I imagine most people have a similar feeling of despair... that this is the last we'll ever hear of this. We're flooded with a ton of articles like this – "faces investigation", "raises questions", "could be an issue", "might be illegal", etc.
But rarely do we see anything come from issues like this. Our politicians just keep getting away with things until they become the new normal. There's rarely any repercussions... and even if Ajit Pai does fall, he'll just get a cushy job at Sinclair (or Comcast or somewhere else he helped), and some unknown person who is a bit less hated and can better fly under the radar will replace him.
I don't really have a point and I definitely don't have a solution. I just hate this feeling of helplessness. Much like with Net Neutrality, we're just being worn down until even the most passionate amongst us stop caring.
One solution would be journalistic outlets that don't discard news stories after a day or two. Imagine news stories had a "follow up after a month" button! But it seems like "Even Though X Promised To Do Y By Now, They Still Haven't" isn't the right kind of headline. I don't know how news websites choose what stories to write and feature, but it seems absurd and getting worse. BBC in particular seems to be picking content with a strategy that has vanishingly little to do with what's of geopolitical importance or cultural interest.
> I don't know how news websites choose what stories to write and feature, but it seems absurd and getting worse.
That’s what happens when your business model is contingent upon capturing maximum eyeballs per character. It seems like each story is a subtle plug for some product or service these days.
Do you have any examples of news outlets doing this? I find it happens frequently with my local media (neighborhood blog) but gets less common at the city level. I would like to support any outlet that does this.
It discusses the intersection of profit motive and story selection, from before the public internet was even a thing. The form changes, but the incentive structures remain the same, and if anything intensify.
I keep a file of stories to check back in on every now and then. Mostly tech "breakthrough" stories to see if they ever resulted in anything. Most often I find no followup stories whatsoever. If it's something I'm really interested in, I'll sometimes do my own research down the line, but that's rare.
The main problem is there's barely a business model for superficial journalism. It's non-existent for in-depth followup work.
I had a friend who works as a lobbyist for Comcast.
He works ~4 hours a week and makes $600k+/year (eat your heart out, Tim Ferriss).
Basically because, before leaving the public sector, he rose to the right rank at the right department within the right government agency, and knows the right people there well enough to go to lunch with them frequently.
Until we completely ban money in politics, this will never change. It's just such a good investment that these companies can afford to deluge their problems with money until they're gone.
I hear this phrase a lot (and it does sound desirable), but what exactly does it mean? The philosopher-kings of Plato's Republic, who were not allowed to own any property at all? Laws against bribery? (we have those already)
I'd rather not reward the parties which have control. Seems that may keep the status quo alive unless you fund any party. Then it becomes hard to define which parties to fund and which not to.
Strategic voting is what keeps the status quo alive. As long as we continue to use a first-past-the-post electoral system, it will remain tremendously difficult for third parties to gain traction, no matter their level of funding.
Voluntary voting makes political parties desperate for money because they need to spend big to get out the vote. If you make political parties desperate for money you make them vulnerable to interest groups with deep pockets and that compromises their politics.
"The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. F.E.C. completely changed the landscape of American elections. It further established the legal basis for the idea that “corporations are people” and opened the door for billionaires and special interests to spend unlimited, untraceable money in America’s elections."
sounds like the point is it is not corruption at all in the eyes of the law, it is perfectly normal and expected and sanctioned by the Supreme Court even!
>"Among other decisions, Pai's FCC rolled back broadcast TV station ownership limits, which could help Sinclair complete its pending acquisition of Tribune Media Company. The merger would let Sinclair, which the Times describes as a "conservative TV giant," reach 72 percent of TV-owning households in the US.
>"If the merger is approved, the conservative broadcaster would be able to air politically biased programming to more than 70 percent of the US population," Free Press said today."
This is the real problem, regardless of why Pai pushed for rule changes. The centralization of media is one of the main causes of polarization in society and therefore one of the great challenges our society must overcome. Sinclair's political leanings are irrelevant. If they were a "liberal" company this would still be a very bad development.
Corruption is a disease, not a wound that we can just stitch up. There are long-term consequences to short-term increases in corruption: The 'market' (so to speak) selects for skill in corruption, not for economically productive skill; the talented and innovative get pushed aside by the corrupt. In addition, those in power don't come from a background or framework of hard work and innovation - they don't care about or understand those things; those in power develop proteges similarly skilled in corruption and have a vested interest in maintaining a power structure built on corruption.
Many on HN have a vested interest in success resulting from hard work and innovation. You want to imagine that there's a free, mostly meritocratic market and that you can earn your success. You want to believe in the American Dream and Land of Opportunity. Those things didn't happen by accident or providence; generations worked very hard to provide it, and the only thing that will preserve it is us (and improve it - we should give something better to the next generation, just like our ancestors did). There's nobody else who is coming to save the day for you. That's the hope of democracy. The best news is, it's worked out really, really well in the past.
27 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 64.8 ms ] threadhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16393900
But rarely do we see anything come from issues like this. Our politicians just keep getting away with things until they become the new normal. There's rarely any repercussions... and even if Ajit Pai does fall, he'll just get a cushy job at Sinclair (or Comcast or somewhere else he helped), and some unknown person who is a bit less hated and can better fly under the radar will replace him.
I don't really have a point and I definitely don't have a solution. I just hate this feeling of helplessness. Much like with Net Neutrality, we're just being worn down until even the most passionate amongst us stop caring.
That’s what happens when your business model is contingent upon capturing maximum eyeballs per character. It seems like each story is a subtle plug for some product or service these days.
It may just encourage clickbait journalism of the worst form, encouraging paparazzi to get even more aggressive.
It discusses the intersection of profit motive and story selection, from before the public internet was even a thing. The form changes, but the incentive structures remain the same, and if anything intensify.
The main problem is there's barely a business model for superficial journalism. It's non-existent for in-depth followup work.
He works ~4 hours a week and makes $600k+/year (eat your heart out, Tim Ferriss).
Basically because, before leaving the public sector, he rose to the right rank at the right department within the right government agency, and knows the right people there well enough to go to lunch with them frequently.
Until we completely ban money in politics, this will never change. It's just such a good investment that these companies can afford to deluge their problems with money until they're gone.
I hear this phrase a lot (and it does sound desirable), but what exactly does it mean? The philosopher-kings of Plato's Republic, who were not allowed to own any property at all? Laws against bribery? (we have those already)
Voluntary voting makes political parties desperate for money because they need to spend big to get out the vote. If you make political parties desperate for money you make them vulnerable to interest groups with deep pockets and that compromises their politics.
http://endcitizensunited.org
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
>"If the merger is approved, the conservative broadcaster would be able to air politically biased programming to more than 70 percent of the US population," Free Press said today."
This is the real problem, regardless of why Pai pushed for rule changes. The centralization of media is one of the main causes of polarization in society and therefore one of the great challenges our society must overcome. Sinclair's political leanings are irrelevant. If they were a "liberal" company this would still be a very bad development.
Many on HN have a vested interest in success resulting from hard work and innovation. You want to imagine that there's a free, mostly meritocratic market and that you can earn your success. You want to believe in the American Dream and Land of Opportunity. Those things didn't happen by accident or providence; generations worked very hard to provide it, and the only thing that will preserve it is us (and improve it - we should give something better to the next generation, just like our ancestors did). There's nobody else who is coming to save the day for you. That's the hope of democracy. The best news is, it's worked out really, really well in the past.