That's totally fair! I don't disagree that people who reach a deal shouldn't change the deal after that point (though the UK government seems to think it's fine).
But, suppose the following events happen:
- we reach a deal on some cool project
- reporters announce that we have a deal on the cool project
- I decide to back out of our agreement and not go forward with the cool project
- reporters announce that I backed out of our agreement
- You condemn me for my treachery, and tell everyone that I'm a backstabbing two-faced used-car dealer
- reporters announce that you have condemned me
The reporters aren't wrong at any step in this! We did have a deal, and it's correct to report on it and correct to say we had a deal. Even if the deal ultimately fell through to my used-car treachery.
I'm not saying people shouldn't hold to the deals that they make (though you seem to think that's my argument, so I must've made my point poorly somewhere along the way). 100% of my point is "reached a deal" doesn't mean it's final, and it's OK and even correct to say that a group of people have reached a deal—even if you don't think that deal is feasible.
Another example: Let's say that I form a deal with 10 investors that I will guarantee them a risk-free 50% annual return on their investment. You would be absolutely correct to say that I was probably lying! You would be correct to say it's clear that malfeasance exists! But you would be wrong to say that we didn't reach that deal. We did reach that deal, even if you think there is a 0% chance that the deal will actually be accomplished in the real world.
But, suppose the following events happen:
- we reach a deal on some cool project
- reporters announce that we have a deal on the cool project
- I decide to back out of our agreement and not go forward with the cool project
- reporters announce that I backed out of our agreement
- You condemn me for my treachery, and tell everyone that I'm a backstabbing two-faced used-car dealer
- reporters announce that you have condemned me
The reporters aren't wrong at any step in this! We did have a deal, and it's correct to report on it and correct to say we had a deal. Even if the deal ultimately fell through to my used-car treachery.
I'm not saying people shouldn't hold to the deals that they make (though you seem to think that's my argument, so I must've made my point poorly somewhere along the way). 100% of my point is "reached a deal" doesn't mean it's final, and it's OK and even correct to say that a group of people have reached a deal—even if you don't think that deal is feasible.
Another example: Let's say that I form a deal with 10 investors that I will guarantee them a risk-free 50% annual return on their investment. You would be absolutely correct to say that I was probably lying! You would be correct to say it's clear that malfeasance exists! But you would be wrong to say that we didn't reach that deal. We did reach that deal, even if you think there is a 0% chance that the deal will actually be accomplished in the real world.