- Home
- China Media News
- China spends 45 billion to extend media's global reach
China spends 45 billion to extend media's global reach
- By Cam MacMurchy
- Published January 12, 2009
- China Media News
-
Rating:




HONG KONG - "There is a big gap between China's image among foreign people and its idea of itself."
Renmin University Journalism Dean Yu Guoming is bang on in his observation, an argument we have been making here for quite some time. Many of the problems which arose during the Tibetan protests and torch relay controversy came from Chinese surprise that people overseas could have such strong feelings on these subjects -- and feelings that were anathema to China's official view. China was able to "reform and open" over thirty years, but it's been far less successful in convincing those abroad of its global views and context.
The South China Morning Post (all articles behind a paywall) has run two stories today about Beijing's RMB 45 billion investment in Chinese media organizations which target global audiences. The first, "Beijing in 45b yuan global media drive", says the cash will be available to agencies which come up with worthwhile projects to enhance their global image:
Management at CCTV, Xinhua and the People's Daily have been busy meeting consultants, inviting experts to brainstorming sessions and drafting proposals.
"Xinhua has a plan to expand its overseas bureaus from about 100 to 186," the source said, suggesting it would have bases in virtually every country in the world.
Another media source said Xinhua planned to create an Asia-based 24-hour television station to broadcast global news to an international audience.
"I was invited twice for brainstorming meetings on the establishment of such a television station, which would not just broadcast news on China, but on everywhere in the world," a different source said.
The media sources said Xinhua was ambitious about building an "influential and reliable" station like the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera network.
"With Al-Jazeera as the model, the station would enjoy greater freedom of speech from the central authorities than Phoenix TV on political and current events," one source said.
Meanwhile, the Global Times, a daily tabloid owned by the People's Daily and known for its nationalistic tone, has decided to launch an English edition in May, becoming the second national English newspaper, after China Daily. The paper has begun recruiting English-speaking editors and journalists.
CCTV has announced plans to launch Arabic and Russian channels this year, aggressively expanding its team of overseas reporters and recruiting foreign-language professionals.
The plus side for media people in China is a plethora of new jobs, according to the second article, "Big offers for English speakers in media jobs":
In a speech last month, Li Yuanchao , chief of the party's Organisation Department, encouraged recruitment of overseas talent with a "free ideological mindset".
Ms Zhang said the speech effectively lifted policy restrictions on attracting foreign experts, boosting CCTV's efforts to attract staff.
Meanwhile, the Global Times, a daily tabloid owned by the People's Daily, has announced a plan to hire an executive editor, a deputy executive editor and 60 reporters with English expertise to help put out its English edition, to be launched in May.
Recruitment advertisements for at least 10 native English speakers as "consultants" have been widely circulated on various news outlets and websites.
Many English reporters in other Beijing-based media organisations said they had received "very competitive salary package" offers from the Global Times as the head-hunting campaign becomes more urgent, with some saying apartments were being offered as well as high salaries.
"I was told that an editor could be paid 300,000 yuan (HK$341,000) a year, with a one-off offer of an apartment," one reporter said.
China Newsweek, a China News Service-owned weekly popular among young Chinese people, is speeding up preparation for an English-language edition to be published in the US.
A Beijing source said that the weekly would be backed by 200 million yuan in capital from CNS.
As with Communism itself, this media plan is good in theory. There's no doubt that there is a gaping need for more Chinese viewpoints in the great discussions of the day. If Qatar can have an internationally-influential television channel, surely China can too. And there's no reason why the New York Times, the Guardian, BBC, CNN et al should have a disproportionate sway on what we see and hear.
China's point of view and context for that point of view are sadly lacking, as I'm reminded of each time I'm asked to guest on a foreign radio station. But before we start considering an international Xinhua TV channel, what happened to CCTV 9? Isn't CCTV 9 supposed to present China's view to the world? Is there a point in lauching a second one without fixing the first?
The problem isn't lack of TV channels or media outlets that present China's case to foreigners, it's the lack of any media outlets that present China's case well. If Xinhua's new TV endeavor is run in the same manner CCTV is, with the same group of life-long communist party members in bad suits calling the shots, it will be doomed to failure. In fact, I'd go one step further: any mainland Chinese run media outlet will be taken less seriously as long as general media controls are in place.
Which brings me to my second point: the credibility of the media in China. China could open a hundred news organizations and blanket the world with China's point of view, but it would be greeted with just as much suspicion as it is now because China, despite all of its advancements, remains a one-party state with absolute control over all domestic media. This investment in more coverage may help to a degree: sure, we all know that China Daily is a government mouthpiece, but we read it because we get to know what the government thinks and it provides a decent (I'm being generous) roundup of what's going on in the country. A new Xinhua TV Channel or Global Times newspaper may provide the same. But at the end of the day, it's a lot of money being thrown at the symptom. China can't buy itself credibility. Not even for 45 billion.
To be successful, in my humble opinion, the new international TV station or newspaper must be given free reign to cover what it wants. It needs to be run on a system of merit and good journalism, not longevity, adherence to party principles, or loyalty to China (that sounds outdated, but that's how media organizations are still run in mainland China). If it selectively avoids sensitive subjects (for example, not running a story on the June 4 vigil in Hong Kong each year), perhaps people can look past it if the rest of the journalism is quality. But one lead story on Hu Jintao's win-win visit to Lesotho, which adheres to the One China Policy, and, well.... you get the picture.
Spread The Word
30 Responses to "China spends 45 billion to extend media's global reach" 
|
said this on 13 Jan 2009 1:55:51 AM PST
"China can't buy itself credibility"
I've worked in the performing arts industry in China, and I've been baffled how every article published in a newspaper is bought and paid for. Any review, critique, or story (at least in the culture industry) must be paid for, and in some cases pre-written for it to get published. As far as Im concerned, there is no such thing as journalism in China. |
|
said this on 13 Jan 2009 2:06:52 AM PST
Hi Devi... I wish I could remember how many times I've heard the phrase "There is no such thing as journalism in China".
I do believe there are talented reporters in China that, given the opportunity, would produce excellent journalism. But unfortunately, as you refer to, the system is broken. And a new TV channel or newspaper doesn't help fix it. |
|
said this on 13 Jan 2009 5:31:37 AM PST
what do you guys think about the business pages? What about the economic observer and 21st century? Seem ok to me.
|
|
said this on 13 Jan 2009 6:37:23 PM PST
The China Newsweek english edition has been published in the US already, It has eleven offices list on their English magazine, they are in New York, Vancouver,Washington, Los Angles ,London, Tokyo, Sydney, Paris, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur and Moscow. There annual subsciption fee in the US is 19.9 dollar.
|
|
said this on 13 Jan 2009 11:02:25 PM PST
Let's be honest, western media is no better. I live in a neighboring democratic country and I have access to all types of news from many sources. I can safely say that the way the chinese gov't manages media overtly is comparable to how western governments manage media covertly. In terms of content I find the straight forward approach of chinese media refreshing in comparison to the double talk, innuendo, machination and word play employed by western media outlets to report the news. The way they report is to distort the essence of the news to promote their foreign policy while still being able to say that they are reporting facts.
|
|
said this on 13 Jan 2009 11:47:31 PM PST
let's be honest about the media in china,of course they print what the gov.wants. but they are no different in the usa. just look at the last election. it was the first time that i remember that a canidate dictated what question can and can't be asked during a debate and by god ALL the media networks complied.
|
|
said this on 14 Jan 2009 12:26:36 AM PST
I was feeling high and mighty about Western Journalism until you brought me back to reality. Western Journalism gives us more about Tom cruise than Germany, just an arbitrary example. Still 45 billion is an incredible amount of money, I bet we (the average people) fall for it for a while...
|
|
said this on 14 Jan 2009 5:13:57 AM PST
Marky is honest. As least in China you know where you stand and not wthat they want you to believe..AKA The foxnetwork,CNN,CBS,NBC..T hey are so in the pockets of the poilitcans that is a womder that any one in the U.S. really knows what is going on.Freedom of the press.Ha When was the last time there was honest reporting about what really mattered.. The last election was a joke and the news media elected the president..Not the people..The people vote as to what the here reported ..The term spin Doctor is an american classic. I think for prople to condem what they do not understand is a joke..The american government is no different than the Chinese government..(a one party system) who ever is in charge is running the show..Except in china is not controlled by big business and everyone does not have their hand out. Just remember what Thomas Jefferson said.."remember that any government that give you rights; can take them away anytime they want to"
|
|
said this on 14 Jan 2009 7:10:53 AM PST
China is an ancient state . China is a Communist State and communism cannot be attacked by the press. Hong Kong was long a centre of western and especially the english press such as Lord Thompson of Fleet St. China has been told that the popular South East Asian Australian main opposition to Telstra - Optus - is a Huawai technology based operation which it is and very succesful-- but USA says it is a potential spy threat. So what do press agents sometomes do but not always. Press is vital for the development of the open state - openness -- as defined by Gorbachev vis the development of the Communist Stae toward openness. Press is defined along with advertising by dahl as necessary for the plural society. The west including national Geographic , the major newspapers of Australasia have gone from reporting to pictures and sport and a few gory stories but no political criticism and often virtually shut down -- the opposite of freedom.
|
|
said this on 14 Jan 2009 9:17:04 AM PST
All the talk about "journalism" regardless of who it's from, East - West, may be pointless, because most people will just go online and read what they want to read - believe what they want to believe - and write what they want to write - take everyone here for example - myself included. Let's just all be grateful some people are still willing to fork out good money and employ writers who would probably be blogging for free. At the end of the day, your point of view will be based on which side your bread is buttered - so journalists are no better or worse than lawyers who defend the guilty or the innocent.
|
|
said this on 14 Jan 2009 2:03:34 PM PST
Hi,
I think this is something that most governments already do by private or state owned companies in most countries. great post! Regards, Luis |
|
said this on 14 Jan 2009 5:35:03 PM PST
Cam said: "But before we start considering an international Xinhua TV channel, what happened to CCTV 9? Isn't CCTV 9 supposed to present China's view to the world? Is there a point in lauching a second one without fixing the first?"
I think the issue with CCTV9 is that foreigners aren't its real audience - most viewers are probably Chinese students trying to learn English, so the news it gives can't be too far removed from what's on the Chinese channels. An "international" channel that isn't available in China wouldn't have that problem. |
|
said this on 08 Feb 2009 6:45:14 AM PST
Foreigners ARE the real target audience of CCTV9, but Chinese students turn out to be the largest group of viewers. Phoenix TV is in a similar situation. An "international" channel run by the same people would still have the same problem...
|
|
said this on 15 Jan 2009 12:52:40 AM PST
Al Jazeera has succeeded because it strives to be objective and covers stories and gives a voice to subjects deemed below the radar by American, British and European TV corporations. There is potential for an east Asian Al Jazeera-type TV network to be equally successful, but I doubt China has the will or the credibility as a neutral player to pull this off. Having worked at China Daily, I have seen exactly how much autonomy foreign staff are allowed. None. The few experienced journos they managed to recruit did not fit in and were soon pushed out or jumped.
|
|
said this on 15 Jan 2009 1:15:22 AM PST
Marc and Marky:
Yes, there is a big difference between the USA and China. Is bias in the news in the United States? Yes. Do journalists present points of view in the US? Yes. Does the US government pressure media outlets to broadcast its point of view? Absolutely. But you can't tell me the New York Times covers the same news as the New York Daily News, or that MSNBC broadcasts the same info and same slant as Fox. There is, in the United States, what is called a diversity of choices when it comes to where and how you receive your information. I can tell you having worked in China, we received a notice from management, connected to the central government, about exactly which order and which stories we MUST run. If the US government tried to do this, it would be mocked by reporters. The US government has had to work more at PR and getting its side across, while the Chinese government can dictate whatever it wants. But if you still think they are the same, I ask you to consider this: how often to Chinese media outlets slam President Hu Jintao, and how often did American media outlets slam President Bush? |
|
said this on 04 Feb 2009 3:16:59 PM PST
> we received a notice from management, connected to the
> central government, about exactly which order and which > stories we MUST run. If the US government tried to do this, > it would be mocked by reporters. Actually that the Bush administration was very effective in controlling the media, including the stories and the tone of the message, especially on the first 4 years. Google "Fox News internal memos" and also "Scott McLellan". |
|
said this on 15 Jan 2009 1:16:53 PM PST
Labarthe says that -Modern political identification supposes and engages a severe agnostic . in rthe sense of rthis word which
Nietz recovered fom the Greeks In the appropiatiation of the means of identificatiobn it comes from 'mimetic rivalry' with its formidable " double blind". It is necessary for us to imitate the ancients . This at least , stated that the German agnostic had to differentiate itself from the LOatin type "imatio" , even from the cutural imperialism od Italy or France : from Rome ----------from this point of view , Germany was indeed the place og Kulturkampf where---it was wholly other Greece--than that passed on by tradition---led to the installation of the Nazi political as the "total work of art and not merely to facism as the "aestheticization of politics Heidegger then sees this agnostic as controlling three fundamental motifs:-\a- Heimatlosigkeit [or uprootedness as in french extreme right translated so--. Heidegger goes on to saynthat it is a matter [1946 post war and genocide and war killing] of the fundamental historical experience of Europe which Nietzsche was prisoner of nihilism and --Marx alone --outside Holderlin --was able to think by placing the epoch [ this period] under the sign of alienation--===And on would show , from this angle , that facisms , just Like Marxism in its ==Russian[nb] -interpretation, are only a response to the generalised "urbanisation" [[--literally de-countryfication or being off ones home gound , figuratively disorientation]]--continued- of the modern epoch , and- TO THE MASS DEPORTATION OF CENTURIES OLD PEASANTRY, ORGANISED SCARCELY A CENTURY BY "CAPITAL". Heidegger new this well And so what of Confucious and Lau Tsu or Mao and the role of press in China -- which is not Erope but is in and heading to an epoch -- How do european writers or newspapers as socialised in China write tis-- simply they are-- or are they-- does not Asian philosophy see grey where european sees white and black-- and of the peasants |
|
said this on 15 Jan 2009 7:59:28 PM PST
Hello Cam, thanks for the interview on Radio Australia this week. Here's a link to the feature:
Huge cash injection to China state media http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia/stories/200901/s2466621.htm Presenter: Adam Connors Speakers: Cam MacMurchy, media consultant to CCTV and other China media organisations; John Marcom, former vice-president of Yahoo! and former president of Time Inc International; Bruce Dover, head of ABC's Australia Network and former News Limited executive |
|
said this on 15 Jan 2009 8:44:23 PM PST
As long as the Chinese official media persist with their propaganda mission, they will get nowhere, no matter how much money they spend and how hard they. And there is little chance their work will achieve any international respectability. That will be sad for them but quite for sure.
|
|
said this on 16 Jan 2009 5:53:53 PM PST
Deutsche bank recieves funding from UBS bank for investment in China --reuters February 2009:
==================================================== UBS crisis: Global bank trouble is getting worse Posted Oct 16 2008, 06:53 AM by Douglas McIntyre Rating: Filed under: banking, credit crisis, earnings The Swiss pride themselves in being calm, reserved people. Unlike the Spanish, English, Germans, and French, they have never given the world much trouble. The trouble, it appears, has been visited upon the Swiss, although they do have some of the blood of the credit crisis on their hands. For reasons no one can fathom, UBS of Switzerland decided that it had a larger appetite for mortgage-related financial instruments than any other bank in the world. Its balance sheet became obese with the junk and forced it to take what seemed like a write-off a week. UBS has fired so many people that it is surprising it still has someone to man the switchboard. Things have gotten worse at UBS, and it only took a couple of months. The last time the bank reported earnings it did not indicate that it might be found face down in an alley in Zürich. Matters have gotten so bad that UBS has had to take a $5.3 billion investment from the Swiss government. It is more awful than that. The FT reports that "UBS, one of the largest casualties of the US credit crisis, would also transfer $60bn -- the overwhelming majority -- of its illiquid U.S. securities to a new entity owned and controlled by the Swiss National Bank." That $60 billion is nearly 25% of the money Paulson is investing in U.S. banks and UBS is only one firm headquartered in a country best known for making expensive watches for people who work on Wall Street. ============================== Re: Swiss Bank UBS in serious trouble after $42bn in losses. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Originally Posted by AjaxPress It's nothing a government bailout can't solve. You think the Swiss have $44.2bn of tax money to give to a bank??? ============================= Calling UBS "one of the banks worst affected" by the credit crisis, Chris Skinner, chief executive at think-tank Balatro, said a number of the cuts would be likely to affect trading operations, following moves made by other banks recently. "There is a move to more and more algorithmic trading. A recent report speculated that by 2015 nine out of 10 traders would be redundant, and systems would be doing their jobs, but I think this is an exaggeration. You're only as good as a system set up by people." There has been much speculation over the future of algorithmic trading, heavily used by hedge funds, after a computer model's failure to deal with the unpredictable markets led a Goldman Sachs fund to lose £750 million last August. UBS may be likely to reduce the staff working on back office functions, Skinner suggested, adding that many banks in UBS' position were automating back office functions. "A lot of people still have documents held in paper repositories and there's a lot of manual box-ticking." Last year, UBS announced it was expanding its back office operations in India in a bid to cut costs. But Skinner said with so much being stored on paper, there were clear limits to where banks such as UBS could outsource. "If you need a paper document urgently, it's no good having it in India," he saiinfoworld.com/news/feeds/08/05/06/UBS-layoffs-trouble-IT-department-workers.html ========================================= Today- now U.S. ‘Bad Bank’ Plan Gets Momentum to Revive Lending (Update3) Email | Print | A A A By Robert Schmidt and Craig Torres Jan. 16 2009 (Bloomberg) -- Renewed questions about U.S. banks’ viability are pushing regulators toward a new plan that would remove toxic assets from bank === and cont]]Ackermann, who is also head of Deutsche Bank AG, Germany’s biggest bank, said “the real challenge here” is determining the price at which to remove the assets. He added, in a conference call with reporters Jan. 14, that Deutsche Bank doesn’t need to unload illiquid assets into such a bad bank. Switzerland in October relied on the mechanism to aid UBS AG. The Swiss National Bank and UBS set up a special unit to buy as much as $60 billion in toxic investments from UBS. Zurich- based UBS provided $6 billion in capital, which will be used as first protection against losses. It isn’t clear how stockholders or bond owners would be treated in a bad-bank scenario. In the case of UBS in Switzerland, there was no direct impact on either http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=amhKS1g61_J4&refer=home ============================================================== Deutsche Bank Woes Said to Persist on Credit Bets (Update3) Email | Print | A A A By Jacqueline Simmons and Aaron Kirchfeld Dec. 12 2008(Bloomberg) -- Deutsche Bank AG, shaken last quarter by a $1.68 billion loss trading for the firm’s account, is reeling again, this time from about $1 billion of bad bets in a unit led by credit-trader Boaz Weinstein in New York, people familiar with the matter said. The magnitude of the group’s loss, and its impact on the firm’s fourth-quarter results, may change as the value of some stakes fluctuate with the markets and the Frankfurt-based bank seeks to unwind positions, according to the people, who declined to be identified because the circumstances haven’t been disclosed. As of mid-December, some executives gauged the loss to be in the $1 billion range, the people said, noting that the figure may be smaller by the end of the quarter, and cushioned by gains in other units. Deutsche Bank, Europe’s biggest investment bank, posted a profit of 435 million euros ($579 million) last quarter after suffering losses of 1.26 billion euros on proprietary credit and equity trades. bloomberg.com ===================================== Reuters February 2009 UBS lends to Deutsche Bank to finance in China ============= March --Yahoo founder dismisses himself and returns to China-- 1994 -- Microsoft chief Bill Gatesheads to and sets up Microsoft in China --dressed in only his casual outfit ==================== ===================== Oh for the pay of a J1 in a free land Jan 2009-- Murdoch sacks 400 at Melbourne age--Scottish editor given boot ==================== Money makes the world go round-- and when 40 something billion disappears and turns up again then whynot-- a mans got to eat as new York drops towards those minus 40 degrees and those reporters Journos and financial advisors [40,000] who lost jobs cant find their super funds --tired after all their fighting and yelling to stop the crisis see hope in China |
|
said this on 19 Jan 2009 10:12:15 PM PST
A well-run and commercially successful media organisation (like CNN) is not automatically equal to a neutral player. The government controlled medias in China are just trying to learn the same skill from CNN. They want the best reporters, the best journalists, and the best editors, to professionally report the stories that they want you to hear.
|
|
said this on 19 Jan 2009 10:13:22 PM PST
Ok, just follow what you said. Chinese media is 70% dictated by Chinese government. And US media is 40% dictated by US government. The conclusion is that they are all dictated by the government and controlled by different benefit group! So no one is better that the other. Where is the fair coverage of the massacre in US that more than 1000 civilian have been killed by the Israeli attacks? Did you see any bashing against Jesus Chris in popular US newspaper? But you can always saw it on Chinese news media against all kinds of God! Whether there is bashing against the president or not is irrelevant. You are just so fortunate being a white in stead of a biological relative of Mr. Oscar Grant (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVsncZ7K584). Where is the extensive coverage in US? Please just keep living in your democratic dream and leave China alone.
|
|
said this on 19 Jan 2009 10:15:10 PM PST
It's such a joke! while you are advocating news freedom, just look at the message I received after my post: ""Thank you for Your Feedback. Your comment is pending approval by an administrator."" .................I am speechless!!!
|
|
said this on 19 Jan 2009 10:34:42 PM PST
@Bear
I couldn't agree more. This goes to the point I made in the original post, which is the problem isn't that China's view isn't being presented, it's that it's not being presented well. On the flip side, just because something is slick and polished doesn't mean it's a reliable source of news (Exhibit A: Fox News). @Chris First, I don't particularly like having to approve each article as an administrator, but it's necessary because of the large volume of spam we receive. I can assure you that not once - in the entire two years this blog has been running - has a comment been deleted because of its point of view or editorial stance. In fact, we've only deleted one post in the history of the blog because it was a very personal attack on one of our writers. On your point regarding state control, I'm unsure where you're going with it. I don't know where you got the 70% and 40% figures from, but I can offer some of my own: CCTV is 100% owned by the central government of China, the American government owns 0% of CNN. Also, while we're at it, 0% in ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox. This doesn't mean, of course, that American networks don't sometimes inject bias, intentionally or unintentionally, into their broadcasts. But based on this ownership scheme, it's a lot less likely they would compared to CCTV. In the US, there is also freedom of choice: because different networks and stations are owned by different corporate interests, there is good variety in editorial positions. If you feel CNN is too pro-America for you, you have the choice to watch PBS, read The New Yorker, or find news from a number of other sources more suited to you. Finally, you may be surprised to know that Jesus has frequently been given a rough time in US media circles. Besides a famous case in New York where sacred Christian symbols were coated in dung and called "art", there are many outspoken critics (Tom Leykis, Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, to name but a few) who frequently mock Christianity and its followers on mainstream television and radio in the United States. In fact, all are proud atheists. You might also wish to note the popularity of the book "The God Delusion" in the United States. This is not to say the US media structure is without bias, or without problems. But it remains a far more reliable, diverse, free, and fair system than is currently in place in China. |
|
said this on 20 Jan 2009 3:11:28 PM PST
Just wanted to tell you to keep up the great work Cam. It seems like only yesterday that I was watching you toil at GZTV while trying to work your teleprompter.
You probably don't remember, but you gave me some good advice when I was an intern at GZTV, and I can see that advice reflected in this blog. Anyway, I'm glad to see that you're doing well, and keep up the great work. |
|
said this on 20 Jan 2009 5:58:25 PM PST
Chris, what nonsense. 40 percent dictated by the US government? How about none. Fair coverage of civilians killed during the Israeli attack? It was all over the media here. Bashing against Jesus Christ in popular US newspapers? Last I checked, Mr. Christ has been dead 2,000 years and is no longer a public figure that newspapers write about. Ah yeah, the line about "fortunate being white." Not sure if you noticed, but we just elected a black man as our president.
|
|
said this on 28 Jan 2009 1:26:58 AM PST
The Universities and other institutions come under financial plaaning from a whole lot to a lesser amount So Columbia might be said to be a highly CIA finced University others much less-- this is all a formal process partly openningly declared each year as part of fiscal USA policy
|
|
said this on 05 Aug 2009 3:42:11 PM PST
One sparrow maketh not a full summer. Chill.
|
|
said this on 20 Jan 2009 6:03:13 PM PST
Hey, thanks Steve. Are you back in GZ or HK? Send me an email sometime and we can catch up. cam@zhongnanhaiblog.com
|

Author/Admin)