| Input | Output |
|---|---|
| Link | Youtube |
| Published | 2024/05/05 |
| Theme | |
| Status | article incomplete |
{{Summary}}
Well, howdy there, internet people.
It's Beau again.
So today, we're going to talk about the negotiations,
the ongoing negotiations, and the coverage
of those negotiations and why that coverage seems
to be constantly updating would be a nice way to say it.
And we'll talk about why that's happening
and what you can actually look at to kind of get a feel for what's actually occurring.
If you are following the ceasefire negotiations, undoubtedly over the last 72 hours you've
been pulling your hair out because you have one outlet saying that the Palestinians have
agreed to something, another saying that there's no way that they would, and they're all sourcing
this information from people who have knowledge of the events.
And the coverage is, I mean, it's contradictory.
And these articles could be coming out
within minutes of each other saying polar opposite things.
So first, why is that happening?
When you're talking about a high-level negotiation
like this, you have two kinds of leaks.
Now this doesn't count official statements, but official statements fall into the second
kind of leak anyway.
Your first kind of leak is the unauthorized leak.
That is somebody who is in the room and they tell a journalist something, or they provide
information that gets back to that journalist.
These leaks are generally based on their perception of what is happening, what they view is important,
and how they see the other side reacting.
It's very subjective.
You can have four people at a table witness the exact same thing and have very different
perceptions on what occurred.
So you get conflicting coverage that way.
The key thing to remember about the unauthorized leaks that are based on perception is that
you can't really trust them.
They're not super valuable unless you know the actual source, and most times you doubt.
Then you have the authorized leaks.
Those normally come from people up at the top or they are directed by the people up
at the top.
The information that comes out in those, most times it's not actually designed to inform
the public, it's designed to shape the negotiations.
Put a little bit of information out and see how the other side reacts to it.
In other words, you can't trust that either.
The official statements that come out, sometimes they are geared for a domestic political audience.
It's a U.S. politician coming out and saying something, but really it doesn't have much
to do with the negotiations.
They're saying that so people back home know what's going on.
You can't really put too much stock in those either.
The thing that I have found that you can actually look at to tell whether or not things are
going well.
When things are going well, people start showing up.
That's what you look for.
A good example is Burns is over there right now.
Burns is the current director of the CIA, however, Burns isn't a spy.
He's a career diplomat who is the current appointee over the agency.
He's there right now.
He has a very long history of high-profile stuff, and he is very plugged into the region.
very close with Jordan. And him showing up, that's probably a really good sign.
I know that sounds weird. The director of the CIA showing up is a good sign. In
this case, it probably is. And the frequency of the trips is another thing,
and you're seeing all of that pick up. Most public statements are pretty
positive from all sides. Looking at that, I would suggest they are probably close
to some kind of ceasefire. What kind? Well that remains to be seen because it
could be something that's just a number of days, it could be something that's
more open-ended, it could be something that is ultimately rejected. But based
Based on the travel, they believe they're close.
That's about it.
A lot of the statements are, well, they've agreed to this in principle.
Yeah, well, the devil's in the details when it comes to all of this stuff.
So this is one of those situations where you can watch the more movement you see, the more
people you see show up and leave and then come back, all of that's a good sign.
And that's happening a lot.
But we are not in the room where it happens.
We get to find out afterward.
My gut tells me that it's moving in the right direction based on what we can see.
But we won't know until it's announced.
keep in mind that even once they get an agreement in principle, it would take
days to work out the details on this. So it's, things look like they're going the
right way, but I wouldn't expect the full details to emerge for at least a few
days, and that's assuming they have an agreement in principle right now. You may
get an announcement when they reach that agreement but there are still things
that could go wrong after that. But that's why the coverage is all over the
place. The negotiations are nowhere near as hectic as the coverage is making it
seem. They're not on the verge of peace one moment and then storming out of the
room the next. It's just the perception of the people in the rooms and then the
way it's written about by the journalist. There's a lot of room for error when it comes to the
coverage of these types of negotiations. So just hang in there and we'll see what happens.
Anyway, it's just a thought, y'all have a good day.
{{Shirt}}
{{EasterEgg}}