Although it is common to critique the superficial nature of social media, it is imperative to examine the accountability of mainstream media. To what extent does it uphold standards of responsibility in its reporting and coverage?
I’m watching a clip, and it’s not just a YouTuber’s theatrical skills on display; it’s about the mainstream media.
The stage is set, and the anchor is urging a government official to write “Absolutely not” in response to a tweet by Richard Grenell, a member of the newly elected U.S. presidential team.
The demands of a semi-literate, polarized society may find satisfaction in this conversation. While it’s understandable that political activists on the street corner might argue over this topic, can we truly afford to let foreign affairs become just another subject of media discussion in such a childish manner?
Suppose, in response to a question, a government official recites a war song-like mantra disguised as populism. This could make headlines, boost ratings, and generate much fanfare. But we must ask: will such actions be beneficial or harmful to the interests of the state?
Should we close the foreign office and lock up the embassies, asking both junior and senior analysts to handle everything? After all, they have managed all global affairs, attributing December’s snowfall to their subjective analysis and claiming the wheat crop’s success stems from their insight.
In the realm of diplomacy, not every question has a clear answer. Even when answers are necessary, they aren’t typically provided on talk shows. Official responses should come from those whose responsibility it is, such as the foreign office, the foreign minister, or the ambassador. Diplomacy is not a spectacle designed to boost ratings and secure future invitations; it’s a matter of careful calculation.
The United States is a superpower. Can we really jeopardize our relationships just to satisfy political convenience on a talk show?
Foreign affairs are not simply about providing straightforward answers; they revolve around the concept of deliberate ambiguity.
To understand this idea, consider the latest article by the BBC’s international editor, Jeremy Bowen, following his meeting with Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa (also known as Mohammed al-Jaw Lani) at the presidential palace in Damascus. He noted that al-Sharaa appeared to be a very intelligent and insightful man. However, he observed that he did not answer questions as directly as others might. The intended ambiguity is maintained, which is likely why Jeremy Bowen found him to be such an astute individual.
What did he know? Foreign affairs are entirely different from the chatter on talk shows. In this context, one doesn’t speak thoughtlessly; instead, it requires careful consideration.
Dear Media! Please spare the foreign affairs.
