RE: the Economist cover

What worries me is the lack of awareness media outlets seem to have over how they contribute to the construction of the "new cold war." By framing Taiwan as "the most dangerous place in the world," it becomes more of a reality than it was before.

War is not inevitable. But when we talk about it like it is, we breath it into reality. Like others have pointed out, these headlines do Beijing's propaganda work for them, while also justifying US hawks wanting an even bigger military budget for East Asia. They are harmful.

Even though the PRC is the one threatening Taiwan, I worry that further US militarization beyond what is needed to deter these threats will only lead to a race to the bottom. The cover's portrayal of Taiwan as the battlefield between two equal sized armies scares me.

There is *so much* research that shows how media influences policy and public opinion that it feels extra frustrating that after multiple US elections, Trump, Covid and so much more, we still have to make the critique to editors that their framing of stories and headlines matter.

Shout out to everyone who publicly called out the Economist for their unnecessary cover. The silver lining is it feels like more people online are aware of Taiwan's marginalization and can spot bad Taiwan coverage when they see it.