But when the "deal of the century" was done, when that flaccid paper was signed by those two little hands, the media had the opposite reaction to me - it erupted into a sort of optimism frenzy. It’s unlike anything I can remember in recent times. Radio presenters had light and excitement in their voices. Newspapers and online media proclaimed a "truly historic" event. There was a genuine sense of hope in the air (not in the real air, because not many people in real life particularly care. But in the media air.)

The media has kind of balanced out a little bit since that first rush of infatuation for the New Couple. But still, it has got me thinking – did the media’s rose-coloured glasses encourage us, the public, to gloss over what is really going on here? And – are we missing the point?

Loading

What I would like to know, for instance, is why the hell this meeting even happened?

One of the major things I have taken issue with, in terms of the reporting of the meeting, is that a lot of it has been based on the assumption or premise that the US intention to hold this talk was to encourage peace, and to protect people from harm. To that I say, you have got to be kidding.