Shaking the Foundations: 200 Years of Investigative Journalism in America

by Bruce Shapiro, Pete Hamill (Preface)

Great investigative journalism is present-tense literature: part detective story, part hellraising. This is the first anthology of its kind, bringing together outstanding (and often otherwise unavailable) practitioners of the muckraking tradition, from the Revolutionary era to the present day. Ranging from mainstream figures like Woodward and Bernstein to legendary iconoclasts such as I. F. Stone and Ida B. Wells-Barnett, the dispatches in this collection combine the thrill of the chase after facts with a burning sense of outrage. As American history, Shaking the Foundations offers a you-are-there chronicle of great scandals and debates as reporters revealed them to their contemporaries: Jim Crow and financial trusts, migrant labor and wars, witch-hunts and government corruption. As journalism, these readings—from writers as diverse as Henry Adams and Ralph Nader, Lincoln Steffens and Barbara Ehrenreich—are a source of inspiration for today's muckrakers. For the general reader, Shaking the Foundations reveals investigative journalism as a storytelling force capable of bringing down presidents, freeing the innocent, challenging the logic of wars, and exposing predatory corporations. Other selected contributors include Henry Adams, John Steinbeck, Upton Sinclair, Edward R. Murrow, Rachel Carson, Jessica Mitford, Susan Brownmiller, Anthony Lukas, Neil Sheehan, Drew Pearson, and Jack Anderson.

Genres: Journalism, History

544 pages, Paperback

First published July 27, 2003

Reviews

[L · Rating 2 out of 5]

Having read this - especially Shapiro's introduction - I feel I have a better understanding of how investigative journalism has helped the United States progress by exposing corruption and gross misdeeds in, primarily, government. There were a few other essays that discussed different subjects but it all tied back to government. And what kind of government? Well, let's just say Shaprio is hardly objective; his choice of included essays reflects that. Throwing in the Jacob Riis article on the homeless in New York City and passionately arguing why we shouldn't give them money hardly counts as keeping the sides equal. That was one of the funniest essays I'd ever read, though.

I understand corruption occurs at every level of power and these essayists did a good job exposing this. Some writers were better than others (Stetson Kennedy and Ida B. Wells, specifically) and for the most part the book kept my interest. Other writers made me fall asleep (Ida Tarbell).

The biggest problem I had with this book was Shapiro's bias. A better title for this would have included the word "Selective." This reminded me of a big, mud-slinging campaign commercial during a nasty election. I had no idea who the commercial was for, but the opponent was PURE EVIL and I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HIM!

Within the essays, themselves, I found Barbara Ehrenreich's article on the U.S. shipping birth control methods to third world countries appalling. It is possibly the worst piece of investigative journalism I've seen. She counted on an emotional reaction from readers so that they wouldn't wonder about the numbers from the other side of the argument. Of course, she puts plenty of "To his credit"s in there so that you don't think she's unfair and all. She gives the counter-argument but NEVER follows up on it or offers statistics and we finish the article without knowing how many women's lives were saved because of the birth control. The article just doesn't give the other side.

Unless you are blind or living under a rock, this book is clear evidence that the media is biased. If you *are* either blind or living under a rock, I'll get you a copy of this in braille or buy you a flashlight so that you can see for yourselves.