Hi, there!

One of these days, I'd love to do an episode-by-episode breakdown of Madam Secretary and/or The Diplomat - what's realistic and what isn't. (Let me know if you'd be interested in that and which I should do first by replying to one of my emails or tagging me on Bluesky, and I might make some time this year!)

The reality is that pretty much all popular books and shows about diplomacy are full of inaccuracies. Have you ever watched a show that touched on your niche area of expertise and thought, "Why is it so unrealistic?" But as a writer, I see those inaccuracies as serving an important purpose: keeping the story interesting and allowing the storytellers to focus on what's most important.

As just one example, The Diplomat's main character, Kate Wyler, is all set to be the next U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan when suddenly she's reassigned to be the next U.S. ambassador to the UK instead. There are so many reasons this makes no sense; here are just a few:

• How can she just be reassigned with no additional paperwork or the infamous Senate confirmation hearing, which some ambassadors have told me was the single hardest thing they had to get through in their entire decades-long careers? (Senate confirmation is required in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, so this isn't exactly just a nice-to-have requirement.)
• The U.S. ambassador to the UK (and most Western European countries) is always a political appointee, not a career diplomat. For a post like the UK, the nominee is typically a well-connected political donor. This practice has many defenders and critics, and sometimes host countries even request or prefer a political appointee due to perceived influence and connection to the President. There is no shortage of op-eds on this topic if you're interested in reading the debate. (You can also see a list of current U.S. ambassadors and whether they are or are not career diplomats on the American Foreign Service Association website.)

But, being honest? Who wants to watch a show with a drawn-out Senate confirmation hearing? With repeated Senate staff questionnaires sent to State Department headquarters that have to be reviewed by the nominee and 10 other offices that might have an interest in the response? It would be so boring! I can see why the show writers chose to skip that part, even if it's less accurate.

One might ask: why not just have Ambassador Wyler go straight to the UK from the beginning, then, and start the show after confirmation? Without spoiling too much of the show, I saw several (what I consider good) reasons: because the change from Afghanistan to the UK not only served the action-driven plot of the show, but also gave the writers a golden opportunity to develop the main character. Kate Wyler is someone who has spent her career serving in hardship posts and war zones, someone who never pictured herself schmoozing at cocktail parties in London. The whiplash from Afghanistan to the UK, her aversion to the shift, and how out of water she clearly is when she arrives in London are foundations for more tension... and therefore much more interesting storytelling.

(Plus, her reaction is realistic even if the circumstances leading to it aren't: some diplomats really don't want to serve in Western Europe and would rather just visit those places on vacation from their hardship posts!)

Sometimes creative works are inaccurate because the creators didn't do their research or didn't put enough thought into editorial decisions, and I agree that's so frustrating. But sometimes it's because 100% accuracy doesn't best serve the story or the audience. I'm grateful for fiction writers who know the difference.

Thanks for reading,

Nicole

Disclaimer: The views expressed in my newsletter or on my website are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of State or the United States.