
Can Reddit interview presidential candidates better than traditional media? - steven
https://medium.com/backchannel/can-a-random-group-of-people-on-the-internet-interview-a-candidate-better-than-the-pros-9fb90d2f29f3
======
eldude
No. Reddit's user base is extremely liberal and hostile to conservative
candidates and values as evident by the echo-chamber that is /r/politics,
which fails to meaningfully support pro-conservative news. There are literally
no pro-conservative and no anti-liberal top posts from the past month[1], only
libertarian, liberal and anti-conservative. The paradigm or technology
platform dramatically favors a very specific demographic, and is ultimately a
disservice to democracy by disproportionately favoring that demographic's POV.
If you fall into that demographic, I imagine it would be very difficult to
resist the potential power play to further your own views.

[1]
[http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/top/](http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/top/)

EDIT #1: Okay, /r/politics is a US-only forum. Supporting facts updated.

EDIT #2: As a final point, being global in nature, Reddit will always
encourage an english-speaking non-US-centric world-oriented political-view.
This is precisely, as a nation, what we don't want, to provide a global avenue
for anti-US political subversion masquerading as populace rhetoric.

~~~
fweespeech
To address your completely re-written post:

> No. Reddit's user base is extremely liberal and hostile to conservative
> candidates and values as evident by the echo-chamber that is /r/politics,
> which fails to meaningfully support pro-conservative news. There are
> literally no pro-conservative and no anti-liberal top posts from the past
> month[1], only libertarian, liberal and anti-conservative. The paradigm or
> technology platform dramatically favors a very specific demographic, and is
> ultimately a disservice to democracy by disproportionately favoring that
> demographic's POV. If you fall into that demographic, I imagine it would be
> very difficult to resist the potential power play to further your own views.

I'll address it here as I did in my other post...

1) If you feel libertarians are not "conservatives" it is because you are a
social conservative. Yes, Reddit is not friendly to social conservatives but
that is really the only bias you've presented. Fiscal conservatism is a
libertarian belief, a conservative belief, and is represented by the positive
news about Rand Paul.

2) > There are literally no pro-conservative and no anti-liberal top posts
from the past month[1]

> [1]
> [http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/top/](http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/top/)

That doesn't demonstrate the bias you claim as it is based on overall score
_including time_ in the ranking algorithm. You can see it by the order its
displayed on the page. Result #4? 2794 which is greater than results #2 & #3.

The correct link would be:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/top/?sort=top&t=month](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/top/?sort=top&t=month)

:/

Like, I get you are trying at this point but its really hard to be nice to
someone who seems only interested in attempting to misrepresent the facts to
fit his world view. I even had to correct the link you offered because the
link you presented this time still doesn't match the statement you made.

Do you even understand the problem I have with you is:

1) You make conservatives look bad by being this ignorant.

2) You are painting me as a "hostile liberal" when my problem with you is the
fact you have a fact-free opinion of the world and actively misrepresent and
completely rewrite your posts to remove those misrepresentations?

> EDIT #2: As a final point, being global in nature, Reddit will always
> encourage an english-speaking non-US-centric world-oriented political-view.
> This is precisely, as a nation, what we don't want, to provide a global
> avenue for anti-US political subversion masquerading as populace rhetoric.

Populist rhetoric isn't inherently "subversive". The fact you are convinced
that Reddit is an avenue for "anti-US political rhetoric" means you frankly
don't understand the value and purpose of the 1st amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

The right to exercise political speech is a fundamental right both for
Americans and everyone else in the world under the Constitution. The fact you
would go against that makes you:

1) Un-American.

2) Not-A-Conservative. Protecting constitutional rights is a fundamental
conservative belief. If you are opposed to people exercising a fundamental
constitution right, such as the freedom of speech, you are a horrible
American.

3) You are precisely why the Constitution exists. To protect the rest of us
from people who think the ability to have an honest, public conservation about
political views is a bad thing. You do realize that is a large part of why we
revolted against the British in the first place, right? An inability to
influence politics legally via speech and parliamentary representation?

EDIT: Sean

I get rate limited in these threads and can't reply. Anyway, I read the "as a
nation" bit as policy advocacy. Maybe that wasn't his intent but that seems to
have been his way of phrasing that intent previously.

~~~
eldude
> To address your completely re-written post:

Despite your fixation on it, it in no way invalidates my point. It was one
sentence that's acknowledged in the edit, and I openly acknowledge it as
"ignorance" further down. What would you prefer I replace the text of "Edit
#1" with?

> Yes, Reddit is not friendly to social conservatives but that is really the
> only bias you've presented.

Thank you for partially agreeing, but you are illustrating your ignorance and
seem "only interested in attempting to misrepresent the facts to fit [your]
world view." Specifically, you are ignorant to the fact that libertarian
monetary policies are not interchangeable or equivalent to conservative
monetary policies. Just one example is that libertarians are isolationists,
while conservatives tend to be interventionists. You also seem completely
ignorant to the fact that libertarians are neither liberal, nor conservative,
but in fact libertarian, though from your POV (and those on Reddit I would
suspect), libertarians probably are what you consider "conservative."

>
> [https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/top/?sort=top&t=month](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/top/?sort=top&t=month)

That's the link I intended ("top posts from the past month"). If you were not
so blinded with bias, you would recognize that your link proves my point and
illustrates that you are "only interested in attempting to misrepresent the
facts to fit [your] world view."

> its really hard to be nice to someone

Really? I have no difficulty politely discussing the issue with you despite
your clear ignorance, anti-conservative bigotry, myopathy and that you are
wrong and misrepresent all the facts I am presenting. I have said nothing
negative about liberalism at any point.

> 1) You make conservatives look bad by being this ignorant.

You make liberals look bad by being this ignorant, and arguably worse through
your tone and difficulty with not demonizing me.

> 2) You are painting me as a "hostile liberal" when my problem with you is
> the fact you have a fact-free opinion of the world and actively misrepresent
> and completely rewrite your posts to remove those misrepresentations?

You are clearly hostile and liberal. You are having difficulty being nice and
instead of focusing on the topic, go on to mischaracterize me as "Un-
American," "horrible American," "opposed to [the 1st Ammendment]," dishonest
and opposed to honest public political discussion, which is self-evidently
false as I am presently engaging in one. I did provide a fact, I'm sorry you
are ignoring it. The facts in the link as discussed stand.

> and completely rewrite your posts to remove those misrepresentations?

Again, ignoring the facts. See "EDIT #1: Okay, /r/politics is a US-only forum.
Supporting facts updated." and above, "What would you prefer I replace the
text of "Edit #1" with?" I will however assume this is not due to some reading
comprehension on your part and instead fault your myopathy or hostility.

> Populist rhetoric isn't inherently "subversive". The fact you are convinced
> that Reddit is an avenue for "anti-US political rhetoric" means you frankly
> don't understand the value and purpose of the 1st amendment.

Lol, geez man. Did I say any of that? I sound pretty terrible when you discuss
me. I said, within the context of US-elections, a global opinion site could be
an avenue for subversive rhetoric masquerading as something else. I love how
you rail on me for misrepresenting things in ignorance, yet you have a literal
mischaracterizing misquote: "anti-US political rhetoric". You seem to
pervasively disregard the facts to support your opinion. I said "anti-US
political subversion", and if you don't think that exists, then you don't
understand politics or power. I'd be happy to recommend some reading if you
need education.

> The fact you would go against that makes you [...] Un-American [,...]
> opposed to people exercising a fundamental constitution right [,...] a
> horrible American [,...] think the ability to have an honest, public
> conservation about political views is a bad thing

Wow. Alright, enough, you've gone off the rails. You're no longer discussing
the topic and just flat out doing everything you can to mischaracterize me by
attacking my character. Thank you for proving my point in absolutely every
way.

While it's possible your intentions are honest, you are clearly misguided and
are ignorant of both the facts and from your demeanor, probably malicious.

~~~
fweespeech
> That's the link I intended ("top posts from the past month"). If you were
> not so blinded with bias, you would recognize that your link proves my point
> and illustrates that you are "only interested in attempting to misrepresent
> the facts to fit [your] world view."

The fact you intentionally linked to the wrong link proves your intention to
misrepresent the facts.

I mean you can claim otherwise and shove it all on me I guess?

That is really where you went with this as far as I can tell.

> Thank you for partially agreeing, but you are illustrating your ignorance
> and seem "only interested in attempting to misrepresent the facts to fit
> [your] world view." Specifically, you are ignorant to the fact that
> libertarian monetary policies are not interchangeable or equivalent to
> conservative monetary policies. Just one example is that libertarians are
> isolationists, while conservatives tend to be interventionists. You also
> seem completely ignorant to the fact that libertarians are neither liberal,
> nor conservative, but in fact libertarian, though from your POV (and those
> on Reddit I would suspect), libertarians probably are what you consider
> "conservative."

[http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-
blog/3448-myth...](http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-
blog/3448-myth-ayn-rand-was-a-conservative)

> Insofar as the conservative movement has been the home of free-market reform
> efforts since the 1960s at least, classical liberals, such as Objectivists,
> have taken part in conservative or right-wing political coalitions aimed at
> economic policy.

You are attempting to segment politics on a level that doesn't exist in the
real world of US politics.

The fact is the Libertarian __fiscal policies __and the Conservative __fiscal
policies __are for all purposes equal and equivalent in practical terms as
both are aimed at free market reforms and the "libertarian" and "conservative"
representatives of the Republican party both vote Yes on the same bills.

You can pretend otherwise (I guess) and argue a purely academic point (since
you really seem to want to paint yourself into that corner).

Once again:

> If you feel libertarians are not "conservatives" it is because you are a
> social conservative. Yes, Reddit is not friendly to social conservatives but
> that is really the only bias you've presented. Fiscal conservatism is a
> libertarian belief, a conservative belief, and is represented by the
> positive news about Rand Paul.

[http://www.yourdictionary.com/fiscal-
conservative](http://www.yourdictionary.com/fiscal-conservative)

> One who favors a balanced budget, prefering spending cuts or tax increases
> to borrowing, and wants to decrease government size, and promote a free
> market.

[http://www.teapartypatriots.org/news/fiscal-conservatism-
bre...](http://www.teapartypatriots.org/news/fiscal-conservatism-breeds-
balanced-budgets/)

> On Wednesday, Tea Party Patriots highlighted Texas’ success in growing its
> economy through the principles of low taxes, low spending, and freer
> markets. As Katharine Ham reports, similar success stories are happening
> across the country as fiscal conservatives implement sound public policy.
> Meanwhile, states that continue to overspend – states like long-suffering
> California – continue to sag under the weight of massive debt, and as they
> raise taxes their citizens are departing for greener and more economically
> safe pastures.

[http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12855.htm](http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12855.htm)

> Monetary policy is a term used to refer to the actions of central banks to
> achieve macroeconomic policy objectives such as price stability, full
> employment, and stable economic growth. In the United States, the Congress
> established maximum employment and price stability as the macroeconomic
> objectives for the Federal Reserve; they are sometimes referred to as the
> Federal Reserve's dual mandate. Apart from these overarching objectives, the
> Congress determined that operational conduct of monetary policy should be
> free from political influence. As a result, the Federal Reserve is an
> independent agency of the federal government. Fiscal policy is a broad term
> used to refer to the tax and spending policies of the federal government.
> Fiscal policy decisions are determined by the Congress and the
> Administration; the Federal Reserve plays no role in determining fiscal
> policy.

> Specifically, you are ignorant to the fact that libertarian monetary
> policies are not interchangeable or equivalent to conservative monetary
> policies.

> If you feel libertarians are not "conservatives" it is because you are a
> social conservative. Yes, Reddit is not friendly to social conservatives but
> that is really the only bias you've presented. Fiscal conservatism is a
> libertarian belief, a conservative belief, and is represented by the
> positive news about Rand Paul.

Or you don't know what a fiscal policy or a fiscal conservative is. :/

EDIT: I give up. Its pointless to argue with someone who doesn't even know WTF
I'm saying.

~~~
eldude
> [http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-
> blog/3448-myth...](http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-
> blog/3448-myth-ayn-rand-was-a-conservative)

[Original response to the above quote removed]

EDIT: Looks like I missed the original context (in a different comment) for
the above quote. Thanks for providing evidence that supports my point that
libertarians are not conservatives.

> Objectivists, have taken part in conservative or right-wing political
> coalitions aimed at economic policy.

That's a political strategy in a two-party system. You're equivocating.
Communists, socialists, anarchists, etc... must also choose a side in a two-
party system. It, however, does not make them equivalent. More ignorance on
your part.

Regarding fiscal policy, yes, you're right, I unintentionally was discussing
foreign policy. Thank you for the correction, but it in no one affects my
point. It seems fairly trivial to recognize I was talking about foreign
policy, not monetary policy. Either way, my point stands. You would've been
better off addressing that instead. Again,

> social conservatives [bias] is really the only bias you've presented.

I presented a general anti-conservative bias, not a specific one. I'm sorry
you misunderstood.

> If you feel libertarians are not "conservatives" it is because you are a
> social conservative.

Nope. Your views are reductionist and yet again extremely ignorant. From a
reductionist point of view, libertarians and conservatives differ in regards
to Social, Foreign, Monetary[1] (as opposed Fiscal) and Federalist policies.
Getting further into the specific details undermines your myopic view of non-
liberals altogether. It's really quite a wonder how much of a disservice your
ignorance is to making your own points.

[1] Libertarians are unrelentingly anti-Federal Reserve, while conservatives
have historically mostly ignored it and Republicans actually helped create it:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Federal_Reserv...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Federal_Reserve#Creation).

------
pdovy
The quality of the questions on Bernie Sanders' AMA were pretty good, but it
was informative only because he didn't shy away from answering the interesting
questions.

One of the Chicago Mayoral candidates did an AMA in the recent election and it
was pretty abysmal. The good questions were skipped and the other answers were
evasive. In that respect, Reddit lacks something an in-person interview can
deliver (with a good interviewer) - the ability to push back on a non-answer
and not be ignored. You also can't catch someone off guard on Reddit, really -
the answers are going to be very carefully curated.

~~~
wtallis
So a really interesting question would be: can a candidate who is unafraid to
answer questions honestly compete well against a field of candidates who try
to only tell people what they want to hear? Is it possible to change the game
such that not alienating anyone is less of a priority?

EDIT: Thinking about this more, it may be important that we play multiple
iterations of this game. During primaries, candidates are much less concerned
about alienating voters from the other party, and are much more concerned
about straying from the positions mandated by their party base. In the general
election, they often have the opposite incentive.

If we only had one round of campaigning, it could be much easier for
candidates to delineate their true beliefs, though whatever voting system was
used would still be vulnerable to some form of strategy.

~~~
jordanpg
In principle, yes, but not when the means of media distribution (campaign ads,
debates, etc.) are controlled by parties with obvious conflicts of interest.

In other words, the debates will always be pathetic so long as they are run by
_companies_ like FOX, NPR, and NBC. Companies with plain political interests.

This, more than anything else, needs disrupting.

------
hackuser
Someone once said that you can fool some of the people all the time and you
can fool all the people some of the time. The crowds can be fooled; worse,
when they insist on something that isn't true, almost every public figure will
give in and tell the people what they want to hear. Generally I'm more
interested in questions from people who study these issues full-time, and are
skilled at handling the evasiveness (and sometimes plain old deceit) of public
figures.

The wisdom of the crowds is a great tool, but like all great tools it's not a
universal one. It doesn't replace expertise, for example. I don't want my
medical condition treated or my war planned by amateurs. The public figures
are professionals at this PR game. That said, the crowd-based interview may
complement the professionals.

~~~
jordanpg
I cannot agree more. The manner in which voting decisions are ostensibly
supposed to be made can only be called juvenile.

The questions in play are among the most complex in human history. The stakes
are high. All the way high. And still decisions about how to vote are supposed
to be determined by bland, simple answers to vague, generalized questions?

No thanks; please just show me the analysis. Show me the graphs. Show me the
track record, in writing. I care little for what politicians or their PR wings
say to interviewers. I care lots about data.

Aside: it's up to us (techy people), in my opinion, to find a way to jump-
start this discourse.

~~~
waterlesscloud
"And still decisions about how to vote are supposed to be determined by bland,
simple answers to vague, generalized questions?"

Deeper responses are available from most candidates.

It's worth emphasizing that it's YOUR (generic you, not personal)
responsibility to absorb these responses when they are available.

The biggest problem is that people just...don't.

~~~
jordanpg
> Deeper responses are available from most candidates.

Occasionally. Very occasionally.

I would submit that these interviews are really only useful to the extent that
they let candidates demonstrate their leadership style or possibly their
personality.

~~~
waterlesscloud
No, quite often.

Not interviews, but position papers and talks and so on from the candidates.
Contrary to folk wisdom, politicians for the most part take their work
seriously and have put a lot of thought and effort into issues they care
about.

In addition to their published material, you can always reach out to them or
their staff to discuss in more detail.

That is, of course, on you to take those steps, but they _are_ available to
you.

------
clavalle
Here's the thing about traditional journalists and their organizations: they
have to maintain a relationship with these people.

If they ask hard questions that might make the candidates look bad they don't
get invited back or pay other access penalties.

Random people don't suffer from this problem. But they also don't generally
have the inside knowledge to ask the real questions. Solution: anonymize the
professional journalists and their organizations. No one to blame, no one to
retaliate against.

~~~
im3w1l
One aspect is that with reddit, candidates can completely avoid uncomfortable
questions.

~~~
zf00002
They could also plant their own people asking the questions they want to
answer.

------
kenbellows
I'd be very interested to see a sort of combination of these approaches,
wherein questions are submitted in advance and upvoted/downvoted to determine
priority, then the top x questions are asked and the answers discussed by a
live interviewer. This would eliminate some (not all) of the problems that
@pdovy points out while keeping the positive aspects of a crowd-curated set of
questions.

------
TeMPOraL
No surprises here. Reddit can do quite a lot of things better than traditional
media. So can bloggers (if you filter out the major part of the blogosphere,
which now is another money making machine).

Basically, people genuinely, intrinsically caring about a particular thing
will produce better results than people pushing agendas and using that thing
as a tool to get money and further careers.

------
btilly
The answer is yes. The forum is not trying to channel the conversation through
a pre-determined dialog.

Likewise a website is able to do a better job of figuring out who you should
vote for than listening to campaign ads. In the last several elections I've
used
[http://www.selectsmart.com/president/](http://www.selectsmart.com/president/)
as a starting point for figuring out who I support.

~~~
kissickas
To provide another implementation, I prefer
[http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz](http://www.isidewith.com/political-
quiz) as it's more issue-based and you don't need to know the stances of the
organizations mentioned in the selectsmart quiz.

~~~
btilly
I like the fact that selectsmart ranks each possible candidate, and not just
general parties.

For example in 2008 there were significant policy differences between Obama
and Clinton. And I wanted to know who I sided with in the primary.

