Lesson Report:
**Title: Triangulating Sources to Build an Intelligence Memo on the Gaza Conflict**
In this session, students completed their poster-based source analysis on the endgame of the Gaza conflict for three key actors (US, Hamas, Israel) and then began transforming that work into the structure of an intelligence-style memo. The class focused on distinguishing “what each actor wants� from “how confident we are that this is actually what they want,� using source triangulation and confidence ratings. The lesson closed with assigning a brief memo-outline exercise and introducing upcoming readings and ongoing “critical news reading� expectations.
—
### Attendance
– **Number of students explicitly marked absent:** **7**
– Names mentioned as absent: Albina, Ermin, Ninon, Idina, Veknizar, Inazik, Adam
—
### Topics Covered (Chronological, with Activity Labels)
#### 1. Poster Completion: Finalizing Source Lists and Confidence Assessments
– **Context / carry-over from previous class**
– Students had nearly finished posters on Tuesday that mapped each actor’s preferred “end of the Gaza conflictâ€� across several questions (e.g., who rules, who pays, who has guns, role of international organizations).
– Each group had worked from **multiple sources** (nominally three per actor) and had started annotating:
– Which facts appeared in how many sources.
– Their **confidence level** in each fact (high/medium/low), based on evidentiary quality.
– **Task**
– Instructor returned the posters and asked each group to:
– Estimate **how many more minutes** they needed to finish (“2, 5, 10 minutes?â€�).
– Complete:
– Listing all sources clearly.
– Finalizing their confidence assessments for each fact.
– A short **5–7 minute work block** was agreed on.
– Students regrouped with their original teams; markers distributed; groups sat together to finalize content.
– **Pedagogical emphasis**
– These posters were framed as the **first major step** toward producing an **intelligence estimate**:
– Goal: establish a **“ground truthâ€�** from multiple, sometimes conflicting, sources before drawing conclusions.
– Students were reminded this is the foundation for the final product they’ll be able to create by semester’s end.
—
#### 2. Group Poster Presentations: Mapping Each Actor’s Endgame
– **Framing**
– Instructor: each group would present its poster and explain:
1. For each of the three actors (US, Hamas, Israel), **what their endgame for Gaza looks like**, broken down into the key questions (e.g., *who rules, who pays, who has guns,* and role of international organizations / new entities).
2. For each stated fact:
– **How many sources** (out of their set) supported it (e.g., 1/3, 2/3, 3/3).
– **Confidence level** (high/medium/low), justified by:
– Proximity to the original actor (government/official statements vs. secondary commentary).
– Whether the fact was **directly quoted**, merely paraphrased, or appeared in more opaque/“shadierâ€� treatments.
– **Clarification of “confidenceâ€� metric**
– Instructor repeatedly emphasized:
– **Confidence rating is about the *quality of evidence and sourcing*, not:**
– Whether students personally agree with the claim.
– How likely they think it is that the plan will actually be implemented.
– Students should focus on:
– How close the information is to a **primary source** (official documents, direct quotes, formal statements).
– Whether it is **independently corroborated** by multiple credible outlets.
—
#### 3. Group 1 Poster: Initial Analysis of US, Hamas, and Israel
*(Note: Much of the detailed verbal content was not captured cleanly by the transcript, but the instructional moves and expectations are clear.)*
– **Presentation structure**
– Group 1 presented their poster, organized around:
– **US endgame:** Who governs Gaza, who funds reconstruction/governance, who retains weapons.
– **Hamas endgame:** Desired political status of Palestine, who funds, who holds security roles.
– **Israel endgame:** Governance arrangements, funding and reconstruction mechanisms, and security control.
– **Examples/highlights inferred from instructor questions**
– For the **US**, the group identified:
– A governance formula that blended **Israel plus international peacekeepers**, and/or entities like:
– A “Board of Peaceâ€� (*BOP*—a term from one of their sources).
– The **UN**.
– Instructor simplified this for now to something like “Israel + international peacekeepers/UN/BOPâ€� to avoid overcomplicating the category.
– They reported, for each fact:
– **Number of confirming sources** (e.g., “two of our three sources mention thisâ€�).
– **Confidence justification**, for example:
– Lower confidence where only one source mentioned it or where the source was speculative or unclear about its evidence chain.
– Higher confidence where they had direct quotations from relevant officials or clearly documented proposals.
– **Classroom discussion on confidence vs. agreement**
– One student reported **low confidence** partly because they **disagreed** with the sources’ claims.
– Instructor intervened to clarify:
– The evaluation is about **how well we can verify that this is indeed what the actor wants**, not whether the students find it realistic, fair, or desirable.
– Example guidance:
– “You don’t have to think the Board of Peace is plausible; the question is: do we have strong evidence that the US (or relevant actors) have actually proposed this?â€�
– **Omissions and gaps**
– At one point, instructor asked whether Group 1 found anything about **“who has gunsâ€�** post-conflict; group reported **nothing explicit** in their sources about which parties would remain armed.
– Instructor noted such **gaps themselves are analytically relevant**:
– If key issues like disarmament or security control are absent, that weakens overall confidence and should be flagged.
– **Time management**
– Because the discussion was running long and there was still another poster to cover, the instructor curtailed some requests for full justification (“I’m not going to ask you to justify that because we still have a lot to do…â€�).
—
#### 4. Group 2 Poster: Using Primary Documents and Recent Proposals
Group 2 used a more “bucketed� approach (often one main source per actor/bucket), which limited cross-source comparison but improved **clarity of provenance**.
– **US Endgame (as per Group 2’s main source set)**
– **Who rules?**
– Described as **Israel and the US “in an imperial senseâ€�**, reflecting a US-backed governance model where:
– Israel retains substantial influence or control.
– Additional governance actors (e.g., a new entity or international involvement) might be present but under strong US/Israeli shaping.
– **Sources:**
– Primarily **one source** for the US bucket.
– Included **Al Jazeera**, religious references (e.g., citations from the Qur’an as contextual material), and notably:
– Recent statements from **Jared Kushner**, describing a redevelopment/peace plan.
– **Confidence:**
– **High**, despite only one source, because:
– Kushner is a **key insider** and the statements were **direct quotes**, very close to the institutional actor.
– **Who pays?**
– A plan to fund the project via a **Board of Peace (BOP)**:
– Their source suggested BOP would channel or receive funding for Gaza’s reconstruction.
– It remained **unclear who funds the BOP itself**, but Kushner’s January 27 statement was cited.
– **Confidence:**
– Instructor reframed the question: *How confident are we that this is what the US wants?*
– Given the source is a **named principal** speaking recently and directly, the class coded this as **high confidence** regarding US intentions, even if feasibility is uncertain.
– **Who has guns?**
– The plan described:
– A **new Palestinian police force**.
– **US and Israeli roles** in security, including references to **disarmament** (especially of Hamas or militant elements).
– **Confidence:**
– Generally **high** from that one source due to direct description of security arrangements.
– Instructor noted this high confidence is somewhat tempered by the lack of **independent corroboration**.
– **Hamas Endgame (from Hamas constitutional/charter documents)**
– **Key source:**
– A collection of Hamas declarations/constitutional texts, especially:
– The **2017 declaration** and updates through **2023**.
– Instructor confirmed that even though 2017 is “already nine years ago,â€� if Hamas continues to reference it in recent interviews, it remains **highly relevant**.
– **Who rules / strategic objective:**
– Hamas seeks an **independent Palestinian state**.
– This was directly stated in the constitutional documents.
– **Confidence:**
– **High**, due to reliance on Hamas’s own primary documents.
– **Who pays?**
– From **Article 33** of the same document:
– Hamas **urges Arab and Islamic peoples and states** to:
– “Fear Allahâ€� and
– **Support Palestine financially**, “extend more and more funds.â€�
– **Confidence:**
– **High**, again because this is a **direct quotation** from Hamas’s official text.
– **Who has guns / security role:**
– Same source states that:
– The **Palestinian Authority’s role** should be to **serve the Palestinian people** and **ensure their security, rights, and national project**.
– Group (and instructor) interpreted this as:
– Hamas envisioning **Palestinian institutions** (Palestinian Authority or similar) having **security responsibilities**.
– **Confidence:**
– **High**, as the statement comes straight from Hamas’s own constitutional language.
– **Israel Endgame (as per an Israeli-source-based plan)**
– **Who rules?**
– Derived from a source describing:
– A proposal emphasizing **engineers in Gaza** and **reconstruction from scratch**.
– Creation of a **new entity** responsible for governance/management, not simply the formal annexation of Gaza into Israel.
– Some references to **martial law**.
– Instructor summarized:
– Likely an arrangement where **Israel plus a newly created administrative entity** govern Gaza, with Israel dictating the framework.
– **Confidence:**
– Based on a single, but apparently detailed, Israeli-linked source:
– Moderate to **high** confidence in the **existence of the proposal**.
– Limited triangulation across multiple outlets.
– **Who pays?**
– The poster indicated:
– A **directorate** (described as a grouping of **allies of Israel**) would organize and/or finance reconstruction.
– So, **Israel plus a new management/coordination organization** comprising allied states or funders.
– **Confidence:**
– Again, relatively strong **source proximity** but limited number of sources; coded as at least **medium to high**.
– **Who has guns?**
– Group’s synthesis:
– **Israel and its allies** retain primary control over armed force.
– **Confidence:**
– **High**, because all parts of their single main source were internally consistent and explicit, but with recognition that broader corroboration is sparse.
—
#### 5. Comparative Analysis Task: Contradictions, Nuances, and Confidence Gaps
– **Small-group follow-up**
– After both posters were summarized on the board, the instructor instructed groups to:
1. **Identify contradictions and added nuance**:
– Look for any clear contradictions between Group 1 and Group 2’s analysis (e.g., mutually exclusive claims about who will govern or who will pay).
– Note places where one group’s analysis **adds nuance** rather than contradicts the other (e.g., introducing a new entity like BOP, or differentiating between formal sovereignty vs. de facto control).
2. **Interrogate low/medium confidence cells**:
– For any fact labeled **low** or **medium** confidence, think through:
– What exactly would be needed to **raise confidence by at least one level?**
– More **primary sources** (e.g., official documents, recorded speeches).
– **Cross-source corroboration** from independent outlets.
– More recent statements confirming older doctrinal texts (e.g., Hamas 2017 doc being reaffirmed).
– No requirement to actually find the sources during class, but students had to **specify what they would look for**.
– **Instructional objective**
– Teach students to:
– Treat **disagreement between sources** as raw analytic material, not as a problem to be ignored.
– Develop a **concrete research plan** for improving confidence, rather than vaguely saying “we need more info.â€�
—
#### 6. From Poster to Intelligence Memo: Introducing the Four-Part Outline
– **Transition**
– Instructor then pointed to the board and reframed the work they had done as:
– “Essentially the **body of a memo**â€� that they will later be expected to produce in full.
– **Goal:** Make students practice going from raw factual mapping → structured written analysis.
– **Memo components explained**
– Students were introduced to a **four-part memo structure**:
1. **Executive / Challenge Summary**
– A short, top-level summary (the “challenge summaryâ€�) of the situation and main conclusion.
– **Format:**
– **1–3 full sentences**, maximum.
– Guidance:
– Instructor strongly recommended writing this **last**, even though it appears first:
– It should capture the **ultimate synthesis** of the memo.
2. **Actors’ Strategic Objectives**
– For each actor (US, Hamas, Israel):
– Boil down, in very simple terms:
– **What do they actually want?**
– How do they envision the end of the Gaza conflict?
– Students should derive this directly from their poster work:
– Use the “who rules / who pays / who has gunsâ€� breakdown to **infer overarching objectives**.
3. **Convergence and Divergence**
– Identify:
– Where the **actors’ objectives align** (points of convergence).
– Where they **most significantly disagree** (points of divergence).
– Example thinking (not fully spelled out but implied):
– Are all actors demanding some form of Palestinian governance, but differ on **degrees of sovereignty**?
– Do all agree on some reconstruction, but disagree on **funding sources** or **security control**?
4. **Notes on Source Triangulation and Confidence**
– A dedicated section assessing:
– How well the analysis is supported by **multiple, independent sources**.
– Where **confidence is high**, and why (primary docs, direct quotes, repeated confirmation).
– Where **confidence is low or medium**, and why (secondhand reports, lack of attribution, old documents not reaffirmed, etc.).
– Students should:
– Explain any **methodological warnings** or **caveats** that a decision-maker should know:
– E.g., “This conclusion relies on a single proposal outlined by Kushner in January 2026; no corroboration from internal US policy documents has been found.â€�
– **Formatting guidance**
– **Only the executive summary** must be written in **full sentences**.
– **All other sections may be bullet-pointed / telegraphic**, not full prose.
– Instructor framed this as an **outline only**, not a full formal memo.
—
#### 7. Assignment: Short Memo Outline Based on Today’s Work
– **Due date**
– **Next Thursday**.
– **Assignment scope**
– Students are **not** to write the full situation report/memo yet.
– Instead, they must submit:
– A **complete outline** using the four-part structure above:
1. Executive/challenge summary (1–3 sentences).
2. Actors’ strategic objectives.
3. Convergence and divergence.
4. Notes on source triangulation and confidence.
– **Expectations for each section**
– **Executive summary**:
– Concise, integrating their main analytic takeaway about the three actors’ visions for Gaza.
– **Strategic objectives & convergence/divergence**:
– Bullet points acceptable.
– Synthesize poster content, not just copy raw facts.
– **Notes on confidence**:
– They **do not** need to list all sources exhaustively.
– They should:
– Indicate overall patterns (e.g., “US intentions are high-confidence due to direct statements from X, but financing details are lower-confidence.â€�).
– Explicitly flag any **unverified but widely repeated** claims.
– Identify which facts are **“100% verifiableâ€�** (in practice, very close to that) and explain why.
– **Link to future work**
– Instructor previewed that **next week** they will assign a **full situation report**:
– Students will transform a similar outline into a **1.5-page situation report** in full prose.
– Today’s outline is effectively the **scaffold** for that later product.
—
#### 8. Readings for Next Week: Stephen Walt and “The Blob�
– **Reading assignment**
– Instructor announced that for next week they will read **one chapter by Stephen Walt** on:
– The concept of **“the blobâ€�**—the foreign policy establishment in the US.
– Key themes of the reading:
– “The blobâ€� consists of a network of insiders who circulate between:
– **Government, media, academia, think-tanks**, etc.
– This network tends to:
– Create an **echo chamber**.
– Allow certain narratives to dominate.
– Minimize serious challenge to core assumptions.
– **Purpose for the course**
– Next week’s focus: **institutional narratives**.
– Understanding “the blobâ€� helps explain:
– Why certain interpretations of conflicts like Gaza become **mainstream**.
– How **elite consensus** shapes the information environment from which intelligence analysts draw.
– **Timing**
– The reading will be formally **assigned for Thursday**, but:
– Students can complete it by **Tuesday** if they want to be ahead.
– Instructor noted that there **are readings for this class** (acknowledging that some students might not have realized this yet).
—
#### 9. Ongoing Critical Reading Requirement: Weekly News Monitoring
– **Critical reading assignment (syllabus-based)**
– Instructor reminded students of a recurring task:
– Spend **one hour per week** doing **intentional news reading**.
– Requirements:
– Not just **scrolling passively**.
– Instead, **fixate on a few topics**:
– Ideally aligned with class themes:
– Gaza
– Iran
– Electricity shortages in Kyrgyzstan
– Or other international issues of similar relevance.
– Track **recent developments** and evolving dynamics.
– **Longer-term goal**
– Over the semester, students will be asked to:
– **Narrow down** to one particular **international issue** of high personal interest.
– Become the “class expertâ€� on that topic in informal terms:
– Use it in discussions.
– Draw on it in written assignments.
– **Assessment**
– This critical reading:
– **Will not be directly tested** (no formal quizzes).
– **Will affect participation grades**, based on:
– How substantively students can contribute to class discussions with:
– Up-to-date information.
– Source-aware commentary.
—
#### 10. Social Media as an Intelligence Source: Practical Guidance
– **Rationale**
– Instructor encouraged students to **go beyond institutional news sources** and to:
– Incorporate **social media** as a complementary information stream:
– Particularly from **people on the ground** in conflict zones or politically salient areas.
– **Recommended platforms**
– **Telegram**
– **Twitter (X)**
– **Instagram**
– **Practical advice**
– Instructor “highly recommendedâ€� that students:
– Consider creating **new accounts** specifically for this course’s information-gathering, to avoid:
– **Corrupting personal algorithms** with large amounts of political/conflict content.
– Use these dedicated accounts to:
– Follow journalists, analysts, local activists, and official channels relevant to their chosen issue.
– **Analytic implication**
– This anticipates future course content on:
– Evaluating **non-traditional sources**.
– Understanding how **information ecosystems** shape intelligence work.
—
#### 11. Administrative Wrap-Up and Attendance
– **Attendance taken at end of class**:
– Absent: Albina, Ermin, Ninon, Idina, Veknizar, Inazik, Adam.
– **Final reminders**
– Only the **executive summary** in the memo outline must be in full sentences.
– All other sections can be in **bullet-point form**.
– Outline is due **next Thursday**; **1–3 sentences** for the executive summary maximum.
—
### Actionable Items
#### High Priority (Before Next Thursday)
– **Gaza Endgame Memo Outline**
– Ensure students clearly understand:
– 4 required sections: Executive Summary; Actors’ Strategic Objectives; Convergence & Divergence; Notes on Triangulation & Confidence.
– **Executive summary = 1–3 full sentences.**
– The rest can be **bulleted**.
– Post or distribute:
– A **simple template or example outline** on the course platform to standardize format and expectations.
– In next class, **briefly re-clarify**:
– The difference between **confidence in sources** vs. **belief about future likelihood** (this caused some confusion today).
#### Medium Priority (Before Tuesday / Next Session)
– **Reading Details**
– Upload/announce:
– Exact citation and **chapter/pages** for the **Stephen Walt “blobâ€� reading**.
– Any **guiding questions** (e.g., “How does Walt’s concept of the blob relate to the sources you used on Gaza?â€�).
– **Revisit Comparative Poster Insights (Optional but helpful)**
– Start next class with a **5–10 minute recap** of:
– The main **points of convergence/divergence** between Group 1 and Group 2’s posters.
– One or two examples of **low-confidence claims** and how, concretely, one might raise the confidence.
#### Ongoing / Semester-Long
– **Critical News Reading**
– Periodically remind students:
– To log at least **one hour of focused news reading per week**.
– To begin **narrowing in** on one international issue they might want to follow in depth.
– Plan a future check-in (e.g., in a few weeks) where students:
– Briefly share which issue they are tracking and key recent developments.
– **Social Media Accounts & Source Literacy**
– Encourage students (again) to:
– Set up **separate Telegram/Twitter/Instagram accounts** for coursework if they have not already.
– Plan a later class segment to:
– Explicitly model **evaluating and verifying social media sources**, distinguishing between:
– Eyewitness content.
– Propaganda.
– Bot/troll amplification.
– **Scaffolding Toward the Full Situation Report**
– When assigning the **1.5-page situation report** next week:
– Explicitly link it back to:
– Today’s outline structure.
– The Gaza endgame analysis.
– Provide a **brief rubric** emphasizing:
– Clarity of strategic objectives.
– Accuracy of convergence/divergence analysis.
– Transparency about source confidence.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Gaza Intelligence Estimate – Outline Only
You will turn today’s poster work on U.S., Hamas, and Israel’s “endgames� in Gaza into a structured outline for an intelligence-style memo. You will not write a full report; instead, you will create a concise outline that captures your analysis of each actor’s objectives, where those objectives align or conflict, and how confident you are in your underlying sources.
Instructions:
1. **Base your work on today’s posters and board discussion**
1. Use the charts/posters you created in class about:
– Who rules?
– Who pays?
– Who has guns?
for each of the three actors: **U.S., Hamas, and Israel**.
2. Use the confidence levels you already discussed (high / medium / low) and the source counts (how many of your sources supported each fact).
3. You do *not* need to do additional research for this assignment unless you personally want to strengthen your confidence judgments.
2. **Overall format**
1. Produce an **outline**, not a full prose paper.
2. Only the **Executive Summary** must be written in full sentences (1–3 sentences).
3. All other sections should be in **bullet points or short phrases**.
4. Organize your outline into the following labeled sections:
1. Executive Summary
2. Actors’ Strategic Objectives
3. Convergence and Divergence
4. Notes on Source Triangulation and Confidence
3. **Section 1 – Executive Summary (1–3 full sentences)**
1. Write this section **last**, even though it appears first. The instructor explicitly recommended this approach.
2. In 1–3 complete sentences, summarize your **overall conclusion** about:
– What each actor broadly wants as an end state in Gaza, and
– The most important areas where their goals align or conflict.
3. Make it something a busy policymaker could read quickly and still understand your main analytic takeaway.
4. **Section 2 – Actors’ Strategic Objectives (bullet points)**
1. Create a subheading for each actor:
– **United States**
– **Hamas**
– **Israel**
2. For each actor, step back from individual facts (“who rules / who pays / who has guns�) and articulate in simple, high-level terms:
– What is this actor’s **endgame** in Gaza?
– What type of governance arrangement do they seem to want?
– Who do they want to be responsible for financing reconstruction or administration?
– What security arrangement (e.g., which forces, disarmament, new security forces) do they appear to favor?
3. Write these as **concise bullet points**, for example:
– “Wants X to control day-to-day governance, with Y oversight.â€�
– “Prefers funding structure that relies on Z.â€�
– “Seeks disarmament of group A and exclusive control of weapons by group B.â€�
4. Be explicit where your understanding derives from: for example, **direct quotes from official statements**, constitutions (e.g., Hamas 2017 document), or proposals (e.g., plans involving a new directorate or Board of Peace). You can note the type of source in parentheses.
5. **Section 3 – Convergence and Divergence (bullet points)**
1. Under a heading like **“Areas of Convergence (Alignment)�**, list where at least two of the actors appear to **agree** or have compatible goals. For example (these are just structural prompts; use your actual findings):
– Overlapping preferences about a particular governance structure or international involvement.
– Shared emphasis on disarmament, even if for different reasons.
2. Under a heading like **“Areas of Divergence (Conflict)�**, list the **key points where they differ**, especially where:
– One actor’s preferred ruler/funding/security setup is incompatible with another’s.
– An actor’s stated goals would block or undermine another actor’s endgame.
3. Focus on the **most important** convergences/divergences, not every minor detail. Think in terms of:
– “This is where negotiations might have room to moveâ€� (convergence), and
– “This is where negotiations are likely to stall or break downâ€� (divergence).
6. **Section 4 – Notes on Source Triangulation and Confidence (bullet points)**
1. Remember the instructor’s clarification: confidence ratings are about **how solid your evidence is**, *not* about how likely you personally think the outcome is.
2. Start with a brief overall note (e.g., “Most of our claims about X actor are high-confidence because we used official documents and direct quotes; claims about Y are medium because…�, etc.).
3. Then, in bullets, address:
– **Where your confidence is high and why**
– Example reasons: direct statements from officials, original documents (e.g., constitutions or declarations), recent and clearly attributed quotes.
– **Where your confidence is medium or low and why**
– Example reasons:
– Only one news agency reported it.
– No direct quotes, just paraphrases by journalists.
– Sources are older and may or may not reflect current positions (e.g., needing to justify using a 2017 document in 2023/24).
– **Any facts that are “100% verifiableâ€� or extremely solid**
– Briefly explain what makes them so (e.g., multiple independent outlets, official documentation, consistent repetition across time).
– **What additional information would raise your confidence**
– This is directly from the in-class prompt where you were asked: “If you wanted to increase your confidence level, what would you specifically have to look for?â€�
– For each low/medium-confidence area, note what sort of evidence would move it up at least one level (e.g., “A recent speech or official press release from X directly stating Y,â€� “Corroboration from a second independent outlet,â€� etc.).
4. You do **not** need to list every source individually. Instead, describe patterns such as:
– “For claims about who pays in the U.S. plan, we relied mainly on [type of source], so we rate these as medium confidence.â€�
– “For Hamas’s objectives, we drew heavily on their 2017 and 2023 documents, which are primary sources, so we rate these as high confidence.â€�
7. **Length and submission expectations**
1. Keep the outline **concise**; this is preparation for a future full situation report, not that report itself.
2. Aim for:
– Executive Summary: 1–3 full sentences.
– Each other section: enough bullet points to capture your analysis clearly but not more than ~1 page of bullets total, if typed.
3. This outline is **due by next Thursday** (the deadline your instructor set in class).
ASSIGNMENT #2: Reading on “The Blob� and Institutional Narratives
You will read one assigned chapter by Stephen Walt on the concept of “the blob,� which you will use next week when the class shifts to institutional narratives and how policy and analysis can become echo chambers.
Instructions:
1. **Obtain the assigned Walt reading**
1. Locate the specific chapter by **Stephen Walt** assigned by your instructor (the one where he introduces and explains “the blob�).
2. Use whatever access method your instructor normally provides (course readings, library access, or posted PDF).
2. **Read with a focus on key concepts**
1. As you read, pay special attention to:
– How Walt defines **“the blobâ€�** as a community that spans government, media, academia, etc.
– How this “blobâ€� creates an **echo chamber**, reinforcing certain ideas and minimizing challenges to them.
– How institutional positions and careers can shape what counts as “reasonableâ€� foreign-policy thinking.
2. Keep in mind that your class will soon apply this to:
– Institutional narratives in foreign policy, and
– How analysts must be aware of these narratives when producing intelligence estimates like the one you just outlined on Gaza.
3. **Take brief notes while reading**
1. In your own words, jot down:
– A short definition of “the blob.â€�
– Two or three concrete examples Walt gives of how the blob operates.
– Any mechanisms he describes that keep dissenting views on the margins.
2. Add 2–3 sentences or bullets on how you think “blob� dynamics might influence:
– Media coverage of conflicts (e.g., Gaza, Iran), and/or
– The kinds of sources and narratives you used in your own poster/memo work.
4. **Connect to upcoming class discussion**
1. Be prepared to:
– Explain what “the blobâ€� is in plain language.
– Offer at least one example from current events where you suspect “blobâ€� dynamics might be shaping what you see in mainstream coverage.
2. The instructor stated that the reading **does not need to be completed until Thursday**, but you may complete it by Tuesday if you want to be ahead. Plan your reading time accordingly.
ASSIGNMENT #3: Weekly Critical News Reading (Ongoing)
Each week, you are expected to spend one hour doing **focused, critical news reading** on international issues, building a base of current knowledge that you can bring into class discussions. This is not a one-time homework but a recurring assignment that contributes to your participation grade.
Instructions:
1. **Set your weekly commitment**
1. Reserve **one hour per week** specifically for this task.
2. Treat it as active study time, not casual scrolling.
2. **Choose your topics strategically**
1. Select a small number of international issues that genuinely interest you, ideally overlapping with class themes. The instructor mentioned examples such as:
– The Gaza conflict
– Iran
– Electricity shortages in Kyrgyzstan
– Or any other international issue you care about
2. Over time, narrow your focus toward **one main international issue** that you will follow in depth throughout the semester.
3. **Use a mix of institutional and social media sources**
1. Include **institutional news sources** (major news outlets, reputable international media).
2. Also incorporate **social media sources**, especially:
– Telegram
– Twitter/X
– Instagram
3. The instructor strongly recommended creating **new, separate accounts** for this purpose so you do not wreck the algorithm on your personal accounts.
– Create new accounts if you do not already have them.
– Use these accounts primarily to follow news outlets, journalists, analysts, and people on the ground in relevant regions.
4. **Read critically, not passively**
1. As you read, ask yourself:
– What exactly is being claimed?
– Who is the source (government official, journalist on the ground, anonymous source, activist, etc.)?
– How might “blobâ€�-like institutional narratives or echo chambers (from the Walt reading) be shaping what is emphasized or omitted?
2. Notice patterns:
– Are different outlets telling the same story?
– Where do they diverge?
– How confident would you be in some of these claims if you had to use them in an intelligence estimate?
5. **Keep a simple personal record (recommended)**
1. Maintain a short log (not for formal submission unless instructed later) with:
– Date
– Issue(s) you read about
– 2–3 bullet points of key developments
– Any questions or contradictions you noticed
2. This will make it easier later when you have to focus more deeply on a single international issue and when you need to recall specific developments for class discussion.
6. **Prepare to use this reading in class**
1. Your understanding from this weekly reading will not be tested in a formal exam, but it **will influence your participation grade**, as the instructor explained.
2. Each week, be ready to:
– Briefly describe one recent development on your chosen issue.
– Connect it, when possible, to course concepts (e.g., intelligence estimates, confidence in sources, institutional narratives, the “blobâ€�).
By following these steps, you will gradually build both substantive knowledge of an international issue and practice in evaluating sources—the same skills you are using in your Gaza memo outline and will use in future full situation reports.