Final answer:
Business leaders and politicians likely had conflicted views on muckrakers; recognizing the need for reform yet disapproving of the public scrutiny that muckrakers brought to their operations, which could lead to demands for regulation that affected their profits and power.
Step-by-step explanation:
Business leaders, politicians, and tenement owners likely had mixed feelings toward muckrakers. These influential individuals understood the necessity of Progressive reforms to some extent, particularly to prevent social unrest and radical doctrines that threatened their interests. However, they often disapproved of or feared the exposure of their businesses and political machinations to public scrutiny. Muckrakers challenged the practices that allowed these leaders to maintain power and profitability, such as low wages, poor working conditions, and monopolistic behaviors. While some may have recognized the value of reform to ensure social stability, many probably viewed muckrakers as agitators threatening their interests by advocating for regulations that could inhibit their autonomy and profit margins. For example, Ida Tarbell's writings on the Standard Oil monopoly and Jacob Riis's photojournalism highlighting poor tenement conditions in New York would have unsettled those benefiting from the status quo, as they brought widespread attention to issues that demanded action. Politicians often depended on the support of the wealthier classes and might view the muckrakers' exposés as problematic, stirring up public opinion in a way that demanded legislative changes. Despite the potential for positive change, the agitation for government intervention and concerns over increased regulation led to a conflicted relationship between business and political leaders and the muckraking journalists of the Progressive Era.