[leftyted]

> I'm curious what other people think the informational value of these hearings are. It seems like it is either posturing and grandstanding, or reasonable questions to which evasive or non-answers are given.

I agree with you.

They need to get the cameras out of congress. Everyone involved in these hearings is mining them for clips for their campaign ads and it's sickening.

[whatshisface]

>They need to get the cameras out of congress. Everyone involved in these hearings is mining them for clips for their campaign ads and it's sickening.

It is the cameras you have to thank for finding out that they are posturing and grandstanding.

[leftyted]

Without the cameras they have no reason to posture. They posture so they can cut a clip, publish it, and say: "Look! Here's me standing up to the evil Republicans|Democrats|tech CEOs who want to steal your precious bodily fluids!"

In the presence of cameras, politicians become instagram celebrities.

[whatshisface]

If their motivations were to do their real jobs, they would do their real jobs regardless of the cameras. The presence of the cameras reveals that they prefer posturing to doing their jobs, but that does not imply that doing their jobs is the priority immediately below posturing. If the cameras were gone, do you think they would ask real questions, or would they start doing things far worse than posturing in front of the public?

[leftyted]

Let's run an experiment by moving cameras into the Supreme Court -- actually all courtrooms -- and the rooms where juries deliberate and all Cabinet meetings. We'll be able to tell that I'm right after our government stops working.

Or we could save ourselves the trouble and ask ourselves why it is that we don't allow cameras in those places to begin with. And then we could extend that reasoning to Congress. Turns out treating your government like a reality tv show is a bad idea.

Removing the cameras isn't going to fix everything...but it will be a positive change.

[whatshisface]

Judges are motivated in part by the esteem of their peers. In congress, "esteem of your peers" means agreeing to the right pork projects. Public approval is the best metric we're going to get. Take that carrot away, and all remaining carrots will lead in worse directions. At least public approval has some correlation with policy quality.

[everdrive]

But it also prevents them from saying things that may be politically unpopular. eg, a moderate senator standing up to the fringes in their wings.

[Nasrudith]

They aren't exactly getting praise for what they are doing right now - only less complaints from the brainless hysterical "do-somethingists" and savage roasting by those who have even an amateur level in knowing what the hell they are talking about.

Really I would expect standing up to the fringes in their wings would be a popularity boosting move but party poltical machine alienating one as .

[vharuck]

If there were no cameras on the floor, they'd just talk to the ones outside. The real work is not done in front of cameras. It will never be done in front of cameras. But it still happens.

Removing cameras from these hearings could make them more productive. But I don't know how useful these types of hearings could be.

[jjaredsimpson]

Why do you assume these same people are somehow "professional" when no one is looking.

The system operates as it is designed to.

[SpicyLemonZest]

Because bipartisan deals happen somewhat often, even between people who are invariably acrimonious on camera, and reporting on those bipartisan deals often mentions non-recorded meetings where compromises were made.

[noelsusman]

They have closed door hearings as well. That's where the real work gets done, if there is any.

[mesozoic]

Yes let's support them having only invisible political machinations so we can all get even further away from any truth that may exist.

[6gvONxR4sf7o]

Audio? Text? There are ways to keep it transparent while taking away virality.