unerring greats in living memory, including the likes of Armando Dippet, Alastor Moody, Albus Dumbledore and Harry Potter. Age does not refrain Rita, who turns 64 this year, as she continues to churn the most scandalous of publications, dripping with hidden truths, juicy gossip and intolerable tales. With such a congested history and vast reputation, where does a woman begin?

Rita is a natural at these interviews, having sat at both ends of the table on countless occasions. She initiates our interview with a profound confidence and dominant expression. “I was looking forward to this interview,” Rita expresses. “It’s nice to see you! We haven’t done this in a while.” It’s true, Rita and myself have rarely seen each other since the summer of 1997, in which I interviewed her for her new book, now best seller, ‘The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore.’ Our 97’ interview was conducted at the brink of the Second Wizarding War, and since then, things could not be more different. Seventeen years later He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named is long deceased, all of those who supported him have been rightfully punished, and the crippling fear has been removed from our hearts.

However this has not stopped the persevering Rita, who has whisked out 3 books since the conclusion of the war. The first of which was The Boy Who Lived: Tales of Tragedy and Triumph, published only weeks after He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named’s death, about which Harry Potter himself remarked “I can’t believe trees were cut down for that worthless fictional tosh.”
Just 2 years later Skeeter made a stunning return with her gossip ridden publication on the deceased, infamous Hogwarts Headmaster Severus Snape (Snape: Saint or Scoundrel?). Both of these were instant no.1 best sellers, and had thousands of reservations from her loyal legion of fans.

However succeeding this, no new books immediately surfaced and after a particularly long hiatus, it was presumed Rita may never return to writing books.
“I actually prefer writing books to articles,” Rita assures me with her usual charm. “There are so many interesting figures on whom I’d love to write biographies about, it’s just finding the source material to form the basis on that which is difficult. If I’m going to write a book, I want it to have a strong element of validity… I would be betraying my readers if what I published wasn’t 100% truth.”
This doesn’t stop Rita, however, who made a mighty return last year with her publication of Dumbledore’s Army: The Dark Side of the Demob; the book was sold out within days and has since held its position at the no.1 best seller list for a record 47 weeks. “I think that was my favourite to write so far,” Rita remarks. “It took the longest, and was by far the most grueling, but I was up for the challenge. The tale of Dumbledore’s Army is a compelling, intrepid and almost twisted one - this was a group of children with a strong political stance and who changed our society to what it is today. They’re heroes; though not entirely perfect, yet I admire them. Unfortunately, I can’t say the feeling is mutual.”
Rita’s penetrating articles and publications have led to a great deal of retortion from those whom she targets, most famously Harry Potter and his cohorts. In 1999 Rita released a harsh criticism of Mr George Weasley’s conduction of his shop without his deceased twin’s aid. Mr Weasley abundantly reacted with the launch of a “Rita Skeeter Dart Board” and “Pin the Tail on the Cow: Rita Skeeter edition” in his affluent shop (which, admittedly, became a great deal more prosperous from the release of both products.).
In 2005, Rita’s wrath again targeted another member of the Dumbledore’s Army collective - Hermione Granger. Skeeter heavily criticised Granger after she was promoted to Deputy Head Of Magical Law Enforcement claiming, “No logic could penetrate her cretinous brain, especially with hair such as hers.” Coincidentally Rita’s office was ransacked with Weasley Wizard Wheezes’s Best Itching Powder (for the second time, might I add) the following day - we’ll leave you to conclude the culprit.

Her most recent feud is with the Daily Prophet’s own Quidditch Correspondent, Ginny Potter. During the Quidditch World Cup last year, Skeeter received a particularly nasty Bat Bogey Hex from Potter, who viciously retorted succeeding a negative comment about her husband, Harry Potter. Skeeter is reportedly in talks of a law suit.
“Oh well, I’ve dealt with worse over the years. It’s the price you have to pay for being an honest reporter - people tend to ignore the truth, and spit it back at you when you lay down the facts,” Skeeter states with a calming ease. “Ginny has a unpredictable personality, I was caught off guard. I’ve known her for a long time - as with other members of the Potter collective. I was particularly surprised by Ginny’s reaction since whenever I viewed the group in their teen prime, I made the judgement she was of bland, wishy-washy character. She would always stand on the sidelines and longingly gaze at Harry. Not a threat at all.”

So after all her drama on reporting for the Prophet, will Rita continue?
“Most certainly! We have a busy month ahead of us, this hasn’t stopped me.” Rita triumphantly remarks; she shines with an aura of positivity and perseverance. It’s remarkable that a woman of her age continues to work as hard as she does, and show no sign of weakness; Rita is the perfect idol for young women everywhere. “The only thing I’ve changed about my life is the position of my office, which is no longer parallel to Ginny Potter’s.

[Pictured above: Rita Skeeter in a Court chamber recording details of Igor Karkaroff giving names of Death Eaters in exchange for early release from Azkaban - 1982]

i really like that we have found parallels between shitposting and industrialisation because it makes room for further parallels in the time period

xkit? no. George Waring and his sanitation workers. 

callout posting? no. muckraking. Get your copy of the Jungle in post form

the dissolution of a corrupt ring of bloggers following their advertising products? the sherman act and trustbusting

soon we shall enter the 1920’s

Another less than cheerful aspect to the Croswell case [where Federalist newspaper editor Harry Croswell was convicted for seditious libel against President Jefferson] was news that had arrived from Virginia six months ago: James Thomson Callender, the man on whom Hamilton counted to be an electrifying witness if he won a new trial for Croswell, was dead. His demise was more than a little mysterious. He had apparently fallen into the James River after a night of drinking and drowned - in three feet of water. Another version had him drowning in the same depth while taking a swim - at 3:00 A.M. Jeffersonian supporters were not above reporting that the turncoat Scottish muckraker had drowned in “congenial mud.” But more than a few Federalists wondered if some Virginia friend of the president had accelerated Callender’s dive into the James River with a blunt instrument.

In fact, George Hay, a member of the Virginia governor’s executive council and James Monroe’s son-in-law, had viciously battered the newspaperman on the head with a club several months before he died and then persuaded a Virginia court to silence Callender on the extremely dubious argument that English common law entitled the state to require a “common libeller of all the best and greatest men in our country” to post a bond against committing further offenses. Rather than put up the money, Callender went to jail. Here was more ammunition for a Hamilton assault on the Jeffersonian’s two-faced attitude toward freedom of the press.

Moreover, the dead newspaperman had left behind his papers as well as his public statements that Thomas Jefferson had paid him a series of handsome sums - as much as $100 at a time - to support him while he was writing his assault on President John Adams and ex-President George Washington. Jefferson had even read proofs of The Prospect Before Us and returned them with a warm letter, declaring: “Such papers cannot fail to produce the best effect. They inform the thinking part of the nation.” Practically admitting he knew Callender was bad news in every sense of the term, Jefferson added: “You will know from whom this comes without a signature.” When the newspaperman turned against Jefferson, he had reprinted this damning document in his scandal sheet, the Richmond Recorder.

—  Thomas Fleming, Duel: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, and the Future of America