Getting the Lies Out of Politics and Media (troper think tank)

Politicians lie. A lot. There's a reason people joke that a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. But the current level of lies is just absolutely horrifying. A presidential candidate should not be able to get away with attack ads telling blatant lies, using Quote Mining and edited footage.

So, how do we get the lies out of politics (and news media in general)? The traditional theory is that it is impossible, while the overly optimistic one assumes no new laws are needed, and people will just ignore the liars. Well, that's obviously not true, so let's see what we can come up with.

While I'm American, this thread is open for politics worldwide. There was also some word that Canada does not allow their politicians to lie, but I don't know much about that. I'd like some Canadian tropers to expand on that a bit.

Also: Yes, I know the goal of this thread is idealistic. But something has to be done. Things are just getting ridiculous.

A nonpartisan fact checking committee of some kind. Monitoring the day to day news cycle would be very difficult, but there could be a mandate that political ads must be screened for factual inaccuracies before they're aired.

And I'm not a Canadian, but I do know that their laws actually prevent Fox News from being able to air there. So, that's definitely a plus for them.

On the other hand you have people like Stephen Harper, who is both secretive according to journalists and prone to saying absurd things such as accusing the New Democratic Party of not supporting the fight against Hitler... years before said party even existed. Politicians will say outrageous things no matter what, and they will find a way to make sure these lies have an audience. On some level, it really is up to the individual to be able to discern the truth from lies and distortion. But while separating lies from politics entirely is an impossible goal, it would still be infinitely better to at least make an attempt to make the major media outlets more informative and grounded in reality, rather than just surrendering to defeatism.

Every time I think of Canadian politics, the phrase "evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet" comes up.

I definitely agree with the idea of non-partisan fact checking committees, chosen at the state level to screen all ads run within that state, or private organizations along the same vein as Politifact. It would probably be too much work for a single federal body.

Incidentally, I find it amusing that the Washington Post's fact checking column gets accused of being a shill for both parties. Mr. Kesseler must be doing something right.

edited 16th Aug '12 8:27:01 AM by HouraiRabbit

Wise Papa Smurf, corrupted by his own power. CAN NO LEADER GO UNTAINTED?!

Good education.

Lies don't work if you have a populace educated enough to see through them. If I wanted to get the lies out of U.S. politics, I'd multiply the education budget by 20 and reform the whole system from top to bottom.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Make lying, as a politician, a crime on the same level as perjury.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

You could force politicians to stick to their own policies, as a drastic step. Rather than tearing down each other.

I'm ashamed that's the best I can think of. I'll come back with something better.

edited 16th Aug '12 2:49:48 PM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

But what stops them using From a Certain Point of View? After all, even if you can't directly lie, you can certainly bend the truth a lot...

Keep Rolling On

Hook all politicians up to a fact checking machine that shocks them every time they lie? Damn, that would be nice.

Other than that, what I really think needs to happen is for the media to start calling them on their bullshit. They don't do that nearly enough, because they're afraid of looking biased, and losing viewers, or of politicians refusing to appear on their shows. Politicians need to answer to the people, not the other way around. That's how democracy works.

I rather like Dave Barry's solution, as given in Dave Barry Hits Below the Beltway:

Inject some honesty into political campaigns.

He's not speaking figuratively—he means all politicians should be dosed with sodium pentothal before filming campaign ads, participating in debates, or otherwise speaking to the public.

Well, we could go the Roman rout, and require all debaters to be drunk.

The only definition of a honest politician that I will personally ever accept is this one.

A honest politician is one who when he is bought, stays bought.

The idea of a truth-checking committee worries me a bit. The members of any such committee could carry their own prejudices in and I have a hard time imagining how we could avoid having them bought by corporate interests. Moreover, if they actually managed to be impartial and effective, they would probably be accused of left-wing bias*

and find themselves discredited in the eyes of a good chunk of the American public. Having a Department of Truth that doesn't confirm the biases of {whoever} would also be excellent fodder for Orwellian fantasizing. (The Orwellian realities we face are bad enough!)

No Fox News in Canada? I am definitely in love now.

This of course would give the R/R fans more reason than ever to be against student aid.

edited 16th Aug '12 4:47:56 PM by EveXOXO

Capitalism - especially the form of corporatism controlling America - is naturally opposed to democracy, so any reform you introduce will actually have only a minor effect.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

I agree with you but I highly doubt that the Socialist party (card carrying member here!) will ever get to run things.

That depends on how bad things get, but yeah probably not going to be a revolution in America any time soon :(

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

They would ideally have very strict limits on what they can declare true/false and what is subject to opinion. Most of the lying is about specific numbers and things that are easily quantifiable without bringing ideology into it.

@Taoist: While I also support a vast increase in education funding for various reasons, I'm not so sure about that.

edited 16th Aug '12 4:56:19 PM by HilarityEnsues

Well, lies would be libel... so politicians have no protection against libel if they do so in public. It's rare that anybody sues over it though.

The law in Canada that prevents Fox News from operating is that media cannot lie. You also can't classify yourself as entertainment and then proceed to lie. Fox News then (which is funny to me) lied about why they were denied a licence on American tv and said it was some evil state interference of some sort that banned them. Actually, they were told they were not allowed to lie and because they kept doing it, they were denied a licence.

The problem with lying is that it's too easy. People rely on ads and other stupid things. If people had to listen to long debates, lying becomes much harder. People can say things and in the middle of the debate you can do "fact check". Perhaps after each response.

"You voted against blah".

Okay fact-check. This runs on proving your statements.

The "Good Guy versus Bad Guy" narrative that goes on in politics has also got to go. It's insultingly stupid and reduces the intelligence of everyone who is alive. Also, the idea that a political party is akin a football team that is to be followed or supported (and yes, one that one I'm looking at you, America).

edited 17th Aug '12 10:32:57 AM by TheBatPencil

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

Part of the problem with getting rid of the good guys versus bad guys narrative is that it's very difficult to do without falling into the Cult of Centrism, which is the position that all political parties are equal. When you have a culture of information that says that all political parties are equal, then each political party has the incentive to go as far to its radical extreme as possible, because they're not punished for doing so, as the other political party is assumed to also be just as extreme.

I prefer to think in terms of "who has good policy and who has bad policy" but this isn't really that distinct from good guys versus bad guys.

Loyalty to political parties isn't a uniquely American thing, bat pencil: in fact, as far as I know, it's universal.

However, yes, the narrative that the other party is evil incarnate - either godless communists trying to undermine the nation, or drooling idiot fundamentalists - is pretty damaging. Especially when they're both essentially the same, in fact.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

They are not the same. This can be empirically demonstrated. We can also show that the impacts of the policies of the respective parties are vastly different with wildly different implications. This is exactly the kind of mentality I was just talking about-it encourages extremism because there is no fault for being extremist, because one's reputation cannot be damaged, because any extremism of one party is then considered "the norm for political parties" and then the opposition party is unjustly punished by the electorate as well (or, alternatively, the opposition party seeks the same course of action and eventually DOES become the same).

I hear that sort of thing a lot. You know, that people put too much stock into political parties and they need to just focus on the candidates, etc. Although I understand why some people say that, I think they're fundamentally missing the point here.

It's not about the parties, but what ideologies they represent. I have no actual loyalty to the Democrats, but as a progressive, they're the best option I've got. Or the lesser of two evils, however you want to put it. If another party that better reflected my views became viable, I'd support them instead. And even if we abolished political parties entirely, I would still vote for people with progressive stances. Nothing would actually change.

Republicans/conservatives are also not the "bad guys" to me; that is overly simplistic. They're just the wrong guys for the job. I'd call many people that've represented their ideology bad, but that's generally more related to their personal character.

Also, this.

edited 17th Aug '12 11:15:37 AM by HilarityEnsues

I would point to one well documented trend in the US over the last several decades: first, the increasing polarization of elected officials (esp. legislators) and second, the largest campaign contributions tend to come from the most extreme lobby groups and are typically directed to the most extreme candidates. The effect that agenda-driven organized lobbying has had on political campaigns since the 1970's in America is very familiar to anyone who has lived here, and similar trends can also be seen in other regions of the world.

Even though it wouldn't eliminate the problem entirely, effective campaign reform would help reduce the incentive for using the more extreme forms of divisive and polarizing rhetoric.

@ Tomu:

What about polarisation towards the centre, as has been happening in Britain? Where everyone fights over the same swing voters and participation is reduced because it is percieved that the major parties are largely identical and all believe in the same ideology?

@ Marquis:

Does that also include lobbying of Central Government by Government Departments, or by parts of local/regional Government?

Keep Rolling On