Big Think: T.R. and Journalism

Today on Big Think, I came across this article on one of America's greatest presidents, and the way he influenced a significant element of modern culture.

http://bigthink.com/the-voice-of-big-think/teddy-roosevelts-lessons-in-media-savvy

Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt, the twenty-sixth president of the United States, held the nation's highest office from 1901 to 1909. A moderate Republican by today's standards, he was considered progressive at the time, and campaigned for "Square Deal" reforms throughout many spheres of the nation. What's interesting in this article is the idea that Teddy Roosevelt used the media to his advantage, something I hadn't considered. Previously, I'd thought that Roosevelt had felt nothing but disdain for the journalists he deemed "Muckrakers." As the name Roosevelt coined implies, he felt that journalists were there only to get the metaphorical dirt on him and make a profit out of it. However, the author's claim - that Roosevelt used the journalists of the time to his advantage - makes perfect sense. Roosevelt was a war hero, and one of the best-known men in America at the time. As I mentioned before, he was a Progressive Republican, and appealed to many people as a result of this. And he was, by all accounts, a very intelligent man; he had an extensive military background, both as a strategist and a soldier, and an innate knowledge of human psychology. The latter of these qualities influenced many of his policies, both foreign ("Speak softly and carry a big stick") and domestic. Why wouldn't such a man have used the public's desire for reform, his own desire for reform, and the media's desire for a new scoop to his advantage when pushing through reform. Although the article doesn't specify how, it doesn't take too much imagination to believe that Teddy Roosevelt could have accomplished this with ease.

Another thing the author does well is their refusal to disclose too much information. Generally, that is something I would criticize such a post for; however, this article in particular is trying to promote a book on the subject of Teddy Roosevelt's relationships with some of the muckraking journalists he seemed to despise, and how he used this relationship to boost his reform. If the author were to say, "Oh, and Roosevelt also did this, this and this to use the media to boost his popularity," nobody would buy the book they're promoting; they'd have all they wanted to know there. Rather than make this mistake, the author proposes an idea that makes sense to audience members with a historical background, provides context and information on the subject, but refuses to go into detail in order to actually achieve their purpose. I feel that this post was very well-written, especially with regards to its intent, and the subject matter interests me greatly.