Congress voted against funding a cure for cancer just to block a win for Biden

[u/TurretLauncher]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2024/05/05/biden-cancer-moonshot-initiative-congress-funding/73525016007/

[u/zaparthes]

It's the legacy of Newt Gingrich, arguably the most destructive politician in the history of the House of Representatives.

[u/JohnnyValet → u/zaparthes]

THE MAN WHO BROKE POLITICS

The Atlantic - Updated October 17, 2018

Newt Gingrich turned partisan battles into bloodsport, wrecked Congress, and paved the way for Trump’s rise. Now he’s reveling in his achievements.

During his two decades in Congress, he pioneered a style of partisan combat—replete with name-calling, conspiracy theories, and strategic obstructionism—that poisoned America’s political culture and plunged Washington into permanent dysfunction. Gingrich’s career can perhaps be best understood as a grand exercise in devolution—an effort to strip American politics of the civilizing traits it had developed over time and return it to its most primal essence.

...

Bill Kristol, then a GOP strategist, marveled at the success of his party’s “principled obstructionism.” An up-and-coming senator named Mitch McConnell was quoted crowing that opposing the Democrats’ agenda “gives gridlock a good name.” When the 103rd Congress (January 3, 1993, to January 3, 1995) adjourned in October, The Washington Post declared it “perhaps the worst Congress” in 50 years.

[u/SlowerThanLightSpeed → u/JohnnyValet]

IMO, the loss of the Fairness Doctrine (in 1987) -- which brought people like Rush Limbaugh more power than ever to poison minds with partisanship in their own homes and cars -- played a huge role in turning politics into a dirty game; a game that saw Gingrich as a relatively early master.

[u/sailorbrendan → u/SlowerThanLightSpeed]

While I think you're generally right about the end of the fairness doctrine being important it's also probably valuable to recognise that it was inevitable.

It wasn't long after 1987 that we see the boom of cable news which had no restrictions under fairness doctrine,and then digital happens and like,the fairness doctrine can't possibly work with podcasts.

[u/SlowerThanLightSpeed → u/sailorbrendan]

Thanks for the insight, you've inspired me to plow through a 1975 paper titled: "The Future of Cable Communications and the Fairness Doctrine"

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1476&context=facpubs

It's got some interesting insights into relevant case law and thinking at the time, and is far more thoughtful than I on the subject.

My hot-takes in the meantime are:

Everything previously under the FD should've remained under the FD.

Just because we came up with new tech for dissemination of "news" doesn't mean that the concept of fairness in "news" became less important for democracy.

If we are going to be able to battle the division-inducing and division-deepening aspects of media, we need to find a better way to present information that happens to incorporate the concept of fairness. This could come from higher quality programming and really good interfaces. If we can draw in more people to a better product, then we get the best of all worlds (free-market and common-sense).

<edit>

Of course, it's surely easy to slide out of the news category without sliding out of the potential for propaganda. TV shows and movies can obviously be filled with all kinds of bias, so, either the limitation to news is bunk, or every darned thing that was ever published would have to have some gov't interference/limitations... hard problems are hard.

</edit>

[u/worldspawn00 → u/SlowerThanLightSpeed]

Yep, the purview of the law should have been expanded to any news programming or media, regardless of the medium by which it is transmitted, instead of being killed.

[u/sailorbrendan → u/SlowerThanLightSpeed]

I don't think there is a real answer to that problem. I think getting rid of algorithmic social media would be a good idea, but fundamentally people are going to seek out things that confirm their biases

[u/SlowerThanLightSpeed → u/sailorbrendan]

Maybe tweak the algorithms?

Since algorithms can tell what is similar, surely an algorithm can (or can be made to) tell what's different; perhaps leading to an algo that presents a broad range of thoughts on any one topic.

We could build reward systems to reinforce the consumption of breadth and depth on a subject by providing a score (or visualization) for each post that represents a poster's experience with - and biases related to - the subject about which they are posting. In fact, viewers could be given related scores so that they too are compelled to show the world that, even if they don't want to share their opinions, at least they are well versed on many subjects.

This could incentivize posters (and content creators) to actually do their own research while also incentivizing viewers to look for posts that are made by folk who can "prove" that they've at least seen varied perspectives.

Of course, this would be trying to force an unnatural state of being onto humans; we hate that. Additionally, it would be hard to stop users from just scrolling till they found ideologically pure content which could then allow them to wear their purity as a badge of honor... basically just recreating a political subreddit with more steps.

Might could help folk who aren't already captured by BS avoid echo chambers.

[u/sailorbrendan → u/SlowerThanLightSpeed]

I mean, the problem there is that I really don't want to be shown nazi shit. I have spent more than enough time looking at nazi shit when I was actively doing anti-nazi stuff. i don't need more of it.

But that's what "looking at stuff from all sides" means.

[u/SlowerThanLightSpeed → u/sailorbrendan]

Fair point.

I am all for the end user being able to add their own filters, on purpose.

Also, the whole thing (and every feature) could be opt-in. Do not want to show off your bias, no problem, do not go out of your way to choose to display it. Etc

[u/sailorbrendan → u/SlowerThanLightSpeed]

I think you would find that very few people would set it up in such a way that they were actually shown things that didn't confirm their biases.

Like, we already can do it. I could go listen to ben shapiro podcasts if I wanted to. But I don't.

[u/SlowerThanLightSpeed → u/sailorbrendan]

You are likely correct.

My hope would be that a wider variety of better balanced content would develop over time. If creators are rewarded for their broader appeal, in addition to diversifying their topical explorations, they may also be incentivized to round off the edges.

Pure speculation; am open to other ideas and further hole punching.

[u/sailorbrendan → u/[deleted]]

I don't understand what you're suggesting, if I'm being honest

[u/sailorbrendan → u/[deleted]]

So like... I'm just some guy. I'm an American who lives abroad.

I could start a podcast right now

It would take me like, max, a couple hours. I think it's a little silly to argue that the US government would have a way to dictate the content of my podcast.

[u/sailorbrendan → u/[deleted]]

the range of topics you can talk about on a podcast is extremely narrow.

this is demonstrably not true. What are you even talking about?

[u/sailorbrendan → u/[deleted]]

I'm sorry... I feel like a wire got crossed somewhere here.

I'm pretty sure I could start a podcast on virtually any topic I wanted to. You are the one claiming that it's "extremely narrow"