3 ms·

I live in a fairly large Florida city. There is no investigative reporting and zero coverage of local politics anymore. The local news covers sports, entertainm

by Lendal 7y ago

I live in a fairly large Florida city. There is no investigative reporting and zero coverage of local politics anymore. The local news covers sports, entertainment, weather, syndicated national stories and that's it. In other words, only the stuff that makes them money. I don't blame them. I won't pay for a subscription to a worthless newspaper, and they can't afford to do investigative reporting because it costs too much for so little return on investment. The week before an election there is no information at all on the people running for local office, school board, judges or boring stuff like that. What's the word for government by random chance?

knolax 7y ago
stochastocracy?/s Sounds like the type of catchy buzzword to write a book around.
dmckeon 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  True sortition -- a random selection, preferably from a prequalified candidate pool -- can actually be a fairly useful tool. A vote-based system in the absence of an effective media to investigate and inform the electorate is not actually random, but is subject to sway and influence from any modestly motivated party, with no effective check from an at least putatively disinterested or nonbiased journalistic enterprise. You're not leaving selection up to chance, you're leaving it up the the most effective, least principled, least visible election manipulator.
  - Lendal 7y ago
    Sortition would actually be an improvement even if there was no manipulator. Right now local government seems to be a selection by most-recognizable-name. In Florida a Joe Smith will always get the nod over a Prayut Chan-o-cha if there's no local press covering the election or publishing any candidate bios.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      See also: the canditates' Chinese-name problem: https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2011-may-17-la-me-chinese-names-20110517-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2011-may-17-la-me-chine...
shantly 7y ago
There's a lot of local corruption. Before, keeping it hush-hush meant capturing the local paper(s). Now? Increasingly you don't even need to do that. As long as the state AG or whoever doesn't take an interest (and some of them seem to intentionally avoid doing so) you're fine. Talking counties, schools, and towns outside even mid-sized cities, here. I am worried this, and other developments, will mean the gradual end of the US as a relatively low-corruption state.
- stakhanov 7y ago
  Can you think of any examples from the recent past of small local newspapers doing investigative journalism of that kind? I certainly can't. Low circulation means low advertising revenue, which means low budget for journalism, which means low quality journalism. Any local newspapers that I know of basically just print what comes out of the PR mill of local companies and local government.
  - dayofthedaleks 7y ago
    A small paper in Iowa recently won a Pulzitzer for representing community interests in the face of corporate agriculture: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/art-cullen https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/art-cullen
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    In MA we have the Turtleboy blog which is basically the only way to get news that doesn't bend over backwards to stay on the "correct" (where correct is defined on Beacon Hill) side of issues involving government. He has a right bias on certain social issues but it's easy enough to tune out and he does a good job delineating facts and his opinions.
    - stakhanov 7y ago
      The question was about investigative journalism, which is the kind of journalism where you actually expend resources to dig out facts that the public needs to know and otherwise wouldn't know about. What you describe sounds more like putting a "spin" on facts that are already in the media that's off-the-map. In this context off-the-map may mean a genius operating at a level far above us all. Or it may just mean crazy. The former is a possibility, but the latter is always more likely. And those are a dime a dozen, not a rare journalistic treasure.
brandnewlow 7y ago
They only published the investigations they did to win prestige and standing that would distract regulators from interfering with their monopolies over local advertising. Hardcore journalism has never been a moneymaker.
baq 7y ago
there's also a question whether if this information was available, would it be read? i think there's an analogy to public education here: if it was driven purely by greed, it wouldn't happen. maybe there should be a government-sponsored investigative journalism, perhaps attached to the judiciary branch?
- VLM 7y ago
  If everything is identity politics, would it have any impact? If all that matters is race and gender, or whatever other "Divide and Conqueror" scheme we're undergoing at this time, you'll notice criminality didn't make the list of what matters, so ...
pjc50 7y ago
I worry that this is the sort of thing that has to get worse before it gets better. Only when the corruption is so bad, will an activist start a newspaper to report on local politics on their own funding. If the popular will against corruption is strong enough, they'll be able to get Patreon funding. An example local sustainably-funded investigative journalism outfit: https://theferret.scot/ https://theferret.scot/ Unfortunately this relies on the "sweet spot" where the government is corrupt enough to be outrageous but not corrupt enough to shut down your paper and campaign by force. (It also relies on accepting that if you want local political news coverage, it's not going to be flatly neutral, because neither the audience nor the writers want that. That's not the same as being factional; "local government should be good not bad" is a highly political position, but not necessarily a factional one unless a party has a policy that local government should be bad.)
mrfusion 7y ago
> What's the word for government by random chance? Party line voting
Pigo 7y ago
It never fails to amaze me how little people seem to care about local politics, the stuff that effects them the most day to day. Our local elections get an okay turn out, because we've done a good job of making people aware of how important it is. But I go to a city counsel meeting, and members seem mad that someone showed up and they have to go through the motions. Most of them run unopposed, and I assume decide who gets what while they're at the bar or something. Their election campaign is usually a facebook page with cute kids smiling, and saying nothing at all. The city doesn't know what they're up to unless they ask for money. For a long time the federal level has been increasing in power, but maybe that's because no takes an active interest in city & state. I've been considering running for a local seat just to be a monkey wrench.
corodra 7y ago
Fellow Floridian, same here. Thing is, I've been curious about this. You mentioned, "I won't pay for a subscription to a worthless newspaper". So, I know this is the sentiment most people have. But, isn't that the problem? BTW, I'm not picking on you, this is more about the generality of the situation. A lot of people think local politics and other issues are worthless. But then are annoyed when they don't know anything about what's going on, why no one is "doing anything about it", "how did they get away with that" or just generally complain that their local whatever is a POS. For politics that is more likely to affect you faster than state, fed or international level, why do we think it's worthless? I'm not going to pretend like I'm magically different. Our mayor is about as important to me as a dog turd in my neighbor's backyard is to me. I've been wondering how I even came to the idea myself about a month ago when local politics does heavily affect me, whether I like it or not. Makes me wonder about some demographics. Like, what is the percentage of people that do "care" and actively read about their local area? And by how much (1hr, 3hrs, 5hrs a week, etc)? Then, what's their city like? Do they have relatively less corruption than other cities? Are their schools better? Parks? Roads? Rec centers? Gov employee well being any better? Crime rates? How many people are needed to care about "local politics", on average, to make a city "good"? 10%? 20%? 50%? Then, what has to happen to make enough people give a shit? Questions beyond this post and HN... but yea... why the hell do we think local politics and news is worthless when it's the issues that will affect us more and faster than anything else?

by Lendal 7y ago

knolax 7y ago

stochastocracy?/s Sounds like the type of catchy buzzword to write a book around.

dmckeon 7y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

dredmorbius 7y ago
True sortition -- a random selection, preferably from a prequalified candidate pool -- can actually be a fairly useful tool. A vote-based system in the absence of an effective media to investigate and inform the electorate is not actually random, but is subject to sway and influence from any modestly motivated party, with no effective check from an at least putatively disinterested or nonbiased journalistic enterprise. You're not leaving selection up to chance, you're leaving it up the the most effective, least principled, least visible election manipulator.
- Lendal 7y ago
  Sortition would actually be an improvement even if there was no manipulator. Right now local government seems to be a selection by most-recognizable-name. In Florida a Joe Smith will always get the nod over a Prayut Chan-o-cha if there's no local press covering the election or publishing any candidate bios.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    See also: the canditates' Chinese-name problem: https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2011-may-17-la-me-chinese-names-20110517-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2011-may-17-la-me-chine...

shantly 7y ago

There's a lot of local corruption. Before, keeping it hush-hush meant capturing the local paper(s). Now? Increasingly you don't even need to do that. As long as the state AG or whoever doesn't take an interest (and some of them seem to intentionally avoid doing so) you're fine. Talking counties, schools, and towns outside even mid-sized cities, here. I am worried this, and other developments, will mean the gradual end of the US as a relatively low-corruption state.

stakhanov 7y ago
Can you think of any examples from the recent past of small local newspapers doing investigative journalism of that kind? I certainly can't. Low circulation means low advertising revenue, which means low budget for journalism, which means low quality journalism. Any local newspapers that I know of basically just print what comes out of the PR mill of local companies and local government.
- dayofthedaleks 7y ago
  A small paper in Iowa recently won a Pulzitzer for representing community interests in the face of corporate agriculture: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/art-cullen https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/art-cullen
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  In MA we have the Turtleboy blog which is basically the only way to get news that doesn't bend over backwards to stay on the "correct" (where correct is defined on Beacon Hill) side of issues involving government. He has a right bias on certain social issues but it's easy enough to tune out and he does a good job delineating facts and his opinions.
  - stakhanov 7y ago
    The question was about investigative journalism, which is the kind of journalism where you actually expend resources to dig out facts that the public needs to know and otherwise wouldn't know about. What you describe sounds more like putting a "spin" on facts that are already in the media that's off-the-map. In this context off-the-map may mean a genius operating at a level far above us all. Or it may just mean crazy. The former is a possibility, but the latter is always more likely. And those are a dime a dozen, not a rare journalistic treasure.

brandnewlow 7y ago

They only published the investigations they did to win prestige and standing that would distract regulators from interfering with their monopolies over local advertising. Hardcore journalism has never been a moneymaker.

baq 7y ago

there's also a question whether if this information was available, would it be read? i think there's an analogy to public education here: if it was driven purely by greed, it wouldn't happen. maybe there should be a government-sponsored investigative journalism, perhaps attached to the judiciary branch?

VLM 7y ago
If everything is identity politics, would it have any impact? If all that matters is race and gender, or whatever other "Divide and Conqueror" scheme we're undergoing at this time, you'll notice criminality didn't make the list of what matters, so ...

pjc50 7y ago

I worry that this is the sort of thing that has to get worse before it gets better. Only when the corruption is so bad, will an activist start a newspaper to report on local politics on their own funding. If the popular will against corruption is strong enough, they'll be able to get Patreon funding. An example local sustainably-funded investigative journalism outfit: https://theferret.scot/ https://theferret.scot/ Unfortunately this relies on the "sweet spot" where the government is corrupt enough to be outrageous but not corrupt enough to shut down your paper and campaign by force. (It also relies on accepting that if you want local political news coverage, it's not going to be flatly neutral, because neither the audience nor the writers want that. That's not the same as being factional; "local government should be good not bad" is a highly political position, but not necessarily a factional one unless a party has a policy that local government should be bad.)

mrfusion 7y ago

> What's the word for government by random chance? Party line voting

Pigo 7y ago

It never fails to amaze me how little people seem to care about local politics, the stuff that effects them the most day to day. Our local elections get an okay turn out, because we've done a good job of making people aware of how important it is. But I go to a city counsel meeting, and members seem mad that someone showed up and they have to go through the motions. Most of them run unopposed, and I assume decide who gets what while they're at the bar or something. Their election campaign is usually a facebook page with cute kids smiling, and saying nothing at all. The city doesn't know what they're up to unless they ask for money. For a long time the federal level has been increasing in power, but maybe that's because no takes an active interest in city & state. I've been considering running for a local seat just to be a monkey wrench.

corodra 7y ago

Fellow Floridian, same here. Thing is, I've been curious about this. You mentioned, "I won't pay for a subscription to a worthless newspaper". So, I know this is the sentiment most people have. But, isn't that the problem? BTW, I'm not picking on you, this is more about the generality of the situation. A lot of people think local politics and other issues are worthless. But then are annoyed when they don't know anything about what's going on, why no one is "doing anything about it", "how did they get away with that" or just generally complain that their local whatever is a POS. For politics that is more likely to affect you faster than state, fed or international level, why do we think it's worthless? I'm not going to pretend like I'm magically different. Our mayor is about as important to me as a dog turd in my neighbor's backyard is to me. I've been wondering how I even came to the idea myself about a month ago when local politics does heavily affect me, whether I like it or not. Makes me wonder about some demographics. Like, what is the percentage of people that do "care" and actively read about their local area? And by how much (1hr, 3hrs, 5hrs a week, etc)? Then, what's their city like? Do they have relatively less corruption than other cities? Are their schools better? Parks? Roads? Rec centers? Gov employee well being any better? Crime rates? How many people are needed to care about "local politics", on average, to make a city "good"? 10%? 20%? 50%? Then, what has to happen to make enough people give a shit? Questions beyond this post and HN... but yea... why the hell do we think local politics and news is worthless when it's the issues that will affect us more and faster than anything else?