5 ms·

Good. C-SPAN cameras turned Congress into a show and I’m not convinced we’re better off for it.

by SllX 6y ago

alphabettsy 6y ago
I tend to agree with you. Too often politicians are playing to the cameras hoping for a soundbite rather than engaging in substantive debate.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  Would conducting legislative business via IRC (or text-only Slack/Discord) be a substantive improvement? (or would legislators wind up texting A/S/L and deploying filibuster bots?)
  - Aunche 6y ago
    Everything would be the same except it's not recorded. A transcript can provide transparency but would be much harder to sensationalize.
- C19is20 6y ago
  I've never voted, never will. Mainly because politicians don't really debate: that being, to convince an opposition to change their minds. I know sometimes politicians have gone against their party's wishes, but I can't see those being as a result of a well constructed idea from the opposition.
  - eru 6y ago
    From what I can tell, there's plenty of that kind of debating done in German politics. Especially also because coalition governments are the norm. Would you vote there?
  - alphabettsy 6y ago
    This may have some truth in national politics, but state and certainly local politics have much more substantive discussions.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jacobwilliamroy 6y ago
I like C-SPAN. It gives us a fairly pure insight into what the government is doing. I can literally keep an eye on them. I see all the stuff the news doesn't report and I also get to see the news before it gets filtered through corporate media. Plus you are probably the second person I know who thinks C-SPAN is a show. The first person is me. The consensus in America seems to be that C-SPAN is too boring and so many won't watch it.
- cameldrv 6y ago
  It provides pure insight into what happens on the floor. Therefore substantive business does not happen on the floor anymore. The floor is now a stage, and what happens is theater. All real business happens in private meetings and conversations, and those meetings are overwhelmingly segregated by party, hence the increasing polarization, because members from opposing parties rarely have personal relationships anymore.
  - runawaybottle 6y ago
    And to add to this, the only thing that’s going to get you to pure insight is if you literally read these bills and proposals line by line and identify what interests or platforms are being pushed. Who amongst us does this? Desperately need annotated cliff notes for congressional bills, as the current media has a symbiotic relationship with the party spin narratives and cannot give anything other than the dramatic non-substantive take on matters.
    - Der_Einzige 6y ago
      Check out C-SPANs website. They have a neat bill tracker which makes understanding the debates between legislatures easier.
- SllX 6y ago
  What you see on camera isn’t a pure anything, it’s just pure obfuscation and deflection. The cameras are rolling and while they’re rolling that’s the time to score points. That’s no way for a deliberative body to do politics.
imgabe 6y ago
Newt Gingrich realized that C-SPAN provided him a free 24-hour platform to talk about whatever he wanted on TV. He would go stand in the empty chambers and speak to the TV audience. It helped bring about the widening partisan divide we have today.
- tdhoot 6y ago
  C-SPAN being known for its large audience glued to the TV screen all 24 hours?
  - pm90 6y ago
    No, but it provides a wealth of raw footage to edit and play for the TV media, ads and today, with the Internet.
    - rjsw 6y ago
      A certain UK politician did this in the EU parliament. Would turn up, make a speech in the middle of a debate, then leave. The speech had nothing to do with the subject of the debate but it could be put on YouTube later.
  - imgabe 6y ago
    No, certainly not a large audience, but some people. This was in the 80s and early 90s. It must be difficult to imagine if you've grown up with the Internet, but people didn't have instant access to an infinite amount of content with them in their pocket all the time. If you had basic cable, you got maybe 13 channels, one of which was C-SPAN, plus 3-5 local networks. Some of those would go off the air during the night. Others would be showing infomercials or bad movies or just whatever they had laying around. There was not a lot of competition at the time. So if you were working the night shift, or an insomniac, or just up late watching TV for some reason, there was a decent chance that it would be one of maybe 5 things available to watch. And hey, all those people get to vote. So if you want to influence them to vote a certain way, why not go talk to them when you're not really competing for their attention with anything else?

Good. C-SPAN cameras turned Congress into a show and I’m not convinced we’re better off for it.

by SllX 6y ago

Good. C-SPAN cameras turned Congress into a show and I’m not convinced we’re better off for it.

I tend to agree with you. Too often politicians are playing to the cameras hoping for a soundbite rather than engaging in substantive debate.

082349872349872 6y ago
Would conducting legislative business via IRC (or text-only Slack/Discord) be a substantive improvement? (or would legislators wind up texting A/S/L and deploying filibuster bots?)
- Aunche 6y ago
  Everything would be the same except it's not recorded. A transcript can provide transparency but would be much harder to sensationalize.
C19is20 6y ago
I've never voted, never will. Mainly because politicians don't really debate: that being, to convince an opposition to change their minds. I know sometimes politicians have gone against their party's wishes, but I can't see those being as a result of a well constructed idea from the opposition.
- eru 6y ago
  From what I can tell, there's plenty of that kind of debating done in German politics. Especially also because coalition governments are the norm. Would you vote there?
- alphabettsy 6y ago
  This may have some truth in national politics, but state and certainly local politics have much more substantive discussions.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jacobwilliamroy 6y ago

I like C-SPAN. It gives us a fairly pure insight into what the government is doing. I can literally keep an eye on them. I see all the stuff the news doesn't report and I also get to see the news before it gets filtered through corporate media. Plus you are probably the second person I know who thinks C-SPAN is a show. The first person is me. The consensus in America seems to be that C-SPAN is too boring and so many won't watch it.

cameldrv 6y ago
It provides pure insight into what happens on the floor. Therefore substantive business does not happen on the floor anymore. The floor is now a stage, and what happens is theater. All real business happens in private meetings and conversations, and those meetings are overwhelmingly segregated by party, hence the increasing polarization, because members from opposing parties rarely have personal relationships anymore.
- runawaybottle 6y ago
  And to add to this, the only thing that’s going to get you to pure insight is if you literally read these bills and proposals line by line and identify what interests or platforms are being pushed. Who amongst us does this? Desperately need annotated cliff notes for congressional bills, as the current media has a symbiotic relationship with the party spin narratives and cannot give anything other than the dramatic non-substantive take on matters.
  - Der_Einzige 6y ago
    Check out C-SPANs website. They have a neat bill tracker which makes understanding the debates between legislatures easier.
SllX 6y ago
What you see on camera isn’t a pure anything, it’s just pure obfuscation and deflection. The cameras are rolling and while they’re rolling that’s the time to score points. That’s no way for a deliberative body to do politics.

imgabe 6y ago

Newt Gingrich realized that C-SPAN provided him a free 24-hour platform to talk about whatever he wanted on TV. He would go stand in the empty chambers and speak to the TV audience. It helped bring about the widening partisan divide we have today.

tdhoot 6y ago
C-SPAN being known for its large audience glued to the TV screen all 24 hours?
- pm90 6y ago
  No, but it provides a wealth of raw footage to edit and play for the TV media, ads and today, with the Internet.
  - rjsw 6y ago
    A certain UK politician did this in the EU parliament. Would turn up, make a speech in the middle of a debate, then leave. The speech had nothing to do with the subject of the debate but it could be put on YouTube later.
- imgabe 6y ago
  No, certainly not a large audience, but some people. This was in the 80s and early 90s. It must be difficult to imagine if you've grown up with the Internet, but people didn't have instant access to an infinite amount of content with them in their pocket all the time. If you had basic cable, you got maybe 13 channels, one of which was C-SPAN, plus 3-5 local networks. Some of those would go off the air during the night. Others would be showing infomercials or bad movies or just whatever they had laying around. There was not a lot of competition at the time. So if you were working the night shift, or an insomniac, or just up late watching TV for some reason, there was a decent chance that it would be one of maybe 5 things available to watch. And hey, all those people get to vote. So if you want to influence them to vote a certain way, why not go talk to them when you're not really competing for their attention with anything else?