The dichotomy of China Global Television Network’s news coverage

Abstract

Although much is made of the universalisation of ‘US-style’ journalism around the world and Chinese journalists’ shared professional values with counterparts in liberal-democratic countries (Zhang, 2009), the effect of these trends on journalism in China is yet to be fully explored. Using the 2015 Tianjin blasts as a case study, this article investigates China Global Television Network (CGTN) and CNN International’s coverage of the disaster. The empirical study finds that despite their overlapping news values, the two networks’ opposing ideological objectives contributed to different framings of the Tianjin blasts. Although CGTN, as a symbol of Chinese media’s presence on the world stage, has clearly travelled far from its past era of party-line journalism, it still hesitates to apportion responsibility to those in power. The authors argue that CGTN is increasingly torn by its dichotomous role as a credible media competing for audience attention on the world stage, and a vital government propaganda organ domestically.

International Broadcasting During Times of Conflict: A Comparison of China’s and Russia's Communication Strategies

“…Chinese and Russian external communication styles are in part directly reflected by CGTN and RT. Empirical studies have suggested that CGTN tends to adopt official sources (Fearon and Rodrigues 2019;Gabore 2020) and have confirmed Yang's (2017, 86) observation that CGTN vows to "push Chinese perspectives and voices into the international arena in order to contest the discursive power of the West." Moreover, increasing evidence indicates that CGTN is employing a new strategy of "borrowing mouths," which refers to the use of pro-China sources to legitimize the Chinese policy line (Alpermann 2020).…”

“…This echoes an interview with CGTN's controller Liu Cong, in which he states that CGTN not only envisions to empower "a variety of voices … not just voice of China but also voices of other Asian countries, of African countries and of Latin American nations" (Li and Wu 2018, 41). Although previous studies have attributed CGTN's sourcing patterns, such as prioritizing official sources, to Confucian culture (Fearon and Rodrigues 2019) and attributed the vocalization of developing countries to China's strategy of maintaining diplomatic relationships (Gabore 2020), we consider these strategies to be the implementation of China's developing country identity.…”

“…Our comparative study confirms some of the features of communication of CGTN and RT observed in prior studies (As summarized in Table 1). CGTN has a stronger tendency to quote the official sources of the host country (Fearon and Rodrigues 2019;Gabore 2020). Following China's claim to be a developing country, CGTN increases the visibility of developing sources in its coverage.…”

“…Moreover, increasing evidence indicates that CGTN is employing a new strategy of "borrowing mouths," which refers to the use of pro-China sources to legitimize the Chinese policy line (Alpermann 2020). The use of such sources significantly shapes CGTN's tones and frames (Fearon and Rodrigues 2019;Gabore 2020). CGTN not only tends to frame China as a promoter of global order and harmony (Madrid-Morales 2017; Marsh 2017; Zhu 2022) but also represents China's inclination to portray developing countries in a positive light, with the aim of both breaking the stereotypical presentation of Western media and paving the way for China's diplomatic offensives (Matingwina 2016).…”

Ķīnas Tautas Republikas stratēģisko ārpolitikas vēstījumu dinamika un sadarbības formātu transformācija: “17 + 1” sadarbības formāta gadījuma analīze. Promocijas darbs

“…Deklaratīvie runas akti saistās ar realitātes fiksāciju juridiskā formātā. 43 Tie var pārklāties ar citiem runas aktiem funkcionalitātē, taču, Sīrla skatījumā, noteikti ir nepieciešami nobriedušā un stabilā noteikumu vidē kā likuma gara fiksējošais elements dažādos attiecību regulējumos. Sadarbības memorandi, nolīgumi, vienošanās un līdzvērtīgi fiksēti runas akti, kaut arī deklaratīvi (kā liecina to tipoloģiskais nosaukums), vienlaikus ar savu kvantitāti liecina par noteikumu sistēmas stabilitāti, jo deklaratīvie runas akti principā stiprina pastāvošās noteikumu struktūras.…”