5 ms·

The Senate Intelligence Committee hearings are usually pretty facts-first unlike the other random hearings and sessions. I watch them on C-SPAN whenever they ha

The Senate Intelligence Committee hearings are usually pretty facts-first unlike the other random hearings and sessions. I watch them on C-SPAN whenever they happen (which isn't that frequent). Edit: I strongly recommend watching these directly from C-SPAN rather than the summarized spin-version from random news companies. You might be surprised how little of their time is wasted on grandstanding. Yeah, some politicians will throw in their jabs, but that's not the purpose of those committees and it's a fractionally tiny amount of the dialog. But that's what the news focuses on because it's the most sensational.

Retric 8y ago
On C-SPAN those jabs don't seem like much, but they are mostly what's included on regular news coverage. Making them the main point of the exercise.
- wybiral 8y ago
  The main point of the "exercise" is to discuss the issues and a few politicians hijack a few minutes of time to make political jabs for the media. The rest of it is still important. They're asking questions and forming their perception of the situation which they use to shape policy.
  - Retric 8y ago
    If they simply want fact finding they could do that over a phone call.* The circus is very much the point. * Granted, phone calls don't have the weight of purgery to keep people honest. But, that only goes so far.
    - wybiral 8y ago
      In this case it isn't a "circus". Watch these hearings, they aren't as sensational as you seem to think [1]. When it comes to information warfare and propaganda, you'll see them come to the same type of conclusion on multiple panels, which is that public awareness is a key component in any effective counter measure. Giving the leaders of these industries a mic to educate the public seems in all of our best interest. Not all of these committees are some kind of "circus". It's just a normal part of how these things work. [1] Recent example: https://www.c-span.org/video/?449088-1/senate-intelligence-committee-holds-hearing-social-media-foreign-influence https://www.c-span.org/video/?449088-1/senate-intelligence-c... PS: If our politicians did all of these behind closed doors and on private phones you'd be on here complaining about that too. I prefer that some of this happens in the public eye.
      - joshuamorton 8y ago
        There kavanaugh hearing wasn't a circus either (ignoring the protestors), but it's still just a tool to generate soundbites. A closed door hearing is for fact finding, public ones are for proselytizing.
        wybiral 8y ago
        Or... It's done in public to keep the public informed as to what issues they're looking at and help us follow along because transparency is a useful component in democracy? Just because a tiny amount of grandstanding happens doesn't make it all mock/show. Full disclosure, you're a Googler.
        joshuamorton 8y ago
        Your first paragraph would be spot on if there were only a tiny amount of grandstanding. The majority of questions at every hearing I've seen have been politically biased grandstanding, with the goal of creating a soundbite that appeals to the base, not of factually informing the public.
        wybiral 8y ago
        Which Intelligence Committee hearings are you talking about? I linked to a recent one in a grandparent post that has almost no grandstanding as far as I'm concerned and for the IC that's usually how it is. I can't speak for the larger committees with more media attention.
        joshuamorton 8y ago
        Let me put it this way: if you want to have a real productive discussion on data privacy, you want the head lawyer who, despite Senate grandstanding, probably does make legal decisions for the company. You don't want the guy who thinks that google, probably uses version control software, but doesn't know what it is. The ic didn't want a decision maker, they wanted a heel.
    - RIMR 8y ago
      We live in a Democracy. These fact finding exercises must occur in view of the public. C-SPAN covers this stuff verbatim, with zero spin. This stuff is very important to Democracy, and sitting it out is horrible optics.
    - teddyh 8y ago
      > purgery That’s “perjury”.
- RIMR 8y ago
  The point of the exercise was never to make the news, it's about governing. The news just doesn't like reporting on the boring stuff.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > The point of the exercise was never to make the news, it's about governing. Then why the empty chair theatrics; why reject, in a hearing notionally about policy, the Google executive most appropriate for policy issues; why the pretense of national importance of having particular witnesses with dramatic complaints about their absence when the committee only used voluntary invitations and not subpoenas compelling testimony? It may not be all theatrics, but it's definitely more about theatrics than governing.
puzzle 8y ago
The SSCI might be less of a circus show than e.g. House committees, but you still hear preposterous things from them. Look at this interview: https://www.wired.com/story/mark-warner-senate-committee-hearing-google-facebook-twitter/ https://www.wired.com/story/mark-warner-senate-committee-hea... "I know Kent Walker. He’s a good guy. I respect him, but we had the lawyers back in November. This is a hearing that’s going to talk about solutions. I think it speaks volumes that Google doesn’t want to be part of that discussion. I don't think it’s good for them or for coming up with a good solution." That tells me that either Warner doesn't know what Walker does on a daily basis (he could ask) or he just wants an excuse to skewer Page over China, as in the next paragraph. It's particularly glaring, because he goes out of his way to mention that the hearing was about solutions. Any solution at Google/Alphabet would involve Walker a lot more than Page, who's just not immersed in policy. "We had the lawyers back in November" is such a cheap shot. (Perhaps even cheaper if you know that Warner is a lawyer who never practiced...) And this is from a Democrat who has more latitude to do his real job on the committee. Out of political calculation, Burr and co. need to avoid getting on the nerves of the guy in the White House by even implying that perhaps his victory was aided by another government. All of this to say that I don't expect much to be done. There's the DETER act, but it's not clear if it will pass, in what shape and with what kind of vigor it will be enforced.
- wybiral 8y ago
  You're citing a Wired interview with one member of the committee which isn't the same thing as a real committee hearing.
  - puzzle 8y ago
    [You asked if I'm a Googler] I used to be a Googler, years ago. That's how I know how ridiculous the outrage and the downplaying of Walker are. I'm glad I can talk now without being accused of defending my employer. I brought up Warner because he's one of the most persistent voices, yet he wanted to talk about China, which is not related to election interference.
    - 8y ago
dragonwriter 8y ago
> The Senate Intelligence Committee hearings are usually pretty facts-first Granting, for the sake of argument, that SSCI public hearings are on average more substantive and less grandstanding around pre-set narratives than other public Congressional hearings [0], there was ample advance reason to believe that this hearing was not going to further that pattern. > Yeah, some politicians will throw in their jabs, but that's not the purpose of those committees and it's a fractionally tiny amount of the dialog. It may be a tiny amount of the dialog, but even then it's often the tiny amount that actually is decisive in motivating the hearings, in much the only way that advertising may be a minority of the airtime on commercial TV networks, but it's 100% of the purpose. [0] I don't think it's true on balance, but I do think it seems true based on the selection of public hearings that get major media attention, because substantive, non-showboating hearings of other committees rarely get attention.
- wybiral 8y ago
  Do you have any examples? I watch almost all of their public hearings and it's rarely ever grandstanding. Again, you might have a couple of people take quick jabs but if you watch the actual hearings (don't watch reporters take parts of them out of context) it's usually very straight forward and constructive. Part of it is also to function as a communication channel to the people. It shows their constituents that they're asking the questions people want them to ask and it would give Google's leaders a chance to explain their company-wide position on issues in this case. But they have to care enough to show up.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Do you have any examples? I watch almost all of their public hearings and it's rarely ever grandstanding. That's true of most committees; the difference that makes SSCI seem better is that non-grandstanding hearings (or moments of hearings) from, say, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry have roughly a 0% chance of ever getting coverage from the major media, whereas, due to subject matter, SSCI hearings can be newsworthy without grandstanding (though the grandstanding still gets far disproportionate coverage.) > Part of it is also to function as a communication channel to the people. It shows their constituents that they're asking the questions people want them to ask and it would give Google's leaders a chance to explain their company-wide position on issues in this case. If Google needed the opportunity of an SSCI hearing to get any message it (or a client) wanted to virtually any audience of concern, the uncontroversial portion of the premise for inviting them to the hearing would collapse. Page showing up improves the ability of the Senators that have prejudged Google to get media coverage of their grandstanding, but it does nothing for Google's ability to have it's message reach any audience it cares to have it reach. There's no value to Google in voluntarily cooperating in a hearing concerning matters on which so many members of the committee had publicly, explicitly, and in quite immoderate terms prejudged Google and where the terms sent clearly were incompatible with an intent of productive information gathering rather than political scapegoating. It's, of course, the prerogative of Congress members to use hearings for grandstanding with high value PR target witnesses as props as a means of gesturing to their constituents about their concern on an issue. It's also a very good idea for those high value PR targets to decline to voluntarily cooperate when it is clear that are being invited as punching bags. (It's both good for the punching bags and good for the integrity of the process of government.)
madrox 8y ago
I second this sentiment. I started paying attention to C-SPAN after watching Dan Kaminsky testify about the DNS vulnerability, and it's been very illuminating to see how both sides of the table ask questions.

Retric 8y ago

On C-SPAN those jabs don't seem like much, but they are mostly what's included on regular news coverage. Making them the main point of the exercise.

wybiral 8y ago
The main point of the "exercise" is to discuss the issues and a few politicians hijack a few minutes of time to make political jabs for the media. The rest of it is still important. They're asking questions and forming their perception of the situation which they use to shape policy.
- Retric 8y ago
  If they simply want fact finding they could do that over a phone call.* The circus is very much the point. * Granted, phone calls don't have the weight of purgery to keep people honest. But, that only goes so far.
  - wybiral 8y ago
    In this case it isn't a "circus". Watch these hearings, they aren't as sensational as you seem to think [1]. When it comes to information warfare and propaganda, you'll see them come to the same type of conclusion on multiple panels, which is that public awareness is a key component in any effective counter measure. Giving the leaders of these industries a mic to educate the public seems in all of our best interest. Not all of these committees are some kind of "circus". It's just a normal part of how these things work. [1] Recent example: https://www.c-span.org/video/?449088-1/senate-intelligence-committee-holds-hearing-social-media-foreign-influence https://www.c-span.org/video/?449088-1/senate-intelligence-c... PS: If our politicians did all of these behind closed doors and on private phones you'd be on here complaining about that too. I prefer that some of this happens in the public eye.
    - joshuamorton 8y ago
      There kavanaugh hearing wasn't a circus either (ignoring the protestors), but it's still just a tool to generate soundbites. A closed door hearing is for fact finding, public ones are for proselytizing.
      - wybiral 8y ago
        Or... It's done in public to keep the public informed as to what issues they're looking at and help us follow along because transparency is a useful component in democracy? Just because a tiny amount of grandstanding happens doesn't make it all mock/show. Full disclosure, you're a Googler.
        joshuamorton 8y ago
        Your first paragraph would be spot on if there were only a tiny amount of grandstanding. The majority of questions at every hearing I've seen have been politically biased grandstanding, with the goal of creating a soundbite that appeals to the base, not of factually informing the public.
        wybiral 8y ago
        Which Intelligence Committee hearings are you talking about? I linked to a recent one in a grandparent post that has almost no grandstanding as far as I'm concerned and for the IC that's usually how it is. I can't speak for the larger committees with more media attention.
        joshuamorton 8y ago
        Let me put it this way: if you want to have a real productive discussion on data privacy, you want the head lawyer who, despite Senate grandstanding, probably does make legal decisions for the company. You don't want the guy who thinks that google, probably uses version control software, but doesn't know what it is. The ic didn't want a decision maker, they wanted a heel.
  - RIMR 8y ago
    We live in a Democracy. These fact finding exercises must occur in view of the public. C-SPAN covers this stuff verbatim, with zero spin. This stuff is very important to Democracy, and sitting it out is horrible optics.
  - teddyh 8y ago
    > purgery That’s “perjury”.
RIMR 8y ago
The point of the exercise was never to make the news, it's about governing. The news just doesn't like reporting on the boring stuff.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The point of the exercise was never to make the news, it's about governing. Then why the empty chair theatrics; why reject, in a hearing notionally about policy, the Google executive most appropriate for policy issues; why the pretense of national importance of having particular witnesses with dramatic complaints about their absence when the committee only used voluntary invitations and not subpoenas compelling testimony? It may not be all theatrics, but it's definitely more about theatrics than governing.

puzzle 8y ago

The SSCI might be less of a circus show than e.g. House committees, but you still hear preposterous things from them. Look at this interview: https://www.wired.com/story/mark-warner-senate-committee-hearing-google-facebook-twitter/ https://www.wired.com/story/mark-warner-senate-committee-hea... "I know Kent Walker. He’s a good guy. I respect him, but we had the lawyers back in November. This is a hearing that’s going to talk about solutions. I think it speaks volumes that Google doesn’t want to be part of that discussion. I don't think it’s good for them or for coming up with a good solution." That tells me that either Warner doesn't know what Walker does on a daily basis (he could ask) or he just wants an excuse to skewer Page over China, as in the next paragraph. It's particularly glaring, because he goes out of his way to mention that the hearing was about solutions. Any solution at Google/Alphabet would involve Walker a lot more than Page, who's just not immersed in policy. "We had the lawyers back in November" is such a cheap shot. (Perhaps even cheaper if you know that Warner is a lawyer who never practiced...) And this is from a Democrat who has more latitude to do his real job on the committee. Out of political calculation, Burr and co. need to avoid getting on the nerves of the guy in the White House by even implying that perhaps his victory was aided by another government. All of this to say that I don't expect much to be done. There's the DETER act, but it's not clear if it will pass, in what shape and with what kind of vigor it will be enforced.

wybiral 8y ago
You're citing a Wired interview with one member of the committee which isn't the same thing as a real committee hearing.
- puzzle 8y ago
  [You asked if I'm a Googler] I used to be a Googler, years ago. That's how I know how ridiculous the outrage and the downplaying of Walker are. I'm glad I can talk now without being accused of defending my employer. I brought up Warner because he's one of the most persistent voices, yet he wanted to talk about China, which is not related to election interference.
  - 8y ago

dragonwriter 8y ago

> The Senate Intelligence Committee hearings are usually pretty facts-first Granting, for the sake of argument, that SSCI public hearings are on average more substantive and less grandstanding around pre-set narratives than other public Congressional hearings [0], there was ample advance reason to believe that this hearing was not going to further that pattern. > Yeah, some politicians will throw in their jabs, but that's not the purpose of those committees and it's a fractionally tiny amount of the dialog. It may be a tiny amount of the dialog, but even then it's often the tiny amount that actually is decisive in motivating the hearings, in much the only way that advertising may be a minority of the airtime on commercial TV networks, but it's 100% of the purpose. [0] I don't think it's true on balance, but I do think it seems true based on the selection of public hearings that get major media attention, because substantive, non-showboating hearings of other committees rarely get attention.

wybiral 8y ago
Do you have any examples? I watch almost all of their public hearings and it's rarely ever grandstanding. Again, you might have a couple of people take quick jabs but if you watch the actual hearings (don't watch reporters take parts of them out of context) it's usually very straight forward and constructive. Part of it is also to function as a communication channel to the people. It shows their constituents that they're asking the questions people want them to ask and it would give Google's leaders a chance to explain their company-wide position on issues in this case. But they have to care enough to show up.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Do you have any examples? I watch almost all of their public hearings and it's rarely ever grandstanding. That's true of most committees; the difference that makes SSCI seem better is that non-grandstanding hearings (or moments of hearings) from, say, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry have roughly a 0% chance of ever getting coverage from the major media, whereas, due to subject matter, SSCI hearings can be newsworthy without grandstanding (though the grandstanding still gets far disproportionate coverage.) > Part of it is also to function as a communication channel to the people. It shows their constituents that they're asking the questions people want them to ask and it would give Google's leaders a chance to explain their company-wide position on issues in this case. If Google needed the opportunity of an SSCI hearing to get any message it (or a client) wanted to virtually any audience of concern, the uncontroversial portion of the premise for inviting them to the hearing would collapse. Page showing up improves the ability of the Senators that have prejudged Google to get media coverage of their grandstanding, but it does nothing for Google's ability to have it's message reach any audience it cares to have it reach. There's no value to Google in voluntarily cooperating in a hearing concerning matters on which so many members of the committee had publicly, explicitly, and in quite immoderate terms prejudged Google and where the terms sent clearly were incompatible with an intent of productive information gathering rather than political scapegoating. It's, of course, the prerogative of Congress members to use hearings for grandstanding with high value PR target witnesses as props as a means of gesturing to their constituents about their concern on an issue. It's also a very good idea for those high value PR targets to decline to voluntarily cooperate when it is clear that are being invited as punching bags. (It's both good for the punching bags and good for the integrity of the process of government.)

madrox 8y ago

I second this sentiment. I started paying attention to C-SPAN after watching Dan Kaminsky testify about the DNS vulnerability, and it's been very illuminating to see how both sides of the table ask questions.