Thanks to censorship, a new media direction, and Western self-sabotage, today the stories you hear from China.. are mostly just those the Party wants you to hear.
Good take, though there is a little bit of a contradiction in the end. You bemoan that often editors outside China want “bad China” stories, but at the same time complain about correspondents in the country going for “fluffy” and none controversial stories to avoid harassment and trouble. Out of my own experience I can say it’s a delicate dance, but what would be noticed also is that on the ground the CN government is increasingly successful boxing-in foreign journalists. Despite at times still willingness to go for the more edgy stories it is increasingly difficult to actually get anyone to talk to you, even anonymous.
Oh, you're absolutely 100% right. Skipped lots, simply as this was getting unwieldly long. Pressuring Chinese not to speak, deleting data, pressuring Chinese staff who work at foreign newsrooms.. 'Boxing in' is a great term.
Fair comment too on the contradiction. I definitely have a habit of pointing problems without suggesting solutions.
Interesting article, I think you make a lot of valid points about the relative success of China's new media strategy and its improved effectiveness, but it might still be a bit early to say if this is the start of a new paradigm. I think a lot of warmer feelings towards China might be natural consequence of more negative feelings towards Trump and the USA (in Europe) and towards the west in general as a result of Gaza.
Additionally, the success of China's new media strategy will depend on its ability to avoid diplomatic fall outs and doesn't seem likely to survive a move against Taiwan.
Looking at the reputation of Chinese companies abroad, it feels like they still have along way to go. Even in countries which enjoy good political relations with China (Serbia, many African and South American nations) suspicion of Chinese enterprises runs deep. Some of this may be a result of Sinophobia, but a fair amount of it relates to their localization policies, lack of cultural awareness, and a general acceptance of racist attitudes.
Lastly, on the point about negative content, how do you differentiate between merely reporting factual stories that are negative and "fetishising negative coverage"? It seems like the consequences will be largely the same. A lot of Chinese people will feel under attack regardless of the quality of reporting.
Once again, another great read. I remember having similar conversations — I think my exact words (translated) were: “If you keep this up, China will be able to count the number of its friends on half a hand”.
Another thing that some people may not know: many employees of state owned enterprises (and especially state owned media) are supplied with company-issued phones with a built-in VPN and pre-installed Western apps. Commenting on chosen topics with set narratives are part of their KPI. The people I knew who had them hated this job. They probably just use AI to formulate comments for them now.
Also, corruption can be seen through state owned media’s social media practices. For example, an outlet might win a contract from the propaganda department, and take 50 million. Probably 45 million of that goes to… who knows what. In Guangdong, it was property investment. The other 5 is shared amongst departments, and then a measly budget of 250,000 gets allocated to producing the content for a year. Then, these outlets post content to platforms where it is easy to fake numbers by buying likes or paying for promotion, and those inflated numbers get written into reports that go back to the government so that the contract can be renewed and the whole cycle starts again.
“That’s corruption”, I said when I heard my colleagues talking about it. “No it isn’t,” they said, “because everyone does it.”
I once worked on a television project exactly like this. We were all excited when our department won a contract worth tens of millions to produce travel content (less political, fun to go out and produce with colleagues).
Then, the budget for EACH episode was set: 4,000 yuan per episode. That’s for filming, presenters, editors, etc. We weren’t happy with that and half-arsed it, and only filmed in places we could drive to within an hour.
Of course, there was a secondary budget, which went to “executive producers” and “supervisors”, all people who contributed nothing other than giving the episodes the tick of approval to go out. Or not even that. And the people producing the shows never got a look at that budget, either, of course.
And, if any of those shows were to ever win an award, those names always listed first.
I once produced an episode that did win an award. I was shocked to see that the nomination had left my name out — there was room for only four names, and three leaders needed to be there, and then a “supervisor” decided to put their name there instead of mine. I presented & produced the show, along with a camera operator who also edited it.
I had to kick up a stink to get my name on there (the final solution? Tweak the rules so five names could be on there… what was all the fuss about?), and apologised profusely to the camera operator. He was fine about it — said he’d rather not be named. I shared my bonus with him for winning the award (after the other four people took their “share”), and he appreciated that.
Not only was the budget minuscule, it often took MONTHS to get paid/reimbursed. I never had any trouble getting people to work with me on projects, because I paid them out of my own money on the day, and took on the risk of delays/denials in payment personally. People do appreciate you when you treat them with respect and dignity, and not just say, “I’ll pay you if and when I do.”
And another interesting thing I’ve seen recently: state owned media outlets (including the one I used to work for) have been cooperating with the Western media outlets that they once derided, like the BBC, on producing documentaries.
And during COVID, it was like China couldn’t make up its mind: did it hate the Western press, who only pedal lies, or did it love the Western press when something remotely positive was said about China?
There was one day, in particular, where the narrative nation-wide was “BBC grey filter! Lies! Smears!”, while in Guangdong, one of the top stories of the day was “Guangdong’s Chaozhou shines on the BBC and becomes known by the world”, after a short segment about the city was aired on the channel.
Or, while Beijing was actively blocking visas for journalists, provincial governments were quietly offering outlets bureaus in provincial capitals with assurances that visas would be expedited, etc.
Part of me agrees with your take, that China is winning in a media war, but another part of me feels like it isn’t — at least it hasn’t made any solid ground — the world is just distracted by other, more pressing issues, such as the ongoing invasion of Ukraine, the terrible loss of life in Gaza, and civil wars in Africa. Plus, the U.S. isn’t exactly a beacon of sanity and order at the moment.
China, I think, certainly isn’t winning, it’s just been given a breather. And it’s not making the most of this lull in a focus on China’s shortcomings. A friendlier, more approachable China would probably be welcomed by the world right now. But that hasn’t materialised.
If the Western media and legacy media are struggling to find their audience, I doubt China would be any more adept at doing the same.
China does have the talent and the means to portray itself in a better light, but around 2019-2020 when a generation of leaders at departments & news centres nationwide retired, ideologues were prioritised over whoever was actually in line for a promotion.
The system rooted out anyone with a hint of liberal values, or any form of professional journalistic standards — and those who remain keep their heads down in hopes that things will one day change again. I admire their resilience.
No need to apologise for length if it's full of interesting points!
On 'breather' I think I had a line in about China "being out the hot seat" but cut as that opened up a whole geopolitical can of worms. But PRC has definitely benefited from some charges levelled at it being dwarved by more harrowing actual examples breaking out elsewhere: "Xinjiang genocide" - Gaza. "Taiwan invasion" - Ukraine.
Interesting to hear about the commercial side. I think people assume state media is one homogeneous mass, existing on handouts from Beijing — but as you say, there actually is a lot of competition for contracts, and outlets are always scratching for new funding streams. Forget different companies, worst rivalries I saw were inter-departmental! Never worked for provincial media, sounds an interesting whole other world~
Your chat around bonuses hit a nerve. The unsaid quid pro quo we had was: I'd have the freedom to work how I want, and control over content, just hand videos in for final review, and in return the team can stick their names on it and take some glory if it did well. Muggins here never realised, until I left, that awards came with cash bonuses. 😅
Incidentally, saw an interview this week with head of Zhenjiang media, whose great wheeze is big bonuses for all content that does well: ¥3000 for 100k+ views, and up to ¥150,000 if it wins an award. Split half for the Editor-in-Chief, half shared between the staff who made it. Wonder how long it took him to come up with that formula!
The US congress passed a law authorizing 1.6 billion for anti China propaganda so it would seem that at least a few countries realize they’re in a media war.
I used to believe in the US “free press” but that ideology as a business model is fundamentally broken. As the saying goes, the hand that feeds me is whose song I sing. Which has delivered this behavior between the press and its readers. And the whole “if it bleeds, it leads” editorial mindset needs to be reevaluated.
Good take, though there is a little bit of a contradiction in the end. You bemoan that often editors outside China want “bad China” stories, but at the same time complain about correspondents in the country going for “fluffy” and none controversial stories to avoid harassment and trouble. Out of my own experience I can say it’s a delicate dance, but what would be noticed also is that on the ground the CN government is increasingly successful boxing-in foreign journalists. Despite at times still willingness to go for the more edgy stories it is increasingly difficult to actually get anyone to talk to you, even anonymous.
Oh, you're absolutely 100% right. Skipped lots, simply as this was getting unwieldly long. Pressuring Chinese not to speak, deleting data, pressuring Chinese staff who work at foreign newsrooms.. 'Boxing in' is a great term.
Fair comment too on the contradiction. I definitely have a habit of pointing problems without suggesting solutions.
So. Will do a short follow up, on just that~
Interesting article, I think you make a lot of valid points about the relative success of China's new media strategy and its improved effectiveness, but it might still be a bit early to say if this is the start of a new paradigm. I think a lot of warmer feelings towards China might be natural consequence of more negative feelings towards Trump and the USA (in Europe) and towards the west in general as a result of Gaza.
Additionally, the success of China's new media strategy will depend on its ability to avoid diplomatic fall outs and doesn't seem likely to survive a move against Taiwan.
Looking at the reputation of Chinese companies abroad, it feels like they still have along way to go. Even in countries which enjoy good political relations with China (Serbia, many African and South American nations) suspicion of Chinese enterprises runs deep. Some of this may be a result of Sinophobia, but a fair amount of it relates to their localization policies, lack of cultural awareness, and a general acceptance of racist attitudes.
Lastly, on the point about negative content, how do you differentiate between merely reporting factual stories that are negative and "fetishising negative coverage"? It seems like the consequences will be largely the same. A lot of Chinese people will feel under attack regardless of the quality of reporting.
Minor nitpick, Taiwan isn’t a city. I think you meant Taipei?
You're absolutely right. Typo. Changed. Thanks~
Once again, another great read. I remember having similar conversations — I think my exact words (translated) were: “If you keep this up, China will be able to count the number of its friends on half a hand”.
Another thing that some people may not know: many employees of state owned enterprises (and especially state owned media) are supplied with company-issued phones with a built-in VPN and pre-installed Western apps. Commenting on chosen topics with set narratives are part of their KPI. The people I knew who had them hated this job. They probably just use AI to formulate comments for them now.
Also, corruption can be seen through state owned media’s social media practices. For example, an outlet might win a contract from the propaganda department, and take 50 million. Probably 45 million of that goes to… who knows what. In Guangdong, it was property investment. The other 5 is shared amongst departments, and then a measly budget of 250,000 gets allocated to producing the content for a year. Then, these outlets post content to platforms where it is easy to fake numbers by buying likes or paying for promotion, and those inflated numbers get written into reports that go back to the government so that the contract can be renewed and the whole cycle starts again.
“That’s corruption”, I said when I heard my colleagues talking about it. “No it isn’t,” they said, “because everyone does it.”
I once worked on a television project exactly like this. We were all excited when our department won a contract worth tens of millions to produce travel content (less political, fun to go out and produce with colleagues).
Then, the budget for EACH episode was set: 4,000 yuan per episode. That’s for filming, presenters, editors, etc. We weren’t happy with that and half-arsed it, and only filmed in places we could drive to within an hour.
Of course, there was a secondary budget, which went to “executive producers” and “supervisors”, all people who contributed nothing other than giving the episodes the tick of approval to go out. Or not even that. And the people producing the shows never got a look at that budget, either, of course.
And, if any of those shows were to ever win an award, those names always listed first.
I once produced an episode that did win an award. I was shocked to see that the nomination had left my name out — there was room for only four names, and three leaders needed to be there, and then a “supervisor” decided to put their name there instead of mine. I presented & produced the show, along with a camera operator who also edited it.
I had to kick up a stink to get my name on there (the final solution? Tweak the rules so five names could be on there… what was all the fuss about?), and apologised profusely to the camera operator. He was fine about it — said he’d rather not be named. I shared my bonus with him for winning the award (after the other four people took their “share”), and he appreciated that.
Not only was the budget minuscule, it often took MONTHS to get paid/reimbursed. I never had any trouble getting people to work with me on projects, because I paid them out of my own money on the day, and took on the risk of delays/denials in payment personally. People do appreciate you when you treat them with respect and dignity, and not just say, “I’ll pay you if and when I do.”
And another interesting thing I’ve seen recently: state owned media outlets (including the one I used to work for) have been cooperating with the Western media outlets that they once derided, like the BBC, on producing documentaries.
And during COVID, it was like China couldn’t make up its mind: did it hate the Western press, who only pedal lies, or did it love the Western press when something remotely positive was said about China?
There was one day, in particular, where the narrative nation-wide was “BBC grey filter! Lies! Smears!”, while in Guangdong, one of the top stories of the day was “Guangdong’s Chaozhou shines on the BBC and becomes known by the world”, after a short segment about the city was aired on the channel.
Or, while Beijing was actively blocking visas for journalists, provincial governments were quietly offering outlets bureaus in provincial capitals with assurances that visas would be expedited, etc.
Part of me agrees with your take, that China is winning in a media war, but another part of me feels like it isn’t — at least it hasn’t made any solid ground — the world is just distracted by other, more pressing issues, such as the ongoing invasion of Ukraine, the terrible loss of life in Gaza, and civil wars in Africa. Plus, the U.S. isn’t exactly a beacon of sanity and order at the moment.
China, I think, certainly isn’t winning, it’s just been given a breather. And it’s not making the most of this lull in a focus on China’s shortcomings. A friendlier, more approachable China would probably be welcomed by the world right now. But that hasn’t materialised.
If the Western media and legacy media are struggling to find their audience, I doubt China would be any more adept at doing the same.
China does have the talent and the means to portray itself in a better light, but around 2019-2020 when a generation of leaders at departments & news centres nationwide retired, ideologues were prioritised over whoever was actually in line for a promotion.
The system rooted out anyone with a hint of liberal values, or any form of professional journalistic standards — and those who remain keep their heads down in hopes that things will one day change again. I admire their resilience.
No need to apologise for length if it's full of interesting points!
On 'breather' I think I had a line in about China "being out the hot seat" but cut as that opened up a whole geopolitical can of worms. But PRC has definitely benefited from some charges levelled at it being dwarved by more harrowing actual examples breaking out elsewhere: "Xinjiang genocide" - Gaza. "Taiwan invasion" - Ukraine.
Interesting to hear about the commercial side. I think people assume state media is one homogeneous mass, existing on handouts from Beijing — but as you say, there actually is a lot of competition for contracts, and outlets are always scratching for new funding streams. Forget different companies, worst rivalries I saw were inter-departmental! Never worked for provincial media, sounds an interesting whole other world~
Your chat around bonuses hit a nerve. The unsaid quid pro quo we had was: I'd have the freedom to work how I want, and control over content, just hand videos in for final review, and in return the team can stick their names on it and take some glory if it did well. Muggins here never realised, until I left, that awards came with cash bonuses. 😅
Incidentally, saw an interview this week with head of Zhenjiang media, whose great wheeze is big bonuses for all content that does well: ¥3000 for 100k+ views, and up to ¥150,000 if it wins an award. Split half for the Editor-in-Chief, half shared between the staff who made it. Wonder how long it took him to come up with that formula!
You don’t think the genocide in Gaza (possible only due to US complicity) mattered?
V good piece, rings true for much of my Beijing to Britain experience
The US congress passed a law authorizing 1.6 billion for anti China propaganda so it would seem that at least a few countries realize they’re in a media war.
I used to believe in the US “free press” but that ideology as a business model is fundamentally broken. As the saying goes, the hand that feeds me is whose song I sing. Which has delivered this behavior between the press and its readers. And the whole “if it bleeds, it leads” editorial mindset needs to be reevaluated.
China hasn’t won yet. Trump has to lose harder.