Private News as Public Propoganda

On almost all occasions, the Chinese response to controversial international situations is relayed through private media outlets, since these outlets rely heavily on second-hand State-Media released articles. Relying on White House press releases or C-Span reports does not destroy the credibility of a hard news story, but can often strengthen it with foriegn policy statements or information. In China, the propaganda model extends beyond the use of state-affiliated experts: entire articles on controversial isues are drafter by the state, and these articles are used not just to express the interest of corporations or governments, but openly make demands, send out warnings, generate public support, and strengthen national resolve - which effectively suppresses opposition to state policy.


Over past months, a drama has unfolded in the international scene. China historically has been fiercly opposed to a Taiwanese declaration of indepdence from China. When the U.S. sold military technology to Taiwan for Taiwanese national defence, mainly to defend itself from Chinese attack, China lashed out with threats and demands - not only its government, but its media.

An article displayed on Sina News yesterday was titled “New York Times: America sells new F-16s to Taiwan, Sino-American relations trapped in new difficult period”.

Firstly, the new article was released by Chinese propaganda website Taiwan Net, which creates the illusion of being from Taiwan. Secondly, the Chinese government heavily monitors Sina News to enforce traditional “self-censoring”, as Sina.com is the most widely viewed online and influential infotainment portal in China. Thirdly, the actual New York Times headline reads “U.S. Approval of Taiwan Arms Sales Angers China”, not mentioning anything about a “trap” or proactive U.S. state involvement.

Former Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian inspects a Bush F-16 sale to Taiwan.

The content of the article, presented as a hard news story, is more shocking, revealing the extent to which the government’s words are fed into the media.
The subhead, reads: America will soon pay the price for selling fighters to Taiwan. I would consider this quite to be a substantial warning, and not one from a Taiwan Net staff writer.

The lede uses the narrative, “In the face of abnormally extreme condemnation of China”, followed by the news agency’s paraphrase of a Chinese military spokesperson’s press release “requesting America to speak solemnly and proceed cautiously… to avoid damaging the development of peace”.

Now that the tone has been set, the next sentence unleashes the Chinese government’s official press release in the guise of an article’s narrative: “China has long made it clear that it/we will halt Sino-American military exchanges and embargo US enterprises selling to Taiwan”.

The next line says that “Chinese officials and the media offered intense resistance…with the threat of selling US bonds as revenge being proposed”. The media, a collection of TV, radio, and internet content providers, should not be a body that itself resists foreign policy actions, let alone be proudly acknowledging its own resistance, if the media was not merely an arm of government public relations and press-release offices. The next line declares that, citing a Carter-era Act, “China has sovereignty over Taiwan” and that “China can use military force to prevent official separation”. The next line justifies the Chinese government’s opposition to arms sales, followed by a proverb describing the American role in the situation: “the maker of the problem must be involved in the solution”, implying that the US must stop the arms sale.

The following paragraphs ramble on about an opinion discussing how the sale is a “tempest” in bilateral relations, and how a professor at an obscure Hong Kong University said that American leaders need to heed rising nationalistic confidence of the Chinese people – a clear subtle propagandistic attempt at motivating Chinese readers to align this issue with national pride and strengthen the support of the government’s resistance against America.
This article does not follow the upside-down pyramid format of information presentation, like that of the New York Times article. It merely builds a case justifying Chinese opposition to the US sale, spending only the lede discussing the actual sale. The news article spends most paragraphs broadcasting Chinese government threats and responses to U.S. action, as if the piece was an argumentative essay written by the Premier himself - clearly, the propoganda model at work in a private media outlet.

Sina Article