Journalism at the Global Times

Apropos of the launch of the English-language Global Times on April 20, newsweekly journalist Zhang Wen blogged about Global Times-style journalism (in ESWN’s translation):

The Global Times chief editor Hu Tinjin said in his speech that Global Times has increased information exchange between China and the rest of the world, so that each side can see the complexity and diversity of the other side and hence decrease mutual misunderstanding.

When I read the speeches of these two gentlemen, I had to laugh inside. This is not because I harbor any dark thoughts, but because of the result of my long-term attention paid to Global Times as a Chinese media worker.

What kind of “real world” did Global Times present to the Chinese readers over the past 16 years? In my view, it is a false world in which China is still being besieged by hostile western powers like old times.

In this old world, China is being harassed by the western capitalist countries who are still bent on destroying China. The old western enemies led by the United States are still hostile to China. Japan, India and the South East Asian countries are all demonizing China.

Zhang goes on to discuss how the Global Times omits background information that would paint a more nuanced picture of global issues, and how its positioning may have a ready audience within the country but will most likely be less than convincing for international readers.

Nationalist personality and Unhappy China co-author Wang Xiaodong recently posted a conversation he had with a Global Times reporter about the Oasis concert cancellation affair. From his blog:

Global Times female reporter: Mr. Wang, have you heard about what happened with Oasis?

Me: No, I haven’t!

Reporter: Here’s what happened. The band Oasis had a concert in Beijing canceled, and according to the organizer, the reason for the cancellation was that the company had encountered some financial problems, and that it had nothing to do with Oasis itself. But the western media all hyped up the idea that it was because Oasis had once taken part in a huge “Tibetan Independence” benefit world tour.

Me: So was there really a “Tibetan Independence” benefit?

Reporter: We confirmed that there was. We’ve interviewed a lot of experts and scholars who all said that we’re a great country, and caring so much about a little thing like this shows a lack of aplomb. But the attitude I found online was different: netizens largely supported cancelling the Oasis concert. Some of them said that even though they liked Oasis’s songs, since the band had supported “Tibetan Independence,” they were willing to sacrifice their own pleasure and felt that we ought to firmly boycott the band. I’m a little mistrusting of those experts and scholars, so I thought I’d ask you for your opinion.

Me: Those experts and scholars are all just bookworms. We’ve held back in years past. The furthest we’ve gone is to voice an objection, but when we’ve asked for an apology, they haven’t given one. Today, it is time for us to tell the world that we have our own bottom line, our own set of rules, our own dignity. We need to tell this to the world: if anyone crosses that line, or violates our rules or our dignity, then forget about making money in China. You can’t have it both ways. You support the terrorists who are our enemies while you’re outside China’s borders, and you want to make money by claiming the moral high ground. So make your money, but don’t expect to make it in China. We do not yet have the power to punish you all over the globe, but we can at least make it so that you don’t make money in China. We don’t have much money, so don’t think of coming here to take it. As far as we’re concerned, with one more or one less of you over here, we’ll be just as happy, and enjoy ourselves just as much. There’s an old Chinese saying: even without a rotten egg like you, we’ll be able to make our cake all the same.

Reporter: So your opinion is that they must first apologize, and then they can come to China?

Me: No! I’m extremely disgusted by the “culture of apology” that China has these days, where it’s “sorry, sorry” all over the place. If someone does something bad, does an apology make everything all better? Unless the apology is especially sincere, I suggest that China refuse to accept all apologies! Besides, those foreign clowns are willing to do anything for money. Their apologies aren’t worth a single cent, so we don’t need to accept them. I hope that you can include my opposition to the “culture of apology” in your article.

Reporter: OK! I’ll do my best.

Here’s an excerpt of the article on the Oasis cancellation that appeared in the Global Times on March 5:

Ma Zhengang, head of the China Institute of International Studies, said in an interview with the Global Times that as a large country, China ought to calmly oppose those individuals and events that support “Tibetan independence.” These issues are best handled in a low key way to avoid turning private matters into governmental actions. He believes that the government handled the Oasis issue very appropriately. He suggests that it is best to explore the background of foreign groups before inviting them to China to avoid western sensationalism after the issues are exposed.

Beijing scholar Wang Xiaodong told the Global Times, “Yeah, they shouldn’t be allowed to come! Should they get off that lightly? On the one side they act all righteous and take the moral high ground — actually supporting the terrorists in the Tibetan Youth Congress — and on the other side they come to China to cheat us. Our principles should be, we’re not going to let you cheat us out of a single cent! Even if you apologize, we still have to consider whether or not to accept your apology.” He said that the entire world ought to know that the Chinese people have limits and dignity that they cannot infringe upon.

Looking through online comments to news articles on March 4 showed the true feelings of the majority of Chinese netizens. Someone wrote, “I really like this band, but they can’t support that! Entertainment ought to come after the big questions of right and wrong.” Another netizen wrote, “They say that music has no borders, but people have national borders!” Another netizen wrote, “If the band supports slavery then it shouldn’t come here,” and another netizen wrote that the affair “harmed Sino-British friendship.”

Su Jingxiang, head of the Center for Globalization Studies at the Chinese Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, said that it is unsurprising that westerners, including some in the performing arts, have done things to harm Chinese interests based on a superficial or misleading understanding of the Tibet issue. However, through this incident, he believes that Oasis has come to understand the Chinese government’s unwavering attitude to “Tibetan independence,” and will gradually see more clearly how seriously their actions twelve years ago in support for “Tibetan Independence” have hurt the feelings of the Chinese people.