Can Reddit interview presidential candidates better than traditional media?
medium.com
medium.com
[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/top/
EDIT #1: Okay, /r/politics is a US-only forum. Supporting facts updated.
EDIT #2: As a final point, being global in nature, Reddit will always encourage an english-speaking non-US-centric world-oriented political-view. This is precisely, as a nation, what we don't want, to provide a global avenue for anti-US political subversion masquerading as populace rhetoric.
All joking aside, I don't think conservative candidates would get a fair shake, but only because their ideas are so far divorced from what younger Americans think of as values.
Younger Americans ("Millennials") who have been through the crucible of the latest economic recession are going to be proponents of a strong social safety net, while older voters who lived through the most prosperous of American times will simply say "Bootstraps!" (even though those very same 65+ voters are the ones who will extract more from social security than they've contributed, owning to longer life expectancies and the current biomedical revolution).
Younger Americans are more likely to vote in favor of policies supporting same sex marriage and the legalization of Marijuana (neither which infringe on the rights of others, may I add). I know older Americans who are still opposed to interracial marriage.
I don't have time at the moment to continue with examples, but as I mentioned above, I think conservative candidates would get skewered in a forum where you can't outright lie, as you'll be fact checked immediately through publicly available data sources.
"Gallup: Americans Continue to Shift Left on Key Moral Issues" http://www.gallup.com/poll/183413/americans-continue-shift-l...
"Americans are more likely now than in the early 2000s to find a variety of behaviors morally acceptable, including gay and lesbian relations, having a baby outside of marriage and sex between an unmarried man and woman. Moral acceptability of many of these issues is now at a record-high level."
"Moral acceptance of divorce and stem cell research has also jumped by 12 points, reaching 71 percent and 64 percent respectively. By slightly lesser margins, Americans have also grown more accepting of issues such as polygamy and cloning humans. Still, these issues are seen as morally acceptable by less than one-sixth of the population."
"Americans are becoming more liberal on social issues, as evidenced not only by the uptick in the percentage describing themselves as socially liberal, but also by their increasing willingness to say that a number of previously frowned-upon behaviors are morally acceptable. The biggest leftward shift over the past 14 years has been in attitudes toward gay and lesbian relations, from only a minority of Americans finding it morally acceptable to a clear majority finding it acceptable."
Yes, they have them. If that's a shock to you, or you think that no they don't because hurr hurr they're too dumb, well, that would further prove my point. Yes, they definitely exist.
(I'm not a conservative in the modern political sense, but I'm also not a liberal. You are greatly less informed about your options than you think you are.)
If you think that's an accurate summary of the conservative position, then you too appear to have gotten your understanding of conservative positions from liberals describing them to you.
I'm not expecting to meet many conservatives on HN. I don't expect anyone here to agree very much with them. That would be silly, as I myself don't in many ways. But I believe in condemning things for what they are, not what we can caricature them to be.
An exhaustive or more representative listing including things that are less controversial or that conservatives and liberals agree on would be pretty irrelevant because they're not enough to outweigh the strong differences in opinion on the hot-button issues.
Simply leaving out the good bits doesn't make a portrayal a caricature unless it's exaggerating the bad bits. So it really does matter what your take is on the validity of the claims that were made, not just your opinion on what other claims should have been made.
I told you. "Not even wrong." It's a liberal's view on the conservative position; even if not literally "wrong", it's from a position of what is still deep incomprehension of what is being summarized.
If you are serious about digging into the differences, the best thing I can recommend is actually this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI1wQswRVaU
It will not be immediately obvious why I am recommending this; stick with it for a while, if you are serious about the question. (Also, every immediate conclusion you will leap to about the title is wrong; in particular, despite the title, I'm not calling any political orientation "irrational", or, at least, I am doing so equally. Nor is this a "conservative" speaking.) After the end, consider the differing perspectives between the two, and consider why I'd contend that either side describing the beliefs of the other is likely to end up "not even wrong". (It is fully symmetric; conservatives will also badly mischaracterize liberal beliefs, in general, even when the surface content is correct.)
Ultimately, the question of which way conservatives will vote on an issue does matter even if you'd prefer to talk about why they'll vote that way.
I'm sure that will irk both sides to some degree. But regardless of the stated motives, I've found it to be a pretty accurate (as someone who identifies as neither). Of course there are many examples of partisan interests, actors acting contrary to stated positions once in power and/or being in bed with entrenched political/business interests. All that jazz.
But on a given position I've found it's usually accurate that liberals will value equality for all, including the smallest minorities. Vice versa conservatives and liberty (where even the 1% is a minority).
I'm not taking a stand here beyond that, and hopefully we can avoid pointing out all the instances where party dynamics (see: PG's essay on Identity) cause this to breakdown in inconsistent ways. Abortion, drugs, etc.
I've met many smart, educated, eloquent conservatives who have expressed entirely reasonable views if you take the fundamental assumption of individual liberty as your founding principle, some of whom have changed my own mind. Likewise liberals, so long as you take equality as your ideal.
Hopefully this doesn't step on too many identity-toes.
The unfortunate reality of first-past-the-post elections means "god botherers" vs "gun grabbers" is a more apt description than any that touches on the more-nuanced feelings of anyone who votes for whatever they consider to be the lesser of the two evils. You have nuanced views - your USA party of choice does not.
Disagree. I have yet in my life (I'm 32) to see a true conservative exist anymore (fiscally conservative, and libertarian from a social perspective).
> Yes, they have them. If that's a shock to you, or you think that no they don't because hurr hurr they're too dumb, well, that would further prove my point. Yes, they definitely exist.
It's not a shock to me. As a population ages, older Americans will die off and be replaced with a generation with a more liberal social outlook. This isn't opinion. This is fact.
We will always argue over financial issues (do we spend on war? or on social programs at home and abroad?), but those are the only issues we should be debating at a political level.
Another 1-3 years, and same sex marriage is done throughout the US. Another 5-10 years, the decriminalization of recreational drugs. And so progress continues on.
Its a fact that older Americans will die off. Its perhaps a fact that the younger generation right now has a more liberal social outlook. It is an opinion (perhaps justified, to some degree, by reference to historical facts) that as the older Americans dies off and the younger Americans age, the younger Americans will retain the more liberal social outlook, and not also be supplemented by new waves of still-younger Americans with an offsetting, more conservative outlook.
So for example to the extent that the welfare state has existed for almost a century, I'd argue that "fiscal conservatives" who oppose it are not conservatives but rather radicals.
The labels 'conservative' and 'liberal' in the US are extremely misleading.
I would like to hear a counterargument from a self-described conservative, about why deregulation in particular is a conservative value.
The conflation of social libertarianism with being a "true conservative" is kind of a weird thing. In the centuries since the term was coined as a political descriptor, conservative has mostly been associated with, on the social dimension, authoritarian traditionalism, not libertarianism.
Can you explain to me the actual positions and arguments of conservatives? In 1000 words or less?
Besides, Reddit is just one echo chamber of many. And there are plenty of smaller echo chambers within reddit which boasts some pretty large conservative communities of different stripes -- especially Libertarian and AnCaps.
> which fails to meaningfully report on pro-conservative news like the recent Conservative Party win in GB.
/r/politics
Rule #1 - Articles must deal explicitly with US politics.
Given you mean:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/09/world/europe/david-cameron...
"Great Britain" is not the 51st State of the US, just fyi.
It appears you are showing a lack of reading comprehension and fundamental ignorance of the purpose of /r/politics and then using it to make accusations. This being the case, you are a prime example of what any reasonable person would consider someone with an extremely strong bias that colors your viewpoint.
You are exactly what you accuse Reddit and /r/politics of being, except Conservative, yet failing to realize the fact you are so biased you assume the basic requirement of a discussion being "on topic" is evidence of bias.
His myopic openly hostile anti-conservative POV in defense of /r/politics. I provided one fact that by no means was intended to be comprehensive, and have since updated it to a far superior one. Rather than discussing the topic, he focused on my character (e.g., "lack of reading comprehension").
Ha. Geez. It had nothing to do with reading comprehension, and the fact that you both jump to assumptions that I must be something like stupid despite my evident articulation proves my point further regarding your propensity to mischaracterize opposing views. /r/politics' liberal bias is near-universally known amongst conservatives on Reddit. Because of this, I unsubscribed, and so never bothered to read that it was US-only. So it was a faulty assumption on my part that had no relation to reading comprehensive or my stated point in any way.
> It had nothing to do with reading comprehension, and the fact that you both jump to assumptions that I must be something like stupid despite my evident articulation proves my point further regarding your propensity to mischaracterize opposing views. /r/politics' liberal bias is near-universally known amongst conservatives on Reddit.
> So it was a faulty assumption on my part that had no relation to reading comprehensive
You are correct. It is not reading comprehension but rather the fact you make ignorant accusations with no basis in fact and then rewrite your posts to make you look less ignorant.
The problem you have is a combination of ignorance and arrogance that you rely on to justify the assumptions and bias you have.
You still ignored the underlying point that you are looking for evidence to convince you that your bias is true while selectively omitting facts.
> Easy. Tone down the hostility and thanks for proving my point. Despite my ignorance WRT non-US posts, a quick glance at the top /r/politics stories from the past month[1] displays the bias I mention: there is literally not a single pro-conservative post, only libertarian, liberal and anti-conservative posts. It's not my intent to prove anything however, so lack of facts to support doesn't disprove my opinion either. I posted to have a discussion, not whatever you're trying to have.
Libertarian is a conservative ideology as evidenced by the number of Republicans who espouse Ayn Rand's views and read her books then regurgitate that in interviews. It is fiscally conservative by design which is why it is a common Republican reference point.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/12/news/la-pn-vp-paul-r...
Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, etc.
So I'm assuming you are basing it on stuff like this:
> http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/3448-myth...
However, if that is the case you are stating you are a social conservative.
Fair enough, social conservatism [e.g. anti-abortion, anti-LBGT] is not well liked on Reddit. I can agree with that.
> It's not my intent to prove anything however, so lack of facts to support doesn't disprove my opinion either.
"A lack of facts to support my opinion" is evidence you don't have an opinion based on reality and you can see where that rabbit hole goes.
The link you provided to refute my fact, is itself a fact that disproves your point and proves mine.
> The problem you have is a combination of ignorance and arrogance that you rely on to justify the assumptions and bias you have.
That sounds a lot more like you. I only really wanted to discuss my opinion on the use of a biased platform for election reporting, not whether libertarians are conservatives or the rules of /r/politics.
> You still ignored the underlying point that you are looking for evidence to convince you that your bias is true while selectively omitting facts.
Not so. I think you did a pretty good job providing the facts that proved my point. Thanks.
> So I'm assuming you are basing it on stuff like this [...]
Yes, that article is somewhat consistent with my point. Ron Paul stated himself (can't find the quote) that the Republican party was not reflective of libertarian values, but was merely the most expedient vector toward affecting US politics.
> If that is the case you are stating you are a social conservative.
Nope. Ignorance on your part. See my last comment[1].
> "A lack of facts to support my opinion" is evidence you don't have an opinion based on reality
Yikes. You wouldn't make it very far as a theoretical physicist. To be clear, you are either misunderstanding me (should I also mischaracterize it as a reading comprehension issue?) or maliciously mischaracterizing me. The complete quote is:
> It's not my intent to prove anything however, so lack of facts to support doesn't disprove my opinion either.
What I meant was, I am not presently intending to prove my point, and so am not presently providing facts to support it. As you can see from various other comments, I have no difficulty providing them, though to be fair, you provided the better fact to prove my point.
I don't think Reddit as a platform inherently appeals more to younger or more liberal users. I think it's just that users who pre-date the Web are less likely to become active participants. A generation from now when even the older part of the population has been using the Web forever, the relative appeal of forums like Reddit to those of different ideologies won't be correlated at all with technology and will be all about social factors in those specific communities.
> No. Reddit's user base is extremely liberal and hostile to conservative candidates and values as evident by the echo-chamber that is /r/politics, which fails to meaningfully support pro-conservative news. There are literally no pro-conservative and no anti-liberal top posts from the past month[1], only libertarian, liberal and anti-conservative. The paradigm or technology platform dramatically favors a very specific demographic, and is ultimately a disservice to democracy by disproportionately favoring that demographic's POV. If you fall into that demographic, I imagine it would be very difficult to resist the potential power play to further your own views.
I'll address it here as I did in my other post...
1) If you feel libertarians are not "conservatives" it is because you are a social conservative. Yes, Reddit is not friendly to social conservatives but that is really the only bias you've presented. Fiscal conservatism is a libertarian belief, a conservative belief, and is represented by the positive news about Rand Paul.
2) > There are literally no pro-conservative and no anti-liberal top posts from the past month[1]
> [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/top/
That doesn't demonstrate the bias you claim as it is based on overall score including time in the ranking algorithm. You can see it by the order its displayed on the page. Result #4? 2794 which is greater than results #2 & #3.
The correct link would be:
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/top/?sort=top&t=month
:/
Like, I get you are trying at this point but its really hard to be nice to someone who seems only interested in attempting to misrepresent the facts to fit his world view. I even had to correct the link you offered because the link you presented this time still doesn't match the statement you made.
Do you even understand the problem I have with you is:
1) You make conservatives look bad by being this ignorant.
2) You are painting me as a "hostile liberal" when my problem with you is the fact you have a fact-free opinion of the world and actively misrepresent and completely rewrite your posts to remove those misrepresentations?
> EDIT #2: As a final point, being global in nature, Reddit will always encourage an english-speaking non-US-centric world-oriented political-view. This is precisely, as a nation, what we don't want, to provide a global avenue for anti-US political subversion masquerading as populace rhetoric.
Populist rhetoric isn't inherently "subversive". The fact you are convinced that Reddit is an avenue for "anti-US political rhetoric" means you frankly don't understand the value and purpose of the 1st amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
The right to exercise political speech is a fundamental right both for Americans and everyone else in the world under the Constitution. The fact you would go against that makes you:
1) Un-American.
2) Not-A-Conservative. Protecting constitutional rights is a fundamental conservative belief. If you are opposed to people exercising a fundamental constitution right, such as the freedom of speech, you are a horrible American.
3) You are precisely why the Constitution exists. To protect the rest of us from people who think the ability to have an honest, public conservation about political views is a bad thing. You do realize that is a large part of why we revolted against the British in the first place, right? An inability to influence politics legally via speech and parliamentary representation?
EDIT: Sean
I get rate limited in these threads and can't reply. Anyway, I read the "as a nation" bit as policy advocacy. Maybe that wasn't his intent but that seems to have been his way of phrasing that intent previously.
Despite your fixation on it, it in no way invalidates my point. It was one sentence that's acknowledged in the edit, and I openly acknowledge it as "ignorance" further down. What would you prefer I replace the text of "Edit #1" with?
> Yes, Reddit is not friendly to social conservatives but that is really the only bias you've presented.
Thank you for partially agreeing, but you are illustrating your ignorance and seem "only interested in attempting to misrepresent the facts to fit [your] world view." Specifically, you are ignorant to the fact that libertarian monetary policies are not interchangeable or equivalent to conservative monetary policies. Just one example is that libertarians are isolationists, while conservatives tend to be interventionists. You also seem completely ignorant to the fact that libertarians are neither liberal, nor conservative, but in fact libertarian, though from your POV (and those on Reddit I would suspect), libertarians probably are what you consider "conservative."
> https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/top/?sort=top&t=month
That's the link I intended ("top posts from the past month"). If you were not so blinded with bias, you would recognize that your link proves my point and illustrates that you are "only interested in attempting to misrepresent the facts to fit [your] world view."
> its really hard to be nice to someone
Really? I have no difficulty politely discussing the issue with you despite your clear ignorance, anti-conservative bigotry, myopathy and that you are wrong and misrepresent all the facts I am presenting. I have said nothing negative about liberalism at any point.
> 1) You make conservatives look bad by being this ignorant.
You make liberals look bad by being this ignorant, and arguably worse through your tone and difficulty with not demonizing me.
> 2) You are painting me as a "hostile liberal" when my problem with you is the fact you have a fact-free opinion of the world and actively misrepresent and completely rewrite your posts to remove those misrepresentations?
You are clearly hostile and liberal. You are having difficulty being nice and instead of focusing on the topic, go on to mischaracterize me as "Un-American," "horrible American," "opposed to [the 1st Ammendment]," dishonest and opposed to honest public political discussion, which is self-evidently false as I am presently engaging in one. I did provide a fact, I'm sorry you are ignoring it. The facts in the link as discussed stand.
> and completely rewrite your posts to remove those misrepresentations?
Again, ignoring the facts. See "EDIT #1: Okay, /r/politics is a US-only forum. Supporting facts updated." and above, "What would you prefer I replace the text of "Edit #1" with?" I will however assume this is not due to some reading comprehension on your part and instead fault your myopathy or hostility.
> Populist rhetoric isn't inherently "subversive". The fact you are convinced that Reddit is an avenue for "anti-US political rhetoric" means you frankly don't understand the value and purpose of the 1st amendment.
Lol, geez man. Did I say any of that? I sound pretty terrible when you discuss me. I said, within the context of US-elections, a global opinion site could be an avenue for subversive rhetoric masquerading as something else. I love how you rail on me for misrepresenting things in ignorance, yet you have a literal mischaracterizing misquote: "anti-US political rhetoric". You seem to pervasively disregard the facts to support your opinion. I said "anti-US political subversion", and if you don't think that exists, then you don't understand politics or power. I'd be happy to recommend some reading if you need education.
> The fact you would go against that makes you [...] Un-American [,...] opposed to people exercising a fundamental constitution right [,...] a horrible American [,...] think the ability to have an honest, public conservation about political views is a bad thing
Wow. Alright, enough, you've gone off the rails. You're no longer discussing the topic and just flat out doing everything you can to mischaracterize me by attacking my character. Thank you for proving my point in absolutely every way.
While it's possible your intentions are honest, you are clearly misguided and are ignorant of both the facts and from your demeanor, probably malicious.
The fact you intentionally linked to the wrong link proves your intention to misrepresent the facts.
I mean you can claim otherwise and shove it all on me I guess?
That is really where you went with this as far as I can tell.
> Thank you for partially agreeing, but you are illustrating your ignorance and seem "only interested in attempting to misrepresent the facts to fit [your] world view." Specifically, you are ignorant to the fact that libertarian monetary policies are not interchangeable or equivalent to conservative monetary policies. Just one example is that libertarians are isolationists, while conservatives tend to be interventionists. You also seem completely ignorant to the fact that libertarians are neither liberal, nor conservative, but in fact libertarian, though from your POV (and those on Reddit I would suspect), libertarians probably are what you consider "conservative."
http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/3448-myth...
> Insofar as the conservative movement has been the home of free-market reform efforts since the 1960s at least, classical liberals, such as Objectivists, have taken part in conservative or right-wing political coalitions aimed at economic policy.
You are attempting to segment politics on a level that doesn't exist in the real world of US politics.
The fact is the Libertarian fiscal policies and the Conservative fiscal policies are for all purposes equal and equivalent in practical terms as both are aimed at free market reforms and the "libertarian" and "conservative" representatives of the Republican party both vote Yes on the same bills.
You can pretend otherwise (I guess) and argue a purely academic point (since you really seem to want to paint yourself into that corner).
Once again:
> If you feel libertarians are not "conservatives" it is because you are a social conservative. Yes, Reddit is not friendly to social conservatives but that is really the only bias you've presented. Fiscal conservatism is a libertarian belief, a conservative belief, and is represented by the positive news about Rand Paul.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/fiscal-conservative
> One who favors a balanced budget, prefering spending cuts or tax increases to borrowing, and wants to decrease government size, and promote a free market.
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/news/fiscal-conservatism-bre...
> On Wednesday, Tea Party Patriots highlighted Texas’ success in growing its economy through the principles of low taxes, low spending, and freer markets. As Katharine Ham reports, similar success stories are happening across the country as fiscal conservatives implement sound public policy. Meanwhile, states that continue to overspend – states like long-suffering California – continue to sag under the weight of massive debt, and as they raise taxes their citizens are departing for greener and more economically safe pastures.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12855.htm
> Monetary policy is a term used to refer to the actions of central banks to achieve macroeconomic policy objectives such as price stability, full employment, and stable economic growth. In the United States, the Congress established maximum employment and price stability as the macroeconomic objectives for the Federal Reserve; they are sometimes referred to as the Federal Reserve's dual mandate. Apart from these overarching objectives, the Congress determined that operational conduct of monetary policy should be free from political influence. As a result, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency of the federal government. Fiscal policy is a broad term used to refer to the tax and spending policies of the federal government. Fiscal policy decisions are determined by the Congress and the Administration; the Federal Reserve plays no role in determining fiscal policy.
> Specifically, you are ignorant to the fact that libertarian monetary policies are not interchangeable or equivalent to conservative monetary policies.
> If you feel libertarians are not "conservatives" it is because you are a social conservative. Yes, Reddit is not friendly to social conservatives but that is really the only bias you've presented. Fiscal conservatism is a libertarian belief, a conservative belief, and is represented by the positive news about Rand Paul.
Or you don't know what a fiscal policy or a fiscal conservative is. :/
EDIT: I give up. Its pointless to argue with someone who doesn't even know WTF I'm saying.
[Original response to the above quote removed]
EDIT: Looks like I missed the original context (in a different comment) for the above quote. Thanks for providing evidence that supports my point that libertarians are not conservatives.
> Objectivists, have taken part in conservative or right-wing political coalitions aimed at economic policy.
That's a political strategy in a two-party system. You're equivocating. Communists, socialists, anarchists, etc... must also choose a side in a two-party system. It, however, does not make them equivalent. More ignorance on your part.
Regarding fiscal policy, yes, you're right, I unintentionally was discussing foreign policy. Thank you for the correction, but it in no one affects my point. It seems fairly trivial to recognize I was talking about foreign policy, not monetary policy. Either way, my point stands. You would've been better off addressing that instead. Again,
> social conservatives [bias] is really the only bias you've presented.
I presented a general anti-conservative bias, not a specific one. I'm sorry you misunderstood.
> If you feel libertarians are not "conservatives" it is because you are a social conservative.
Nope. Your views are reductionist and yet again extremely ignorant. From a reductionist point of view, libertarians and conservatives differ in regards to Social, Foreign, Monetary[1] (as opposed Fiscal) and Federalist policies. Getting further into the specific details undermines your myopic view of non-liberals altogether. It's really quite a wonder how much of a disservice your ignorance is to making your own points.
[1] Libertarians are unrelentingly anti-Federal Reserve, while conservatives have historically mostly ignored it and Republicans actually helped create it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Federal_Reserv....
> you frankly don't understand the value and purpose of the 1st amendment
The purpose of the 1st amendment is to ensure peoples rights to free speech, even if that speech is biased and not worth listening to. Criticism of particular speech or a particular venue has nothing to do with the first amendment.
One of the Chicago Mayoral candidates did an AMA in the recent election and it was pretty abysmal. The good questions were skipped and the other answers were evasive. In that respect, Reddit lacks something an in-person interview can deliver (with a good interviewer) - the ability to push back on a non-answer and not be ignored. You also can't catch someone off guard on Reddit, really - the answers are going to be very carefully curated.
EDIT: Thinking about this more, it may be important that we play multiple iterations of this game. During primaries, candidates are much less concerned about alienating voters from the other party, and are much more concerned about straying from the positions mandated by their party base. In the general election, they often have the opposite incentive.
If we only had one round of campaigning, it could be much easier for candidates to delineate their true beliefs, though whatever voting system was used would still be vulnerable to some form of strategy.
In other words, the debates will always be pathetic so long as they are run by companies like FOX, NPR, and NBC. Companies with plain political interests.
This, more than anything else, needs disrupting.
I also don't see anything wrong with the answers being carefully curated. Although, I assume by curated you mean watered down to the point that they're giving nonanswers. I've never liked how in live debates candidates are given only a few seconds to come up with an answer to what are usually tough and difficult questions. I'd rather them take the time to sit down and think about it.
The wisdom of the crowds is a great tool, but like all great tools it's not a universal one. It doesn't replace expertise, for example. I don't want my medical condition treated or my war planned by amateurs. The public figures are professionals at this PR game. That said, the crowd-based interview may complement the professionals.
The questions in play are among the most complex in human history. The stakes are high. All the way high. And still decisions about how to vote are supposed to be determined by bland, simple answers to vague, generalized questions?
No thanks; please just show me the analysis. Show me the graphs. Show me the track record, in writing. I care little for what politicians or their PR wings say to interviewers. I care lots about data.
Aside: it's up to us (techy people), in my opinion, to find a way to jump-start this discourse.
eg. Is the idea to select leaders who know better than us, so that policy reflects the views of the public, etc?
I'm pretty sure what actually results is not unlike Douglas Adams feelings on democracy, that we mostly vote for one lizard so another lizard doesn't get elected.
Deeper responses are available from most candidates.
It's worth emphasizing that it's YOUR (generic you, not personal) responsibility to absorb these responses when they are available.
The biggest problem is that people just...don't.
Occasionally. Very occasionally.
I would submit that these interviews are really only useful to the extent that they let candidates demonstrate their leadership style or possibly their personality.
Not interviews, but position papers and talks and so on from the candidates. Contrary to folk wisdom, politicians for the most part take their work seriously and have put a lot of thought and effort into issues they care about.
In addition to their published material, you can always reach out to them or their staff to discuss in more detail.
That is, of course, on you to take those steps, but they are available to you.
Would that be correct?
Those technical geniuses are still only human: They hardly can design software interfaces that work for everyone; I don't want them dictating public policy.
My point in the grandparent post was that I'm much more interested in candidate interviews conducted by professionals than those by Redditers.
If they ask hard questions that might make the candidates look bad they don't get invited back or pay other access penalties.
Random people don't suffer from this problem. But they also don't generally have the inside knowledge to ask the real questions. Solution: anonymize the professional journalists and their organizations. No one to blame, no one to retaliate against.
What do you mean by this? That Reddit can't do what Woodward and Bernstein did?
Also, if you do get someone that intimately knows an issue from reddit it is likely from a very personal point of view. Sometimes that's not a problem but you'd have to really think about how their personal agenda colors the question...with strangers this is not always clear.
Professional journalists are supposed to be somewhat removed which provides useful perspective -- or at least a perspective that is more generally applicable.
So, no, they wouldn't be able to do what Woodward and Bernstein did. BUT they could offer valuable insight and perspective that contributes to the whole that would be hard to fish out any other way so I definitely wouldn't dismiss them.
EDIT: One way to take the pressure off is to tell the candidate, your interviewer will be one of these people but we won't tell you which one. However, I think they truly value the ability to retaliate so that is probably not enough.
EDIT 2: Also, anonymizing journalists deprives them of the credit they'd get from a tough interview. While I imagine many would participate out of civic duty, they'd really like to be able to get (timely) credit without being retaliated against.
Don't tell them it will be anonymous :)
Just kidding. Sell it as a new format that is more likely to get at real answers and pick some candidates that aren't afraid of that. Let them tout their willingness as an indicator of integrity and question their rivals. Have a group of some of the best journalists in the business behind the curtain...as long as there are enough of them their anonymity is secure.
If they want to claim a question, let them. It wouldn't be hard. Have their home network have a envelope of the wording of the question that they can reveal in real time.
We need more Rampart reactions.
There have been such posts with more [deleted] comments than visible ones. With CSS one can hide the fact that comments have even been deleted. Combined with the moderator bot, a user can be effectively shadow-banned from an entire subreddit.
I had the same thought but a different conclusion: if crowdsourced interviews make a candidate look bad, and it happens a few times, candidates won't "invite back" the crowdsourced platforms.
The current system works the way it does for a reason: short of making it mandatory, politicians will only conduct interviews if they feel like it's a net win for shaping the narrative. A journalistic entity that keeps making politicians "lose" at the interview will very soon become an entity without access.
Basically, people genuinely, intrinsically caring about a particular thing will produce better results than people pushing agendas and using that thing as a tool to get money and further careers.
Likewise a website is able to do a better job of figuring out who you should vote for than listening to campaign ads. In the last several elections I've used http://www.selectsmart.com/president/ as a starting point for figuring out who I support.
For example in 2008 there were significant policy differences between Obama and Clinton. And I wanted to know who I sided with in the primary.