Tracking the Congressional Attention Span

Turismo writes "Ars Technica covers a new research project that uses computers to look at 70 million words from the Congressional Record. The project's goal was to track what our representatives were talking about at any given time, and researchers were able to do it without human training or intervention. From the article: '...researchers found, for instance, that "judicial nominations" have consumed steadily more Congressional attention between 1997 and 2004. In fact, the topic produced the most number of words published in a single "day" of the Congressional Record: 230,000 on November 12, 2003.' It looks like automated topic analysis has truly arrived."

Pro-Gress vs Con-Gress

[jkrise]

If Pro is the opposite of Con.... what'd Congress mean?

Just playing around with some silly words... do we need to analyse what Congressmen speak, to understand their intent or motivations? Following the money would be a better option.. and we'll find a Very High Attention Span for words like money, dollars and Big Bucks..

I'm not sure this is the best metric...

[PixelPirate]

Think about it: "Who thinks we should elect Joe Six-Pack"
Lots of talk, chit-chat, chatter, etc...

"Okay, now who would want to oppose the True American, Patriot, Love, Peace Act*"
Cricket! Cricket!
*And of course this Act happens to have about thirty-thousand ridders attached to it...

Re:Or Maybe Not..

[MindStalker]

Oh but just wait for a few days.
Once google indexes this page and the linked articles page, and every copycat page.

Reading the Record????

[jackb_guppy]

The congressional record is a false document of what happened in congress. Watch C-Span one day and hear each person request "Unamious support to change or extend". This allows 30 second comment say to begainst the bill to become a 2 hr speech to supporting the bill WITHOUT editing marks.

This program may count time on paper but can not count time that congress is actually spending.

Re:Opposite Side

[adam1234]

Judicial nominations affect all three to a very large degree.

Re:Or Maybe Not..

[Faylone]

The first thing you should do when the exact phrase can't be found is try searching for just all of the words...59.5 millions results, and the first one seems to be quite accurate. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=automated+top ic+analysis&btnG=Google+Search [google.com]

Re:Pro-Gress vs Con-Gress

[andrewman327]

It's more complicated than simply money issues, but I agree that this study does not prove much. If congressmen want to stay in office they need votes and they need to do what they think will get them elected. If you want to know what has your elected official's attention, it is much more direct to look them up in Project Vote Smart [vote-smart.org].

Cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be really interesting to see a cost analysis on this data. How much did it cost to talk about a certain topic.

Then everyone can get a warm fuzzy feeling about their tax dollars. :)

Re:Corrupting the judiciary is a strong focus now.

[ryturner]

Any sources to back up that statement?

Re:Process Process Process

[AnyoneEB]

And yet they still do not have reasonable rules like forbidding riders...

Re:Pro-Gress vs Con-Gress

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably more clearly understood as:

To Go Forward
To Go Meet