What are your best solutions for stopping corruption in D.C.?

[franklinstower]

Yeah, I know your schtick. Deflect any examination of issues to ugly, baseless personal attacks. Oh well. I guess at least this kind of thing has the effect of showing who you are. People who behave like that on a discussion group should just be banned.

It is my thing ONLY with you but I will admit that I did not mean to send that post. Typed it out and then decided not to respond to your post instead.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It is my thing ONLY with you but I will admit that I did not mean to send that post. Typed it out and then decided not to respond to your post instead.

Nah, you behave that way toward others, too. I've never done anything to you but disagree with points that I think are wrong (and in this case, I just wanted to know what your position was). I think you're just a hateful dude.

 

[Trotsky]

Vote for my preferred candidates, who are anti-corruption, unlike those other candidates, who like doing corruption.

You don't see how this response/mindset is extremely destructive? Given your previous posts about objective truth outweighing mere narratives, I would think you'd recognize how framing corruption as a matter of competing narratives is harmful.

Of course, there are different degrees of corruption according to laws and political norms, ranging from unlawful quid pro quos for personal gain, to semi-lawful conflicts of interest, to lawful campaign finance bribery. But it exists, and there are ways to combat it. Likewise, there are candidates who are outright corrupt through all those degrees (Trump), those that only engage in lawful corruption (the vast majority of politicians), and those that oppose all three degrees by refusing corporate donations (Bernie Sanders).

 

[Jack V Savage]

You don't see how this response/mindset is extremely destructive? Given your previous posts about objective truth outweighing mere narratives, I would think you'd recognize how framing corruption as a matter of competing narratives is harmful.

It's a joke. Illustrates my view that changing behavior requires changing incentive structures.

Of course, there are different degrees of corruption according to laws and political norms, ranging from unlawful quid pro quos for personal gain, to semi-lawful conflicts of interest, to lawful campaign finance bribery. But it exists, and there are ways to combat it. Likewise, there are candidates who are outright corrupt through all those degrees (Trump), those that only engage in lawful corruption (the vast majority of politicians), and those that oppose all three degrees by refusing corporate donations (Bernie Sanders).

Yeah, definitely some people are worse than others, and we should deal with bad actors. I disagree that refusing corporate donations matters, except I guess in terms of optics (but with a tradeoff).

 

[Fugazy]

Seek help. Your line of thinking is exactly the reason why people use the term "Trump Derangement Syndrome".

You explode into opinion based rants at the very mention of Trump.

Don't see how this applies to me.

My statement is a blanket for all public officials.

 

[franklinstower]

Nah, you behave that way toward others, too. I've never done anything to you but disagree with points that I think are wrong (and in this case, I just wanted to know what your position was). I think you're just a hateful dude.

Im sorry you feel that way Jack.

 

[IGIT]

hiya franklinstower,

The thing is I have supported many candidates over the years and never once noticed a bias running contrary to my convictions yet in the singular case of Bernie I do notice it often across all MSM significantly and in NPR less significantly.

i figured it was about Mr. Sanders.

And this happens to be durring a time when we have a candidate who is truly a needle mover towards power for the ordinary peron amd not just the well funded and well connected and well educated...

it was not NPR's role to tell their listeners back in 2016, "hey everyone, Hillary is neoliberal crook - this guy Sanders is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to move the needle in a progressive direction. think about it; finally confronting the issue of climate change...single payor healthcare...a vastly more progressive system of taxation that ensures the fruits of corporate victory are spread to the masses! pay attention!!! ".

that's not how they see themselves. that's not their job to advocate for a progressive Federal Government, lol.

in 2016, Mr. Sanders was a long shot candidate who ended up running a strong insurgency campaign against the beltway establishment - and he shook up the race. NPR's coverage reflected that, but he was still a longshot who saw his chances evaporate on Super Tuesday - and NPR's coverage reflected that also.

this is their mission statement;
The mission of NPR, in partnership with its member stations, is to create a more informed public, one challenged and invigorated by a deeper understanding and appreciation of events, ideas, and culture within the United States and across the globe.

that means they'll have a one hour segment on Bernie Sanders, but they'll also have Jonah Goldberg on the air, you know? that means Terri Gross may have Al Franken on for one show...but she'll have Bill O'Reilly on for another. that's NPR.

NPR is not the Daily Kos.

- IGIT

 

[kpt018]

I like a tweet from Ezra Klein that I saw recently that I think is applicable here. It's goes something like "We don't get the government we deserve. We get the government we tolerate".

As long as the masses are tribal and poorly informed we'll continue to see corrupt opportunists fool voters over and over again. And if voters can't see obvious corruption that is very well reported like we see with the current President and GOP I fear we're fucked. Let's hope future generations are smarter than the voters today.

 

[franklinstower]

hiya franklinstower,



i figured it was about Mr. Sanders.



it was not NPR's role to tell their listeners back in 2016, "hey everyone, Hillary is neoliberal crook - this guy Sanders is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to move the needle in a progressive direction. think about it; finally confronting the issue of climate change...single payor healthcare...a vastly more progressive system of taxation that ensures the fruits of corporate victory are spread to the masses! pay attention!!! ".

that's not how they see themselves. that's not their job. in 2016, Mr. Sanders was a long shot candidate who ended up running a strong insurgency campaign against the beltway establishment - and he shook up the race. NPR's coverage reflected that, but he was still a longshot who saw his chances evaporate on Super Tuesday - and NPR's coverage reflected that also.

this is their mission statement;
The mission of NPR, in partnership with its member stations, is to create a more informed public, one challenged and invigorated by a deeper understanding and appreciation of events, ideas, and culture within the United States and across the globe.

that means they'll have a one hour segment on Bernie Sanders, but they'll also have Jonah Goldberg on the air, you know? that means Terri Gross may have Al Franken on for one show...but she'll have Bill O'Reilly on for another. that's NPR.

NPR is not the Daily Kos.

- IGIT

You have missed the point entirely. No one is asking NPR to join team Bernie and the framing by you here is unrelated to my position.

The point I made is that if this was my bias as you suggested I would expect to see this bias in other candidates I support over time but I havent. This stands out singularly and that is not congruent with your framing rhat this may be a bias on my part.

I brought up Bernie being a needle mover not to suggeat NPR do a story on that, although now that you mention it that would be a very relevant story to run, but to show how hard it might be for people to want to cover him honestly and fairly if they align to where the needle used to be AND when they will be the ones asked to pay more taxes....

Also when you take into account the financial status of most news anchors and the people they answer to there will obviously be a bias against Bernie in very high percentages as most of those people make a ton of money and are benefitting extreemly well off of the system as it is.

It might be worth pointing out that Bernie has been concerned about media bias since he first entered congress. His perception of it is not opportune to this or last election cycle.

 

[kpt018]

You have missed the point entirely. No one is asking NPR to join team Bernie and the framing by you here is unrelated to my position.

The point I made is that if this was my bias as you suggested I would expect to see this bias in other candidates I support over time but I havent. This stands out singularly and that is not congruent with your framing rhat this may be a bias on my part.

I brought up Bernie being a needle mover not to suggeat NPR do a story on that, although now that you mention it that would be a very relevant story to run, but to show how hard it might be for people to want to cover him honestly and fairly if they align to where the needle used to be AND when they will be the ones asked to pay more taxes....

Also when you take into account the financial status of most news anchors and the people they answer to there will obviously be a bias against Bernie in very high percentages as most of those people make a ton of money and are benefitting extreemly well off of the system as it is.

It might be worth pointing out that Bernie has been concerned about media bias since he first entered congress. His perception of it is not opportune to this or last election cycle.

Let's assume the media is as biased as you think, what do we do? The free press is protected as it should be and free speech is the king of all rights. The issue is the public as a whole is really lazy and stupid and cannot seem to detect bullshit.

Fox is essentially a right wing propaganda outlet at this point. But our constitution protects their right to spout out bullshit nearly 24/7. What can we do with a person who watches and is convinced by that obvious crap? I fear a person like that cannot be helped. I think we're trapped!

 

[franklinstower]

Let's assume the media is as biased as you think, what do we do? The free press is protected as it should be and free speech is the king of all rights. The issue is the public as a whole is really lazy and stupid and cannot seem to detect bullshit.

Fox is essentially a right wing propaganda outlet at this point. But our constitution protects their right to spout out bullshit nearly 24/7. What can we do with a person who watches and is convinced by that obvious crap? I fear a person like that cannot be helped. I think we're trapped!

Maybe someone watching FOX news is unreachable. I see a similar level of willfull ignorance in many democrats however.

I am not sure what the solution would be yet and dont think we are in a place to discuss it yet. Awareness, acceptance and action is a personal motto of mine.

First we need more people to recignize it and gain the capacity to see it and then we can have a nice national discussion on the subject. Many people tell me they can start to see bias on NPR and other sites once I point out it is there.


The issue I hang my hat on in the case of media being corrupted by money is that there shoukd be no media giants who own hundreds of news outlets across the country. They need to be broken up into MANY smaller organizations.

The other issue which has come to my attention recently is that news anchors and the people they answer to are all WAY to rich to have the average persons best interest in mind. Something needs to be done about that too but I dont know what that is.


One arising sollution that is really helping though is the rise of alternative news comentary channels on YouTube. I think The Hill and others are doing a good job showing many angles to the politicial process that are not covered on MSM.


Im guessing there is no perfect sollution but any honest actors should want as much done as possible to ensure that we are getting accurately framed and covered stories.

 

[kpt018]

Maybe someone watching FOX news is unreachable. I see a similar level of willfull ignorance in many democrats however.

Oh, I completely agree. Ignorance is not confined to the right but it's more prevalent (and I expect a million dumb responses by righties to this comment).

I am not sure what the solution would be yet and dont think we are in a place to discuss it yet. Awareness, acceptance and action is a personal motto of mine.

First we need more people to recignize it and gain the capacity to see it and then we can have a nice national discussion on the subject. Many people tell me they can start to see bias on NPR and other sites once I point out it is there.

I don't think people are recognizing it. And the more tribal people are the more they tend to watch this stuff.

The issue I hang my hat on in the case of media being corrupted by money is that there shoukd be no media giants who own hundreds of news outlets across the country. They need to be broken up into MANY smaller organizations.

Fair. I like the idea of many outlets competing.

The other issue which has come to my attention recently is that news anchors and the people they answer to are all WAY to rich to have the average persons best interest in mind. Something needs to be done about that too but I dont know what that is.

I don't think that's necessarily true. There are tons of really great, well qualified journalists and anchors that really believe in ascertaining truth and providing that to the public. I think the issues with the media are more about incentives. More radicalized opinions attract eyeballs. Boring, fact-based news doesn't, but we actually would be better served with more of it.

I don't know what the answer is either.

One arising sollution that is really helping though is the rise of alternative news comentary channels on YouTube. I think The Hill and others are doing a good job showing many angles to the politicial process that are not covered on MSM.

I don't read much of the Hill. I tend to follow journalists and pundits that I know are super smart and rock solid and try to follow different perspectives.

Im guessing there is no perfect sollution but any honest actors should want as much done as possible to ensure that we are getting accurately framed and covered stories.

I don't even think there's a good solution. Free speech and press will result in some shitty speech and press we don't like. Ideally we would live in a world were media outlets that bullshit lose credibility and go out of business. But apparently there's a big appetite for confirmation bias regardless of accuracy.

A more disturbing trend, imo, is that people are getting their news from social media. That means people's media diet doesn't even go through the journalistic process of fact checking, editing, etc..

 

[Higus]

Term limits.

Ban politicians from joining lobby groups after their political life is over.

Put a cap on how much money those in the public sector are allowed to donate, just the same as exists in the private sector. Additionally, money donated/given by corporations and lobbyists must be made public.

Revoke security clearances from retired politicians.

1. Evidence seems to show that term limits actually make corruption worse (see Latin America)

2. Would pretty much limit the people running for office to the independently wealthy or people near retirement age. Combining with 1 seems infeasible.

3. No objection

4. Not sure what this accomplishes. Would have a lot of negative consequences, especially combined with 1 and 2.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't think that's necessarily true. There are tons of really great, well qualified journalists and anchors that really believe in ascertaining truth and providing that too the public.

Also, journalism, even at very high levels, is not something that you get rich doing, generally. It's not even an upper-middle-class-type job. The average New York Times reporter makes around $100K on the nose, and that's the most prestigious and probably highest-paying paper in the world (and junior reporters will make a lot less than average).

 

[Trotsky]

I like a tweet from Ezra Klein that I saw recently that I think is applicable here. It's goes something like "We don't get the government we deserve. We get the government we tolerate".

As long as the masses are tribal and poorly informed we'll continue to see corrupt opportunists fool voters over and over again. And if voters can't see obvious corruption that is very well reported like we see with the current President and GOP I fear we're fucked. Let's hope future generations are smarter than the voters today.

My problem with this fall-back stance is that it mirrors, in my opinion, the "family values" rhetoric from conservative, i.e. saying "people need to be responsible, etc." instead of prescribing policy solutions to make them more responsible or account for their lack of responsibility. Simply saying "well, voters need to be smarter and more disciplined," however true, doesn't really do much. And it's always going to be true: voters can always be more principle and attuned.

 

[Jack V Savage]

My problem with this fall-back stance is that it mirrors, in my opinion, the "family values" rhetoric from conservative, i.e. saying "people need to be responsible, etc." instead of prescribing policy solutions to make them more responsible or account for their lack of responsibility. Simply saying "well, voters need to be smarter and more disciplined," however true, doesn't really do much. And it's always going to be true: voters can always be more principle and attuned.

The problem is the same one I keep going back to--the combination of distrust in neutral information sources and the existence of alternative-reality information sources that exist to boost the right politically. Any Republican who is caught doing something wrong can just say, "it's the liberal media/deep state out to get me," and Fox, Breitbart, Alex Jones, etc. will provide some flimsy cover argument, and his voters will say, "oh, OK. Guess he's innocent. Damn those liberals!" Hard to see how that will end.

 

[Higus]

There are 2 ways to look at the legislative process: Instrumental and Intrinsic.

If you take the instrumental outlook, that means that the legislative process is a means to an end. Laws and process are tools to accomplish a goal. With that outlook, you are more likely to allow a certain amount of corruption so long as it serves some greater end goal that you want.

If you take the intrinsic outlook, you believe that the legislative process, when uncorrupted, is designed to create the best result. The process is the goal, and the result is a byproduct. With that outlook, you might not agree with the end product of the process, but you can accept that it was come about fairly.

To give an example, lets say there was a public referendum in a local election. Intrinsic Group A wants a “yea”, and Instrumental Group B wants a “nay”. The Intrinsic minded people believe that every eligible voter should participate so the final result is truly what the people want. If everyone votes “nay”, then they will have no choice but to accept the result and plan their next step. Instrumental minded people care more about getting the “nay” outcome, and are more likely to accept or rationalize the use of tactics that would nudge the vote in the favor, such as gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc. (Cynically, they may also be very good at convincing people in group A that their tactics are totally legit, and impeding them is actually a blow to the very process Group A supposedly cares so much about)

In a democratic society, the Instrumental group in large enough numbers will always lead to corruption. The groups are playing different games, and the Intrinsic group is playing with a natural disadvantage. The law is only as corrupt as people allow, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Not sure what the “cure” to that is, but I bet it is UGLY and involves guillotines.

 

[franklinstower]

Oh, I completely agree. Ignorance is not confined to the right but it's more prevalent (and I expect a million dumb responses by righties to this comment).



I don't think people are recognizing it. And the more tribal people are the more they tend to watch this stuff.



Fair. I like the idea of many outlets competing.



I don't think that's necessarily true. There are tons of really great, well qualified journalists and anchors that really believe in ascertaining truth and providing that to the public. I think the issues with the media are more about incentives. More radicalized opinions attract eyeballs. Boring, fact-based news doesn't, but we actually would be better served with more of it.

I don't know what the answer is either.



I don't read much of the Hill. I tend to follow journalists and pundits that I know are super smart and rock solid and try to follow different perspectives.


I don't even think there's a good solution. Free speech and press will result in some shitty speech and press we don't like. Ideally we would live in a world were media outlets that bullshit lose credibility and go out of business. But apparently there's a big appetite for confirmation bias regardless of accuracy.

A more disturbing trend IMO is that people are getting their news from social media. That means people's media diet doesn't even go through the journalistic process of fact checking, editing, etc..

Agreed that the right is FAR worse than the left which makes speaking out against the bias on the left harder when you have a blow hard like Trump calling out fake news but meaning very different things. Along the same lines cable news is FAR worse than NPR although the damage NPR can do is worse because of its reputation which is why I am more bothered when they show bias than I am MSNBC.

On your point about anchors it is a problem in this specific case to do with Bernie and the direction the country is going. These are all very highly paid people and very highly paid people vote a certain way. There is bias here.

I don't know what or if there is a solution to this or not however and would not want anything less than the best minds at work crunching possible solutions anyway which leads us back to the first step which is just getting awareness out there that there is a problem.

I don't think income levels are the only problems associated with bias in journalism anyway.

"The Hill" is a YouTube channel not a paper. I think we might have misunderstood each other there.

Lastly on a personal note I think it is VERY difficult to see bias in a club that you feel you belong too and EASY to see it if you are an outsider. In the Christian tradition it is known that the prophets (all belief in God aside) were prophets most often because they were outsiders or outcasts and this perspective is often needed in communities and especially in institutions.

I think the alternative news commentary channels who are calling out news bias are the "prophets" we need right now, and we need as much thought and analysis as we can get on the topic from everyone that is willing to be honest. I don't think it has to be us verses them either. Many of the people who show bias probably don't know it....

 

[Trotsky]

The problem is the same one I keep going back to--the combination of distrust in neutral information sources and the existence of alternative-reality information sources that exist to boost the right politically. Any Republican who is caught doing something wrong can just say, "it's the liberal media/deep state out to get me," and Fox, Breitbart, Alex Jones, etc. will provide some flimsy cover argument, and his voters will say, "oh, OK. Guess he's innocent. Damn those liberals!" Hard to see how that will end.

I don't have an absolute answer, and I think the focus needs to be downstream on the actual political actors with rigid campaign finance laws and outright punitive anti-corruption laws, but at this point I'm increasingly comfortable with ideas like Andrew Yang's much-maligned suggestion of a media accuracy czar or whatever it was.

To be sure, I haven't heard any good suggestions about how voters can be made to be more rational and principled.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't have an absolute answer, and I think the focus needs to be downstream on the actual political actors with rigid campaign finance laws and outright punitive anti-corruption laws, but at this point I'm increasingly comfortable with ideas like Andrew Yang's much-maligned suggestion of a media accuracy czar or whatever it was.

To be sure, I haven't heard any good suggestions about how voters can be made to be more rational and principled.

Yang's suggestion was dumb. I don't really know what would work. Fighting lies with truth doesn't seem to work very well, but it might work well enough to move the needle over a long period of time. That is, if doing it over the course of years changes 3% of the population's minds, it could be considered generally ineffective but could still be effective enough to save the country.