Input | Output |
---|---|
Link | YouTube |
Published | 2022/08/07 |
Theme | |
Status | article incomplete |
Beau says:
Pelosi's trip to Taiwan wasn't as significant as portrayed, and media sensationalism often exaggerates international events in the context of a modern Cold War.
Policy analysts, media consumers
Deeper analysis of the potential consequences of sensationalized media coverage on public perception and policy decisions.
#Pelosi #Taiwan #US #China #MediaSensationalism
Well, howdy there, Internet people.
It's Beau again.
So today, we are going to talk about Pelosi's trip to Taiwan
and whether or not it was a good idea.
We're going to do this mainly because I
got a whole bunch of questions asking why I didn't talk about it.
The simple answer here, why I didn't talk about this
while it was happening, because it wasn't that important.
I understand that a lot of coverage
painted that in a certain light.
Taiwan's a flashpoint.
It's been a flashpoint, sure.
But the idea that a sightseeing tour by Nancy Pelosi
is going to trigger a major military of the world
to invade an opposition location, that's kind of silly.
That's not really a thing.
If China invaded Taiwan sometime in the next few days,
it's because they plan to invade Taiwan in the next few days
six months ago.
They're not going to speed it up.
There's not going to be a military confrontation
over this.
The United States is in a near-peer contest.
It's the Cold War.
There's going to be a lot of saber rattling, a lot of pushing,
a lot of shoving, very, very little fighting.
These countries do not want to fight each other.
It's not good for anybody.
These wars, wars between great powers,
are really bad for the people at the top.
So that's why I didn't talk about it.
It is profitable in the media to talk about scenarios
that paint the worst possible light, that say, oh, doom
and gloom, something horrible is going to happen,
and look at everything through that lens.
That makes money because people get scared.
They watch.
It increases ad revenue.
That wasn't really a realistic thing here.
I mean, say it aloud.
The Chinese military is going to invade somewhere
because Nancy Pelosi went on a trip.
When you say it, you kind of grasp how odd the statement is.
Sure, it's going to inflame tensions,
but it's always been a flashpoint.
That's nothing new.
Now, from there, since we're talking about it,
I guess the obvious question is, do I think this was a good move?
I tend to side with the Biden foreign policy team on this one.
No, it wasn't, but not for any of the reasons that
were really getting discussed in the media, for the most part.
I actually did see this mentioned a couple of times,
but this was kind of an afterthought, when, to me,
it's the main reason this shouldn't have happened.
The United States is also in a near-peer contest with Russia,
but Russia is not really a near peer now.
They've shown that.
They've demonstrated that very clearly.
The only reason they're considered a near peer
is because they have nukes.
That's it.
You know what could make them a near peer, though, a real one?
A bunch of support from China.
So doing this and inflaming these tensions right now,
probably not a good move.
Now, if the timeline was different,
if the situation was different and we
didn't have the situation in Ukraine occurring right now,
would it be a good move?
Yeah, probably.
But it's an international poker game
where everybody's cheating.
What card you drop at what time really matters.
This was the bad time to do this.
Do I think it's some kind of critical error?
No, it's just not ideal.
The United States wants to pivot more to the Pacific.
They want to establish a hard line stance.
This is part of that effort.
That's it.
That's all there is to it.
It got blown way out of proportion
because there's been a lot of fear mongering
about the Chinese military because we're
in a near peer contest, because it gets ratings,
because it generates more money, because it's
as it gets ratings, because it generates ad revenue.
That's really it.
So in the future, when you're looking
at international events and there
seems to be a lot of coverage that
is predicting outlandish scenarios, say it aloud.
China's going to invade because Nancy Pelosi went there.
If the statement could only be true if the opposition
nation was some kind of cartoon villain,
it's probably being blown out of proportion by the media.
So I would start there and then just remember,
it's another Cold War.
There's going to be a lot of saber rattling, a lot of tensions,
a lot of times when US troops or NATO troops and opposition
nation troops are literally staring at each other.
But most times, there's not going
to be a lot of fighting.
This was posturing.
It wasn't preparing for war.
Anyway, it's just a thought. Y'all have a good day.
{{Shirt}}
{{EasterEgg}}