I found that engagement with stories about antitrust is below the average level of engagement with JURIST articles.
![list two solutions tarbell suggested to break standard oil’s monopoly list two solutions tarbell suggested to break standard oil’s monopoly](https://apprend.io/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Sherman-Anti-Trust-Act.jpeg)
I was then able to compare the number of views given to articles about antitrust with the number of views given to an average article. To gauge reader interest in this particular topic, I used Google Analytics data on the number of unique views given to each page on JURIST’s website per year from 2014 to 2019 (an example of such data for the year 2014 can be found here). So how much attention are they paying now?Īs part of the JURIST Digital Scholars Program, I analyzed readership data to assess the level of interest in articles about antitrust issues. Hard-hitting journalism can bring about real change, especially when the public pays attention. Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Trust is often cited as leading to the passage of the Clayton Antitrust Act and the creation of the Federal Trade Commission. Indeed, Ida Tarbell’s reporting on the ruthless behavior of John D. The news after all is what fueled the original antitrust movement.
![list two solutions tarbell suggested to break standard oil’s monopoly list two solutions tarbell suggested to break standard oil’s monopoly](https://media.cheggcdn.com/media/950/9504fa38-0c22-48d6-b701-b4cebbe0f6f7/phpAq3WMH.png)
A legal news site like JURIST (on which about 50% of readers are in the United States) provides an ideal environment for assessing public attention to certain legal issues, at least among those who are interested in legal news. A good way to figure out how much people care about an issue is to find out how much they are reading about it. The anti-monopoly narrative, however, has not quite taken hold. Indeed, bipartisan support for challenging big tech has emerged in Congress, and investigations of both Google and Facebook are underway. There has undeniably been an uptick in conversations about competition law and its need for reform. Even with renewed calls for reinvigorating antitrust enforcement, busting large corporations no longer captures the imagination of the public like it once did. Since the Progressive Era, anti-monopoly sentiment has faded. During this time, the corruption of monopolies was firmly entrenched in American culture, a key force driving the effort to check corporate power. Investigative reporting helped agitate the masses, turning popular opinion against corporate power, and thereby propelling the government to take on big business.
![list two solutions tarbell suggested to break standard oil’s monopoly list two solutions tarbell suggested to break standard oil’s monopoly](https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee120/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.egee120/files/lesson04/country_fiscal_breakeven.png)
Rockefeller, while Sinclair exposed the brutal working conditions in the meatpacking industry. Tarbell focused on the merciless behavior of oil tycoon John D. Their cause was supported by journalists like Ida Tarbell, Upton Sinclair and other “muckrakers” who exposed the corrupt practices of large companies. The progressive movement demanded regulation of corporate “trusts,” giving birth to America’s antitrust laws. Fed up with child labor, dangerous working conditions, low wages, political corruption, and ruthless business practices, progressive reformers during this time demanded protection for the people and accountability for corporations. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, fighting big business was a major issue in politics, with leaders across the political spectrum promising to take on large corporations. The United States has a long history of anti-monopoly sentiment. JURIST Digital Scholar Everest Fang proposes the necessary conditions within American society to call for more accountability in big business and to break up monopolies.