4 ms·

I always found this to be a waste of time. Senators and congresspersons ask a question, the executive starts to answer, the senator/congressperson interrupts b

I always found this to be a waste of time. Senators and congresspersons ask a question, the executive starts to answer, the senator/congressperson interrupts because they have to move on to the next question for lack of time. They then yield. Repeat. Many questions asked, none answered. Few things are as idiotic as this format, even taking into account the pharisaic nature of it all.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
Very little of substance happens at these hearings. I watched several hours of the last big tech CEO todo in congress and all I learned was disdain for the interrogators. I wonder what a Washington insider would say about them. What is their real purpose? It's obviously not information gathering, as letters are a more efficient mechanism. Publicity, sure, but for who? Who watches CSPAN? Is it a signalling mechanism to say, "Tech CEOs, we're really mad now?" Or are the senators following the news rather than driving it? I can't tell. My best guess is that it's a soundbite generation mechanism. But that seems so cynical. It's a pretty brutish practice if so.
- Jugurtha 6y ago
  >I wonder what a Washington insider would say about them. What is their real purpose? Direct the heat in public, pass the hat in private. Campaigns are expensive.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  One theory is that recent presidential debate performance made a negative dent against Donald Trump, and the GOP needs fresh wind in the news cycle to shake things up.
sillysaurusx 6y ago
Unfortunately I’m inclined to agree. Has any change ever come from this? It was certainly a nice show, but it seems to be mostly Zuck saying “Senator, yes, ...” for 4 hours. And then nothing else happens.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  Or the CEO of Facebook explaining that Facebook runs ads. Or the CEO of Google offering tech support for a senator's iPhone.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    Or even that Facebook and Twitter aren’t the same?
ciarannolan 6y ago
But it's not a waste of time, because the purpose isn't to have a cogent conversation about the issue. It's to beat up on a CEO or two for 5 minutes and tweet out the clip to your followers. And for that, it's time well spent.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  The senators may think so. But in theory, we sent them there to govern, not to grandstand.
  - s5300 6y ago
    The majority of those who voted them in don't know what those words really mean in the first place so I don't think it matters too much what they choose to do
    - corin_ 6y ago
      Let's try to improve things rather than say "they're successful so who cares"?
      - s5300 6y ago
        Oh, I'm completely with you. I think it's a consequence of having been to larger cities (like in SoCal) for an extended period of time, but having been born and mostly lived in the MidWest sticks. Simply put, for the majority out here, improvement is absolutely futile. They truly, genuinely, simply do not care. At most, if you can get through to them what's actually happening, you'll be glad to know that they'll quite happily want to double down on support of them, just to fuck people who want to "improve" things over. I've personally become utterly cynical towards it. Leaded gasoline and paint, among other things, was just too much of a hell of a drug. It's going to take a generation or two and the majority of the current base to die out before improvement can happen. Very shitty reality. Some who haven't seen it will find it unfathomable, but I can't blame them. I'm just trying to get the fuck away from all of this as fast as I can, though I'm failing miserably. Sorry to be so pessimistic.
kyrra 6y ago
Ben Sasse (senator) wrote an interesting opinion piece a month ago: https://www.wsj.com/articles/make-the-senate-great-again-11599589142 https://www.wsj.com/articles/make-the-senate-great-again-115... The below is from the article which applies specifically to your point: > Cut the cameras. Most of what happens in committee hearings isn’t oversight, it’s showmanship. Senators make speeches that get chopped up, shipped to home-state TV stations, and blasted across social media. They aren’t trying to learn from witnesses, uncover details, or improve legislation. They’re competing for sound bites. > There’s one notable exception: The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the majority of whose work is done in secret. Without posturing for cameras, Republicans and Democrats cooperate on some of America’s most complicated and urgent problems. Other committees could follow their example, while keeping transparency by making transcripts and real-time audio available to the public.
- mmm_grayons 6y ago
  This is exactly right. The treatment of Secretary Clinton and Judge (now Justice) Kavanaugh before the Senate are excellent examples of how the cameras cause senators pontificate and castigate rather than gather information and form policy. If senators wanted information to make decisions, they almost certainly wouldn't be questioning CEOs but rather a group of representatives from each corporation most knowledgeable about their concerns.
  - salawat 6y ago
    S/Most knowledgeable about their concerns/coached by hired lobbyists The issue with Congressional hearings is that not one person has recently been punished for perjury under oath. Actually press charges, convict, and levy a sentence and watch how the atmosphere magically changes. If the legislature continues to be something seen as having no teeth, this poor behavior will continue without end.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  The cameras have to do with the showmanship in the committee hearings, but not with the fact that oversight is what happens prior to and in preparation for the hearings. As anywhere else, work doesn't get done in meetings, work that has been done prior gets approved or rejected in meetings. Public meetings (with or without cameras, and even if the main public access is by public record) add showmanship to justify/excuse the action (or ones position for or against whatever becomes the committee action), but they aren't what puts the substantive work outside of the meetings. That's just how meetings, pretty invariably, work.
markus_zhang 6y ago
As Sir Humprey once said, official inquiry is not to find the root of the issue but to exonerate officials.
dheera 6y ago
I agree. They should allocate a response time and the persecutor's microphones should stop working until the victim has had their entire time.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago

Very little of substance happens at these hearings. I watched several hours of the last big tech CEO todo in congress and all I learned was disdain for the interrogators. I wonder what a Washington insider would say about them. What is their real purpose? It's obviously not information gathering, as letters are a more efficient mechanism. Publicity, sure, but for who? Who watches CSPAN? Is it a signalling mechanism to say, "Tech CEOs, we're really mad now?" Or are the senators following the news rather than driving it? I can't tell. My best guess is that it's a soundbite generation mechanism. But that seems so cynical. It's a pretty brutish practice if so.

Jugurtha 6y ago
>I wonder what a Washington insider would say about them. What is their real purpose? Direct the heat in public, pass the hat in private. Campaigns are expensive.
threatofrain 6y ago
One theory is that recent presidential debate performance made a negative dent against Donald Trump, and the GOP needs fresh wind in the news cycle to shake things up.

sillysaurusx 6y ago

Unfortunately I’m inclined to agree. Has any change ever come from this? It was certainly a nice show, but it seems to be mostly Zuck saying “Senator, yes, ...” for 4 hours. And then nothing else happens.

threatofrain 6y ago
Or the CEO of Facebook explaining that Facebook runs ads. Or the CEO of Google offering tech support for a senator's iPhone.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  Or even that Facebook and Twitter aren’t the same?

ciarannolan 6y ago

But it's not a waste of time, because the purpose isn't to have a cogent conversation about the issue. It's to beat up on a CEO or two for 5 minutes and tweet out the clip to your followers. And for that, it's time well spent.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
The senators may think so. But in theory, we sent them there to govern, not to grandstand.
- s5300 6y ago
  The majority of those who voted them in don't know what those words really mean in the first place so I don't think it matters too much what they choose to do
  - corin_ 6y ago
    Let's try to improve things rather than say "they're successful so who cares"?
    - s5300 6y ago
      Oh, I'm completely with you. I think it's a consequence of having been to larger cities (like in SoCal) for an extended period of time, but having been born and mostly lived in the MidWest sticks. Simply put, for the majority out here, improvement is absolutely futile. They truly, genuinely, simply do not care. At most, if you can get through to them what's actually happening, you'll be glad to know that they'll quite happily want to double down on support of them, just to fuck people who want to "improve" things over. I've personally become utterly cynical towards it. Leaded gasoline and paint, among other things, was just too much of a hell of a drug. It's going to take a generation or two and the majority of the current base to die out before improvement can happen. Very shitty reality. Some who haven't seen it will find it unfathomable, but I can't blame them. I'm just trying to get the fuck away from all of this as fast as I can, though I'm failing miserably. Sorry to be so pessimistic.

kyrra 6y ago

Ben Sasse (senator) wrote an interesting opinion piece a month ago: https://www.wsj.com/articles/make-the-senate-great-again-11599589142 https://www.wsj.com/articles/make-the-senate-great-again-115... The below is from the article which applies specifically to your point: > Cut the cameras. Most of what happens in committee hearings isn’t oversight, it’s showmanship. Senators make speeches that get chopped up, shipped to home-state TV stations, and blasted across social media. They aren’t trying to learn from witnesses, uncover details, or improve legislation. They’re competing for sound bites. > There’s one notable exception: The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the majority of whose work is done in secret. Without posturing for cameras, Republicans and Democrats cooperate on some of America’s most complicated and urgent problems. Other committees could follow their example, while keeping transparency by making transcripts and real-time audio available to the public.

mmm_grayons 6y ago
This is exactly right. The treatment of Secretary Clinton and Judge (now Justice) Kavanaugh before the Senate are excellent examples of how the cameras cause senators pontificate and castigate rather than gather information and form policy. If senators wanted information to make decisions, they almost certainly wouldn't be questioning CEOs but rather a group of representatives from each corporation most knowledgeable about their concerns.
- salawat 6y ago
  S/Most knowledgeable about their concerns/coached by hired lobbyists The issue with Congressional hearings is that not one person has recently been punished for perjury under oath. Actually press charges, convict, and levy a sentence and watch how the atmosphere magically changes. If the legislature continues to be something seen as having no teeth, this poor behavior will continue without end.
dragonwriter 6y ago
The cameras have to do with the showmanship in the committee hearings, but not with the fact that oversight is what happens prior to and in preparation for the hearings. As anywhere else, work doesn't get done in meetings, work that has been done prior gets approved or rejected in meetings. Public meetings (with or without cameras, and even if the main public access is by public record) add showmanship to justify/excuse the action (or ones position for or against whatever becomes the committee action), but they aren't what puts the substantive work outside of the meetings. That's just how meetings, pretty invariably, work.

markus_zhang 6y ago

As Sir Humprey once said, official inquiry is not to find the root of the issue but to exonerate officials.

dheera 6y ago

I agree. They should allocate a response time and the persecutor's microphones should stop working until the victim has had their entire time.