Here is what the paper must address for full credit consideration
1. What is the background of the author/editor (Jensen)? How is this relevant to understanding the purpose of the book overall?
2. What is the thesis of the book? How successful is the author/editor (Jensen) at getting his points across to the reader clearly and does the author ultimately prove what the thesis claims
to show? Give factual examples of how and/or how not. Be sure to cite the Jensen text.
3. In the process of doing steps one and two above, choose three of the journalists in the book and use them as examples in the review itself. This implies a brief discussion about each of
the three journalists selected, their writings, the significance of the issue addressed, and what happened as a result of his/her reporting. Please choose an author from the first third, middle
third, and last third of the 20th century (spreading out your choices from across the book).
4. Do you think that investigative reporting and a free press are important to a democracy? Why or why not?
5. Finally, give an example of a contemporary muckraking journalist and the issue they address, one NOT included in the Jensen book, and one active writing in the past decade. In other words,
if the book continued, choose someone whom you think would be included in its ensuing chapters. What is socially/politically compelling about the topic and what possible solutions are
offered in the current example you chose? What role do these people play in the construction of our history? If you need ideas for finding contemporary muckrakers, see our work at
www.projectcensored.org a (including our top censored news stories a and independent news sources 2).
6. Closing remarks/conclusion. BE SURE the paper is properly cited in Chicago Style 2, endnotes or footnotes (note style, not bibliography style).
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|