3 ms·

I have a Naive question, "why aren't the discussions related to public matters be telecasted live like a football match to the whole world? why isn't the public

I have a Naive question, "why aren't the discussions related to public matters be telecasted live like a football match to the whole world? why isn't the public privy to the discussions about its own future?"

Avicebron 6mo ago
I mean...we have body cams for police..
- nickvec 6mo ago
  That's beside the point.
giantg2 6mo ago
Because most world leaders are actors. They put on a show to get elected or retain power. They don't want to look weak and want to spin the final outcome to their favor. That can include one side allowing the other to take credit for an idea that wasn't their's.
throw0101c 6mo ago
> "why aren't the discussions related to public matters be telecasted live like a football match to the whole world? why isn't the public privy to the discussions about its own future?" It gives the parties more room to manoeuvre with regards to the give and take that is often/usually necessary when it comes to negotiating. If you demand X at one point, but revert so you can get Y, then the absolutists will be outraged (either actually or performatively) that you are being "soft" and "weak", etc. There are a lot of people who think in zero-sum, winner-take-all ways, which is generally not how the world of foreign relations works. And modern-day outrage machine will create more difficult situations if you give here and take there (ignoring the fact that the other side gives there and takes here in return) even though it may be necessary to get a result (even it it's not perfect).
- ghywertelling 6mo ago
  There is flip side to it. If one party has pre-determined not to negotiate, but is just following the script to show offical reachout and due process, then people don't know the real reason why the talks failed?
  - throw0101c 6mo ago
    > […] then people don't know the real reason why the talks failed? A party can always disclose what's going on in negotiations. This is generally not done as it is often is a violation of trust, but if there's no good faith there in the first place it's hardly a loss. Negotiations can always be broken off with the reason being "the other side is not negotiating in good faith" without particular negotiated-to-day conditions being released.
    - ghywertelling 6mo ago
      But my original proposition keeps everyone honest and pragmatic which was the reason for the proposal. I truly believe in transparency as a way to keep everyone honest and not treat other people as childish that they can't understand complex matters.
majani 6mo ago
There are ego maniacs and people from shame cultures who would be animalistically obstinate in the face of globally televised embarrassment
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
brazukadev 6mo ago
Compared to the last World War, things are broadcasted quite immediately. The delay is just barely enough to create a narrative that fits the audience.

Avicebron 6mo ago

I mean...we have body cams for police..

nickvec 6mo ago
That's beside the point.

giantg2 6mo ago

Because most world leaders are actors. They put on a show to get elected or retain power. They don't want to look weak and want to spin the final outcome to their favor. That can include one side allowing the other to take credit for an idea that wasn't their's.

throw0101c 6mo ago

> "why aren't the discussions related to public matters be telecasted live like a football match to the whole world? why isn't the public privy to the discussions about its own future?" It gives the parties more room to manoeuvre with regards to the give and take that is often/usually necessary when it comes to negotiating. If you demand X at one point, but revert so you can get Y, then the absolutists will be outraged (either actually or performatively) that you are being "soft" and "weak", etc. There are a lot of people who think in zero-sum, winner-take-all ways, which is generally not how the world of foreign relations works. And modern-day outrage machine will create more difficult situations if you give here and take there (ignoring the fact that the other side gives there and takes here in return) even though it may be necessary to get a result (even it it's not perfect).

ghywertelling 6mo ago
There is flip side to it. If one party has pre-determined not to negotiate, but is just following the script to show offical reachout and due process, then people don't know the real reason why the talks failed?
- throw0101c 6mo ago
  > […] then people don't know the real reason why the talks failed? A party can always disclose what's going on in negotiations. This is generally not done as it is often is a violation of trust, but if there's no good faith there in the first place it's hardly a loss. Negotiations can always be broken off with the reason being "the other side is not negotiating in good faith" without particular negotiated-to-day conditions being released.
  - ghywertelling 6mo ago
    But my original proposition keeps everyone honest and pragmatic which was the reason for the proposal. I truly believe in transparency as a way to keep everyone honest and not treat other people as childish that they can't understand complex matters.

majani 6mo ago

There are ego maniacs and people from shame cultures who would be animalistically obstinate in the face of globally televised embarrassment

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

brazukadev 6mo ago

Compared to the last World War, things are broadcasted quite immediately. The delay is just barely enough to create a narrative that fits the audience.