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

If political parties all trend towards the center, you're less likely to get radicals. I'll take that over the Cult of Centrism any day.

Especially if the Society itself tends towards moderation*

. In fact, the major problem here is increasing diversity of Politicians, since a lot of Politicians come from the same background*

Privately-educated, Upper Middle-Class, went to Oxford or Cambridge, Career Politicians

— how far does being in the centre go before it raises problems of lack of representation?

edited 17th Aug '12 2:51:18 PM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

I'm not in favor or against "real" centrism. It's my opinion that as long as we have a relatively informed electorate, and we don't have anything obfuscating policy, then bad politics will become unpopular and people will vote against them. I'm opposed to the Cult of Centrism because it obfuscates bad policy, by suggesting that all options are equally shitty when they're not.

@Green- what you are describing is where the US was roughly up to about the late 1970's. Believe it or not, there was a time when Americans complained that the two parties were nearly identical.

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

It doesn't play out that way here. The bureaucracy is nearly powerless in a political sense- although they do "lobby" Congress, they cant contribute to or influence elections in any way whatsoever, so any Congressperson can attempt to cut any agencies budget and there are no consequences. Same for local governments.

I think there’s a global conspiracy to see who can get the most clicks on the worst lies

Same here in terms of Departments, in fact probably more so. Well, in this case almost all of Local Governments' funding comes from Central Government, so if anything is cut, it makes cuts — and Central Government is blamed and does lose votes for it.

Keep Rolling On

Actually, the idea of candidates debating drunk sounds like a good one. Might make politics more entertaining, too. It probably violates some kind of freedom of religion thing, though.

Since our local governments are fiscally independent, at least to some extent, I dont think people blame the national government for local budget deficits so much.

I think there’s a global conspiracy to see who can get the most clicks on the worst lies

They should. We seriously need a stimulus package to the states to allow them to rehire all the laid off teachers, fire fighters, and policemen.

You might as well ask how to get lies out of humanity.

Well, its been sort of done in academic circles so maybe it won't be impossible to try.

Have every read statement, approved broadcast and written paper be scrutinized. If there is some inconsistency, have the offending party be penalized.

The problem of course, is how to penalize.

Specially if its the most powerful man/nation on earth.

edited 20th Aug '12 2:10:11 AM by Natasel

You'll just have people screaming fascism if they do that.

It would probably be better if they allowed you to say whatever you want but you have to specifically say that the facts disagree with you and it's just your opinion.

Do we do anything for the ones that keep getting facts wrong?

With that standard at least we can expose the ignorant?

edited 20th Aug '12 10:47:13 AM by Natasel

No. News media can say pretty much whatever they want, Fox proves this.

The best way to fix this would be to say they have to pull any facts from recognized non-partisan sources such as the CBO. Said facts must be accurate and people can complain about lies which will be investigated by the FCC. Again, you can say whatever you want but you must openly acknowledge that the independent research disagrees with you and that it's just your opinion.

Is Canada fascist? They don't allow Fox News there. Take out Fox News and any equivalent that might spring up by making lying illegal in news reporting, and voila, you've hamstrung the craziest of the crazies.

After that, the next obvious step is voting system reform, to prevent the things we're seeing with the Harper government right now. Make third parties viable, get rid of all that states rights trampling over the rights of the actual people living in them bullshit, fight back hard against voter ID laws that disenfranchise more real voters than they stop illegal ones, put an end to gerrymandering once and for all. These are obvious things that should have been done decades ago, and the longer we wait on them the harder they'll be to change. Major secondary goals would be internet infrastructure and public education, so that people can keep themselves informed or at least be challenged with contrary opinions from time to time.

How about a stimulus package to bring wireless internet to the rural states? We'll see how red they are when they're exposed to lolcats and bronies on a regular basis.....

edited 20th Aug '12 11:02:18 AM by Karkadinn

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

Not sure how lolcat or bronies would help.

Anyway, how about verification and fact/truth checking? How do we do that?

To a conservative crazy they are fascist/communist. The problem is that the R party has become so divorced from facts that any attempt to create a system that ends their bullshit will be seen as a slight against legitimate journalism and one step closer to a police state. Given the trouble the Dems are having right now I don't think it's the best idea. We need to wake more people up to the conservative bullshit before such a law gets widespread support.

The economy isn't going to be bad forever, and once people see that 'Obamacare' actually WORKS, it'll be seen as a major point in the Democrats' favor. They just need to seize on the moment when it arrives (likely within the next couple of presidential election cycles) instead of being pussies and compromising on things that shouldn't be compromised on to begin with. And, also, hopefully not being distracted by whatever the next Republican boogieman happens to be, because there's always another one around the corner.

As for the 'bronies' thing, I was being silly, but the internet does pretty much force you to expose yourself to things that, IRL, you would just segregate away from yourself - or simply would naturally never have encountered to begin with. Thanks to the net, I've met Satanists, Wiccans, deaf transgender people, people of all walks of life, and my own world view has had to grow to accommodate that. What the internet lacks in quality control it makes up for in quantity, so it helps give people a taste of that 'real life' that strictly-controlled education and carefully-targeted news media won't always prepare you for.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

That's....true I suppose. Still, the 90% rule means its a horrible experience to endure for some enlightenment.

Anyway.

On to Grey Areas.

Politicians have a tendency to spreak very passionately about Grand This, or Great That, New Whatever.

Very few actually bother try to get a point across with numbers and hard data.

Probably because it would either in a bored people or a lynch mob.

How do we deal with politics that isn't based on lies (mostly) but on empty statements that only imply things?

Would it even be needed at that point? The Republicans will be losing power anyway so they might not see it as a big thing to worry about.

Well, there's a difference between things that are "Not True" and things that are "Lies."

The hard part with illegalizing lies is gaming the system is still quite possible. If you define "lies" as "knowingly false statements", then ideologues will simply not do research at all for plausible deniability. If you define "lies" as "statements contradictory to the finding of X investigative panel", then ideologues will simply seek to subvert said panel.

edited 21st Aug '12 6:59:11 AM by Tangent128

Do you highlight everything looking for secret messages?

Something like: Global warming is not happening, cigarets are not bad for you kind of thing?

Yeah, trying to determine what is "True" has been pretty much the foccus of arguments from religious schisms, politics and even sports fans the world over.

So far, except in extreme cases, we don't go about slaughtering each other over this but it would be best to have them settled and move on.

If only so there'd be more free time for other things....like Tropes.

You could always say they must research the topic before reporting on it. They would be required to use things like a scientific consensus and projections made by respected non-partisan authorities. Also they still wouldn't be able to present it as fact. Saying "I think global warming is a myth but I have no evidence for or against this" does not win the support of viewers.

edited 21st Aug '12 7:37:08 AM by Kostya

That's already being done.

Part of the problem is that for vast majority of us, we are NOT scientists who know how to judge a deeply technical study.

It would unreasonable to expect the common man to spend years to study such subjects for a well informed opinion.

Then there's the added headache that the subject of Political Science is not exactly the hardest, exact science.

There is so much room for conjecture that two totally contradictory theories might both be "True"

edited 21st Aug '12 8:32:36 AM by Natasel

...and two totally contradictory theories might also end up with the same result?

Keep Rolling On

Pretty much.

Anyone listening to Republicans VS Democrats can see that they may have different ideas about how to do things, but they can both be valid.

Now if only they could stop demonizing each other.....