How a fake network pushes pro-China propaganda

> Yes, this is legitimately shocking. For anyone who has any experience/ knowledge of China, the image of the country that is relentlessly pushed in many mainstream outlets is totally unrecognizable.

First off, there is no "relentlessly pushed image" in western media about China. That framing alone is a nationalist myth meant to put Chinese people in a siege mentality, against the west and in support of their government. Most reporting is sober analysis around horrifically depressing issues such as XJ. The idea that the government of 1.4b is irredeemably evil is not a good one, and people would largely deny such framing as the consequences are too dire to contemplate. The "bias" you claim towards painting the Chinese government as cartoonishly malevolent doesn't exist, if anything the opposite instinct to downplay the scale and inhumanity of it all is more powerful.

> The reason they can get away with it is that most people in the West know next to nothing about China.

Ironically, the west is allowed to know more about China than Chinese people are. Information about the first days of Covid19 was aggressively suppressed and doctors seeking to speak out harassed, even disappeared. Real discussion about XJ, Tibet, HK in domestic media? Forget it. Are we even sure how many Chinese ages 18-30 know about Tiananmen Square?

The Chinese government harnesses prevalent ethnonationalistic sentiment to deflect blame for their mistakes and crimes. "The west wants to contain you, they want to paint you as immoral." As long as Chinese citizens buy into this framing, their government will be more emboldened and less accountable.

This is what I fear, an authoritarian government with near complete control over their people, driven by grievance and insecurity. That won't make for a peaceful 21st century.

> It's just something that's obvious to me as a regular consumer of major US and European news media, who also happens to know something about China.

As someone with the same exposure, my opinion is the exact opposite. Sure sensationalist reporting exists, but the vast majority (as said) is somber and resigned.

> Western reporting on China is actually quite limited.

Surely you aren't implying that Chinese domestic media is somehow less censored or less purposeful in their narratives than western media? They literally can't talk about anything negative, or if they do it's muted and loaded with xenophobia and nationalists tropes.

> If you want to know what's going on in the country, you pretty much have to learn the language, and relatively few people in the West know Chinese.

I don't know why this talking point comes up over and over. I don't need to speak uyghur to hear their testimonials. I didn't need to be alive during WW2 to know what happened. The idea that if you aren't "there" you cannot know helps propagandists who have only a single goal, obstruction of truth.

> If you ask Chinese people about the events, you'll get a wide range of views.

Can this conversation take place in public? On social media (surely no). Can such conversation be done without threat (implied or actual)? If no, then we aren't talking about real knowledge. Knowledge that is implied but not spoken of isn't a reality, it's a myth.

> "China has 56 ethnic groups" is a constant refrain

I know, and they are actively trying to destroy several of those groups via political reeducation camps. The idea that China can claims to be a bastion of cultural diversity while actively trying to eliminate undesirable, non-Han cultures/languages/traditions is beyond orwellian.

> most of the media is aggressively pushing an extremely narrow, distorted and negative narrative.

Again, maybe on the outrage-centered social media feeds and via Chinese media itself (which promotes such ideas). If you actually read the mainstream coverage, it's methodical, thoughtful, and as said, deeply saddened by the apparent crimes against humanity they cover. No one is joyfully discussing XJ, and if they are they aren't worthy of your attention.

Right, not at all similar - China is not only invading, it is claiming it for itself, purposefully erasing Tibetan culture and religion, and claiming the resources for itself, all against the will of the Tibetean people.

The fact that there was some prior recognition is quite irrelevant. Should the EU nations claim their pre 1911 boundaries against the will of the people living there, by force?

Should the Lenape Native Americans whose predecessors sold Manhattan to the Dutch be able to reclaim it by force? How about the Dutch?

Your argument is sophistry, and nothing but inane justification for an authoritarian and expansionist regime.

Moreover while that regime repeatedly proclaims that no one should interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, it feels completely free to interfere and claim other nations, including, Tibet, Taiwan, and Hong Kong (yes it was leased and returned, but they are already violating the terms of the return).

This is not a regime to defend.

> I don't need to speak uyghur to hear their testimonials. I didn't need to be alive during WW2 to know what happened.

I find these comparisons extremely disrespectful to the memory of the Holocaust. The Third Reich systematically murdered millions of people.

> If you actually read the mainstream coverage, it's methodical, thoughtful

I read / listen to the mainstream news, both American and European, in a few different languages. I don't see how their coverage of China could possibly be considered "thoughtful" or "methodical." The major issues in China are barely covered. Western media tends to zero in on a few topics, to focus intensely on the negative aspects of those stories, to rely heavily on tenuous sourcing, and to ignore most of the background and context.

Just as a recent example from the New York Times: "They Relied on Chinese Vaccines. Now They’re Battling Outbreaks."[1]

The article is full of anecdotes like this:

> One month after receiving his second dose of Sinopharm, Otgonjargal Baatar fell ill and tested positive for Covid-19. Mr. Otgonjargal, a 31-year-old miner, spent nine days in a hospital in Ulaanbaatar, the capital of Mongolia. He said he was now questioning the usefulness of the shot.

You have to scroll most of the way through the article to find the first mention of the fact that scientific studies by public health authorities in these countries have shown that the Chinese vaccines in question have high real-world effectiveness, and are performing as expected:

> Data from Mongolia showed that the Sinopharm vaccine was actually more protective than the doses developed by AstraZeneca and Sputnik, a Russian vaccine, according to the Health Ministry.

After reading this line, I wonder, "Why did they even write this article?" If they wanted to write an article about vaccine effectiveness, they should have led with the scientific studies. Instead, they led with a litany of anecdotes meant to imply the vaccines didn't work, they wrote a title implying the vaccines don't work, and they buried what should be the main point (the vaccines work as expected) deep in the article.

This borders on anti-vax propaganda, but it's about Chinese vaccines, so it gets a pass. Try to imagine the NY Times setting out to undermine the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines in this way. I can't. It would be a scandal.

I could give examples like this from every day of the week. The news media don't really try to inform when it comes to China. As a consequence, most people in the US and Europe have a seriously distorted picture of the country - one which does not at all resemble reality.

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/22/business/economy/china-va...

NYT/SWJ/BBC used to have much more rounded coverage of China. Look at their China coverage before and after four years of Trump. The difference is stark. The entire political environment regarding China shifted drastically during the Trump administration, and that's reflected in both opinion polling and media coverage.