3 ms·

I don't know anything about Scottish politics, so I cannot comment. But the best source of information on British/EU politics is a blog: http://eureferendum.bl

I don't know anything about Scottish politics, so I cannot comment. But the best source of information on British/EU politics is a blog: http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ I don't grant the premise: we may not have ever had a mass media that lived up to our ideals, but I'd say we certainly have one that attempted to: Watergate Watergate wasn't investigative journalism, it was the Post being a conduit for leaks by the FBI: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20081222_death_deep_throat_and_crisis_journalism http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20081222_death_deep_throat_an... If you can come up with a structure of government that takes into account human nature and is one where the rulers don't need to be held to account by the governed and has a realistic implementation plan, I'll be amazed. Here's one simple solution: Allow people to sell their votes. A second solution: Competitive government. Delegate all policy (outside of defense) back to the states (or cities in the case of Scotland). Then instead of having citizens worry about policy, they can worry about results. The rulers will enact good policies not because they fear bad press, but because otherwise smart people will go live in other states. Other solutions: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formalist-manifesto-originally-posted.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formali... or http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2007/05/juritopia.html http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2007/05/juritopia.html And of course, there is always good old fashioned monarchy. Have you ever read up on what the old European monarchies were actually like, in terms of taxes, economic growth, and personal freedom?

bonaldi 18y ago
I'm not sure what definition of "best" you're using, but there aren't many metrics on which that site comes out top that can be also used to measure the value of reporting. For one thing it's biased as all hell -- "Euroscepticism" is a particular right-wing British position -- and while there are many tedious arguments to be had about the impossibility of objectivity and how we're in a post-objective world and whatnot, it's surely not a bad thing to try and aim for. But far more importantly, the site's mainly comment/analysis, like we've been discussing. The majority of stuff I can see on the front page now is commentary riffing off from links to print media websites. It's good commentary if you like the beat they're thumping on their tub, but it's a million miles away from reporting. Watergate wasn't investigative journalism Ok, fine, Abu Ghraib. Broken by Seymour Hersh, based on a report that would otherwise never have seen the light of day. Or the majority of those on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize_for_Investigative_Reporting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize_for_Investigativ... I'm going to let the Nu-Government thing slide, as it's not really germane to this. Suffice to say that I think all of these options (particularly the one that assumes people will find it easiest to uproot and move their families to express their opinions on their rulers) appear considerably more difficult to achieve than finding new and reliable sources of funding for investigative reporting.
- bokonist 18y ago
  Would you consider an article like this reporting or commentary: http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/03/yesterday-in-parliament.html http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/03/yesterday-in-parlia... ? How is this different than reporting in the print magazines? And of course there is this gem of investigative reporting ( although in a way it is "riffing" off of the main stream press): http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/03/yesterday-in-parliament.html http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/03/yesterday-in-parlia... Of course most of EU Referendum's articles are interpretation rather than raw reports from primary sources. But so are most Times articles. From the perspective of a reader with limited time, interpretation and summary is much more important than raw facts. As for bias - sorry to bore you with my tedious arguments, but every source is biased. What matters is whether the source gives you an accurate view of reality. Or another way of putting it, a source of information is good if it leads you to not being surprised by future events, helps you make accurate predictions, and aids in making good decisions. I find European Referendum to be good on these accounts. On the other hand, I have found the NY Times to be a consistently crappy source of information ( the War in Iraq, financial crisis, and many others), and so I have mostly stopped reading it. Ok, fine, Abu Ghraib. Broken by Seymour Hersh, based on a report that would otherwise never have seen the light of day. What? Did Seymour Hersh secretly trail Pentagon officials and listen to their conversations until they revealed their dark secrets? No. The report was leaked by someone in the Pentagon who wanted the public to know about it. If Seymour Hersh hadn't been the lucky winner, the leaker could have distributed it to any number of people, including bloggers. Again, the press is not doing investigative journalism, it's being a conduit for leaks. Suffice to say that I think all of these options appear considerably more difficult to achieve than finding new and reliable sources of funding for investigative reporting. I actually have no doubt that journalism in its current form will continue. Foundations will fund the NYTimes if no one else does. And there is always the government funding route ... I just don't think that the current system of journalism, or the system of journalism in the 1970's, leads to good government. (particularly the one that assumes people will find it easiest to uproot and move their families to express their opinions on their rulers) Only a small fraction of families need to be mobile in order to properly incentivize the government to rule well.
sho 18y ago
I was taking you seriously until you claimed that that blog was the "best source of information on British/EU politics". Uh-huh.
- bokonist 18y ago
  What's your favorite source?
  - sho 18y ago
    I guess a combination of the Guardian, the Telegraph, the IHT and the Economist? A spectrum of political interests, covered by motivated, professional reporters? I am probably missing one or two good sources but that should cover all the bases really.
    - bokonist 18y ago
      EU Referendum doesn't have the breadth of those sources, but in terms of quality, it's the best at the areas it does cover. I don't follow European news that much, but on the American side I have a collection of online sources so I get both breadth and quality. Together, the hand picked sources are far better than the NY Times and the Economist.

bonaldi 18y ago

I'm not sure what definition of "best" you're using, but there aren't many metrics on which that site comes out top that can be also used to measure the value of reporting. For one thing it's biased as all hell -- "Euroscepticism" is a particular right-wing British position -- and while there are many tedious arguments to be had about the impossibility of objectivity and how we're in a post-objective world and whatnot, it's surely not a bad thing to try and aim for. But far more importantly, the site's mainly comment/analysis, like we've been discussing. The majority of stuff I can see on the front page now is commentary riffing off from links to print media websites. It's good commentary if you like the beat they're thumping on their tub, but it's a million miles away from reporting. Watergate wasn't investigative journalism Ok, fine, Abu Ghraib. Broken by Seymour Hersh, based on a report that would otherwise never have seen the light of day. Or the majority of those on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize_for_Investigative_Reporting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize_for_Investigativ... I'm going to let the Nu-Government thing slide, as it's not really germane to this. Suffice to say that I think all of these options (particularly the one that assumes people will find it easiest to uproot and move their families to express their opinions on their rulers) appear considerably more difficult to achieve than finding new and reliable sources of funding for investigative reporting.

bokonist 18y ago
Would you consider an article like this reporting or commentary: http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/03/yesterday-in-parliament.html http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/03/yesterday-in-parlia... ? How is this different than reporting in the print magazines? And of course there is this gem of investigative reporting ( although in a way it is "riffing" off of the main stream press): http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/03/yesterday-in-parliament.html http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/03/yesterday-in-parlia... Of course most of EU Referendum's articles are interpretation rather than raw reports from primary sources. But so are most Times articles. From the perspective of a reader with limited time, interpretation and summary is much more important than raw facts. As for bias - sorry to bore you with my tedious arguments, but every source is biased. What matters is whether the source gives you an accurate view of reality. Or another way of putting it, a source of information is good if it leads you to not being surprised by future events, helps you make accurate predictions, and aids in making good decisions. I find European Referendum to be good on these accounts. On the other hand, I have found the NY Times to be a consistently crappy source of information ( the War in Iraq, financial crisis, and many others), and so I have mostly stopped reading it. Ok, fine, Abu Ghraib. Broken by Seymour Hersh, based on a report that would otherwise never have seen the light of day. What? Did Seymour Hersh secretly trail Pentagon officials and listen to their conversations until they revealed their dark secrets? No. The report was leaked by someone in the Pentagon who wanted the public to know about it. If Seymour Hersh hadn't been the lucky winner, the leaker could have distributed it to any number of people, including bloggers. Again, the press is not doing investigative journalism, it's being a conduit for leaks. Suffice to say that I think all of these options appear considerably more difficult to achieve than finding new and reliable sources of funding for investigative reporting. I actually have no doubt that journalism in its current form will continue. Foundations will fund the NYTimes if no one else does. And there is always the government funding route ... I just don't think that the current system of journalism, or the system of journalism in the 1970's, leads to good government. (particularly the one that assumes people will find it easiest to uproot and move their families to express their opinions on their rulers) Only a small fraction of families need to be mobile in order to properly incentivize the government to rule well.

sho 18y ago

I was taking you seriously until you claimed that that blog was the "best source of information on British/EU politics". Uh-huh.

bokonist 18y ago
What's your favorite source?
- sho 18y ago
  I guess a combination of the Guardian, the Telegraph, the IHT and the Economist? A spectrum of political interests, covered by motivated, professional reporters? I am probably missing one or two good sources but that should cover all the bases really.
  - bokonist 18y ago
    EU Referendum doesn't have the breadth of those sources, but in terms of quality, it's the best at the areas it does cover. I don't follow European news that much, but on the American side I have a collection of online sources so I get both breadth and quality. Together, the hand picked sources are far better than the NY Times and the Economist.