[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.