5

US designates six more Chinese media outlets as foreign missions

US tightens rules on more Chinese media organisations, saying they are propaganda outlets for the Chinese state.

Has the US given any examples of this propaganda?

I would really like to know whether they have said specifically what they are objecting to, as they did with their allegations against the Internet Research Agency.

6
  • 8
    It was made clear that those media companies were "substantially owned, or effectively controlled by a foreign government". The word "propaganda" can simply mean "governement communication", so in a sense anything they write is propaganda. Propaganda is rarely untrue, since people are better fooled by leaving out inconvenient facts, rather than making up false ones. Commented Oct 25, 2020 at 1:16
  • @makelemonade but in order to operate as propaganda, in the US, wouldn't they have to be known to the US public? Has anyone in the West ever heard of Yicai Global, Jiefang Daily, the Xinmin Evening News, Social Sciences in China Press, the Beijing Review, and the Economic Daily??? Commented Oct 27, 2020 at 20:36
  • 1
    No, but they are all well-known in China. I presume the US govt takes issue with them because they conduct soft intelligence gathering, not because they are publishing widely in the US. Of course, their output is still propaganda. FYI it's usually "China Social Science Press"... don't know why they mangled the words in the press release ;) Commented Oct 27, 2020 at 22:18
  • @Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Well apart from Yicai Gobal - which now partners with Bloomberg, Dow Jones, Nikkei and other global media services to syndicate Chinese news globally - so they would have genuine reach in the US. Commented Oct 27, 2020 at 22:33
  • @Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Yicai is owned by Shanghai Media Group which is a huge state owned media company (and was the Chinese local partner for Kung Fu Panda 3). Commented Oct 27, 2020 at 22:38

2 Answers 2

1

Being those media outlets owned by the chinese state its quite like in russia where the info spread is very biased.

and there's also many reports on china bribing foreign jornalists to spread there propaganda outside china as you can see for example in hte links:

https://theprint.in/opinion/china-is-paying-foreign-journalists-including-from-india-to-report-from-beijing/154013/

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/dec/07/china-plan-for-global-media-dominance-propaganda-xi-jinping

https://time.com/5557951/china-interference-global-media/

2
  • Point 1 is presumably true, but OP is asking for more detail on that. As they said in a comment: "they seem to be claiming that anything state-owned is propaganda, but I want to know if they specified anything objectionable". As for point 2, that seems to be a completely separate issue that's not relevant to the question.
    – divibisan
    Commented May 5, 2021 at 18:44
  • if they are paying, bribing, foreign people to do that how can we expect they to not be doing on the media they own? . its widely know that weibo/qqzone Chinese microblogging's are highly censored/moderated by the state and only have good views about the pcc because anything against is silenced. the thing is, even if that ranges a bit off if we try to be highly specific here, this broader scenario corroborate their usual behavior in how they deal with media/information.
    – bigubr
    Commented May 5, 2021 at 19:02
0

I think you misunderstood the goal of the designation; from the article you linked to:

The designation requires the outlets to inform the State Department of their personnel rosters and property holdings. [...]

“We are not placing any restrictions on what these outlets can publish in the United States [...]”

So they were treated the same way as a consulate thereafter.

And indeed, armed with rosters, the US then proceed to limit the number of Chinese who worked in such roles in the US. And China retaliated by expelling some US journalists.

I think the references to propaganda are mostly a distraction in the context of this dispute.

OTOH if you want some Western take on the Chinese press that goes beyond mere labels, here's the Economist:

Under the party’s rule, China’s press has never enjoyed more than a small modicum of freedom. Mr Xi has relentlessly tightened controls. Reporters and editors deemed politically wayward have been disciplined, fired or jailed.

The new directive, issued by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), updates a list, first published in 2016, of news sources that other websites may republish. CAC said the revision was aimed at “resolutely closing the ‘back door’ on illegal newsgathering and redistribution”.

The list names 1,358 approved outlets. That is nearly four times as many as were named in the previous one. It is not a sign of relaxation. The larger number merely reflects the proliferation of news websites run by state-owned media. More important to note are sources that are no longer listed. The most conspicuous is Caixin Online, a popular and trusted website. [...]

On October 8th China’s planning agency, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), released a draft regulation reiterating a ban on private investment in most news operations. Such restrictions have been in place since at least 2005, but have not been rigorously enforced. State media suggest that this time, change is afoot. According to one widely quoted Chinese expert, previously non-compliant arrangements will be ”cleaned up”. It will be a big job. Like Caixin, many Chinese media, though fully operated and controlled by the state, have complex ownership structures that include big holdings by private investors.

Pro-government commentators have praised the party’s resolve. Sima Nan, a blogger in Beijing with more than 2.4m followers on Sina Weibo, a Twitter-like platform, opined that a loosening of media controls in the Soviet Union had hastened its collapse in 1991. “This is an ideological struggle,” he said, comparing the NDRC‘s ban to “removing firewood from under a cauldron”—a common way in Chinese of describing drastic action taken to deal with an emergency.

So, year, according the West, China has a large diversity of officially approved clones of the party line. And some in China seem to actually agree that that is a good thing.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .