Freedom and speech: China's global media influence
How successful is China at promoting itself abroad? How successful are foreign nations at resisting Chinese manipulation of the press? A new report claims to have the answers...
Freedom House, a US non-profit that conducts research on democracy, political freedom, and human rights, recently released a study entitled “Beijing's Global Media Influence 2022: Authoritarian Expansion and the Power of Democratic Resilience”. This report details China’s influence on media in 30 countries, what the local response to that influence is, local power to resist China’s influence, and recommendations for different parties to protect their freedom of expression. This report really caught my eye, as I was already aware of some of China’s methods for promoting pro-China narratives (training local reporters in foreign countries, opening up native language version of China-owned media channels like CGTN, etc.), but I’ve never seen a project that tried to measure the scale or success of that influence.
The Chinese government, under the leadership of President Xi Jinping, is accelerating a massive campaign to influence media outlets and news consumers around the world.
The countries were selected based on a number of criteria, the most important being that they ranked ‘high’ or ‘very high’ in their Freedom index, had a large population size, and were strategically ‘relevant’ on a global scale. They also tried to get some variety in terms of country relationships with China (good and bad), region, and languages spoken. They worked with local researchers and regional experts to conduct interviews with members of the media, government, and civil society, as well as carry out other research, the details of which can be found in the methodology section of the report.
The main conclusions of the report are unsurprising:
China’s efforts to influence global media are increasing
China’s efforts to influence global media are becoming more sophisticated
Active government responses help insulate media from CCP influence
Lack of government response leaves media vulnerable to CCP influence
Different countries’ ability to respond to Chinese influence varied
A coordinated response would be the best solution
But today I want to draw out a few examples to look at the actual mechanisms China uses to promote its narrative abroad. After all, one of the main aims of this newsletter is to discuss how ‘China sees itself’, which often incorporates Chinese English language media aimed at foreigners!
For this newsletter, I’ve decided to focus on just the UK, as that’s where I’m from and I’m already somewhat familiar with some of what’s been going on here in terms of Chinese media. In fact, I once worked for a Chinese company in London, whose very purpose was trying to improve China-UK relations at a grassroots level. It was over a decade ago, and the project wasn’t very successful, but it was a symbol of what was to come. Since then, the CCP soft power machine has become far more sophisticated.
There are lots of other interesting reports to read, including the one for the US (because big), the Australian one, and the Nigerian one. You can read the full report for yourself here. And also find out if your country made the top 30 and what your ranking is. And remember - it’s definitely a competition.
UK
The UK received a disappointing score of ‘very high’ in influence, but a simultaneously encouraging score of ‘very high’ in resistance/resilience. The report highlights that aside from the whole Hong Kong thing, UK-China relations are actually pretty good. China was the UK’s sixth-largest export market and fourth-largest source of imports as of July 2020, and “Chinese state-owned funds or companies continue to have substantial investments in major UK infrastructure projects, including nuclear power plants, utilities, and airports, though some are under review.” How does the neutral-positive political relationship affect media relations?
Generally speaking, Chinese state media has a large presence in the UK, from print (e.g. English-language China Daily) to TV (e.g. CGTN, whose European headquarters are in the UK), to social media (TikTok is as popular here as it is everywhere else), including individual influencers like father-son pro-China vloggers Lee and Oli Barrett. There are also high-level pro-China voices, such as Stephen Perry, chairman of the 48 Group Club, an association of British business leaders and politicians who support closer ties with the Chinese government. British papers such as The Telegraph and Daily Mail used to run ads paid for by Chinese media outlets, and The Economist infamously had its “China Focus” supplement, made by the state-run Beijing Review, before discontinuing it around August 2020. Add to this TV shows, radio broadcasts, and op-eds written by ambassadors, and China is making a lot of noise in the UK.
I think more telling than the attempts to insert themselves into British media were the attempts by the Chinese state to silence negative voices. The report claims there was “significant effort by the Chinese government to censor news coverage about China and intimidate British media,” including blocking outlets like the BBC and The Guardian in China, trying to prevent the publication of articles critical of the CCP by threatening outlets and authors (particularly those of Chinese descent), and conducting cyberattacks that led to vandalism of official webpages and even the arrest of one individual.
Politicians, journalists and activists have all been subject to targeted harassment. In some cases, the harassment became physical, like the instance when the CCP Youth League called on its 1.6 million followers to track a BBC Shanghai correspondent in Zhengzhou following huge floods in the city last year.
In one instance in November 2021, participants in a pro-Beijing rally in London’s Chinatown attacked counterprotesters from Hong Kong; messages that were subsequently spread on WeChat offered £10,000 ($13,000) for the personal information of Hong Kong activists.
Luckily, China has very little media infrastructure in the UK, and has no impact on the training or direct persuasion of British journalists and media outlets. The UK’s Chinese population is also very diverse, and the diaspora tends to have a lot of its own media, a lot of it independent or critical of the PRC. However, anti- and pro-China groups are increasingly butting heads, as demonstrated by the clash in Chinatown in November 2021.
Attempts of the CCP to influence British media are further rebuffed by the strong tradition of press freedom, independent and tenacious journalists, and laws surrounding transparency of media ownership and political affiliation (everyone in this country has at least one multimedia-corporation-owning-billionaire that they despise). British journalists take an active interest in doing independent research into Chinese affairs, and editorials about China’s policies in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and internationally are frequently reported and opined on. Academics, NGOs, and activist groups are relied on for their expertise and commentary, and the government has an active interest in monitoring China’s influence in the UK.
In April 2020, a group of lawmakers from the ruling Conservative Party founded the China Research Group (CRG) to research and discuss “how Britain should respond to the rise of China.” The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) was founded in the UK two months later, describing itself as a group of parliamentarians from around the world who are “working towards reform on how democratic countries approach China.”
Overall, the UK comes out looking pretty good in the report, but there are some weaknesses to note. In a post-Brexit world, the UK may become more vulnerable to China’s influence, as it relies more on China for trade and funding. Proposed funding cuts to the BBC leave it open to seek funding from other, more dubious sources. And the concentration of the major media outlets in the hands of a few, very large, very money-focused companies means shady dealings may be on the horizon as inflation and possible recession kick in.
There are reasons to be positive about how the British handle China’s influence on the media here. However, there are also many reasons to remain vigilant.
China’s response
The actions described above are nothing unusual. In fact, one could say that they are completely in line with China’s overall goals for international prestige and ‘national rejuvenation’. When Xi Jinping said in 2014, “We should increase China’s soft power, give a good Chinese narrative, and better communicate China’s message to the world,” scholars at the time estimated that China spent at least $10 billion a year in improving their global image. These efforts include educational and cultural exchanges such as the founding of Confucius Institutes in different countries, aid programmes, and, of course, foreign media relations.
China has released something of a response to the report in a press conference held by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Mao Ning on September 22. In response to a request to comment on the report, Mao had this to say:
The organization you mentioned has a long track record of making false allegations on China-related issues. This report is not fact-based and is driven by ulterior motives. Telling the story of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and presenting a true, multi-dimensional and panoramic view of China to the world is part and parcel of the job of Chinese media and foreign service. What we share with the world are facts, real numbers, concrete examples and plain truth. They are completely different from the so-called “influence efforts” or “disinformation” in the report.
I would also like to point out that the criteria for evaluating a media outlet should not be based on a country’s political system or ideology, but whether the reporting itself is objective, truthful, fair and just. Chinese media abide by press ethics and uphold the principles of objectivity, integrity, truthfulness and faithfulness. The report you mentioned pins labels on the normal reporting activities of the Chinese media on the grounds of their so-called affiliation, while turning a blind eye to the false reporting of some Western media. This is typical double standard.
We will continue to tell the world the story of China, the story of the CPC and the story of China’s pursuit of peaceful development, and work to build deeper mutual understanding between China and the rest of the world.
This is a very formal response, but shows the level of contempt the CCP has not only for the report and Freedom House, but also Western media in general. Although the report covers media outlets outside of the Western world, Mao did not attempt to address its activities in these regions in any detail, focusing instead on the ‘West as bully and hypocrite’ aspect, which is to be expected.
Reporting from the future
What do these concerted efforts on the part of the CCP to influence its perception in different parts of the world mean for those who are interested in China’s role in international politics? On the one hand, the Chinese government is not doing anything that most governments with a decent PR budget do. What they want, at the end of the day, is to promote a favourable opinion of China across the world. A positive opinion of China in a particular nation means local support for social and economic ventures with that nation’s government. It also means China may be able to assert some political influence, perhaps, for example, on issues where its opinions on a matter differ from major Western democratic powers.
On the other hand, the tactics of suppression, harassment, and even detainment are beyond what is considered acceptable. Debates about freedom of speech are growing more and more important, and conversations about China’s role in the global media sphere will no doubt become a hot topic in this area.
In the Western world, trust in the media is at its nadir, and is only getting worse. Understanding that the media may also be influenced by other governments (as we saw with the recent Facebook-Russia scandal), will only make this worse. Advocates of free speech, from all parts of the political spectrum, should pay close attention to this issue.
China’s efforts to spread its message across the globe are only just getting started.
This has been going on for quite some time-"Welcome Danger" with Harold Lloyd in 1930, worse for "Shanghai Express" in 1932 with a long boycott of the studio, Paramount. And contempt and ridicule of Anna May Wong as the prostitute _and_ heroine.
Even though, as a person and public figure, denounced the Japanese invasion of Manchuria only about 2 weeks prior by writing a forceful editorial in an LA magazine.
The contempt for her was based on something like a belief that China had some possessory interest over a 2nd or 3rd generation American citizen. So it seems to me.
Of course, actresses are presumptively prostitutes, and if they play prostitutes, they must be. Maybe that explains things like the suicide of Ruan Lingyu ["China's Garbo"] on International Womens' Day in 1935 leaving a note saying "Gossip is a terrifying thing.". Quite simply, but using a modern term, she was DOXed to death. In her last two movies she played a virtuous prostitute ["The Goddess"] and a woman who agrees to prostitution, but does not actually do so ["New Women"].
The thread is the kind of pressure that the Chinese government was willing to use then, when it was weakened as it was.
Many of the American movies in the 1930s were deplorable for their depiction of China and the Chinese.
The madness was often in conflating the artist and the role.
But what was most despicable was the disingenuous, depraved and cowardly resort to using the actresses as punching bags to deflect from the Kuomintang's fundamental failures.
In 1932, as the Japanese were bombarding the Chinese portions of Shanghai and bringing in large contingents of troops [the 1/28 Incident or 1st Battle of Shanghai] the express policy and order of the Generalissimo was that old "Confucian" concept of just accepting the blow and absorbing the barbarians. So, the 19th Route Army "mutinied", rushing to Shanghai and defending the city against a brutal attack by the Japanese that they could then see happening in front of them.
In the French Concession "Shanghai Express" was never seen. A "spontaneous" riot broke out in the theater. The government used that incident to deflect attention from the enemy in their face to a far enemy-Hollywood, that could be attacked with mere words. Which was a good thing, since Nanking floundered in attacking the fundamental crisis it faced.
Now the Chinese government has the tools to enforce its policies more effectively. How much more wisdom remains to be seen.