Opinion | The study on British media negativity pertaining to China is the tip of the iceberg

By Tom Fowdy

Recently, an academic study conducted by the Lau China Institute of King's College London in conjunction with the Chinese University of Hong Kong, titled: "Shaping the policy debate: How the British media presents China" was widely shared on social media. As its name suggests, the report covered British media discourse on Chinese topics, and came to the conclusion that such coverage was in fact overwhelmingly negative. As researcher Dr. Tim Summers concludes: "Negative media coverage of China reinforces and contributes to widespread negative views about China in the UK. This makes a hawkish or more critical policy towards China more likely, in line with the interests of lobbyists and politicians inside and outside government who favor that approach."

The study dives into a number of key newspapers, including The Telegraph, The Economist, and The Financial Times, amongst others, and finds that their content directed at China is overwhelmingly negative, with articles that they define as "positive" amounting to little more than 2.5%. This has of course aggressively accelerated in recent years, and the authors correctly identify agenda-led policy reporting as being responsible, as noted: "The relationship between media and policy agendas is iterative, and we can see that media commentaries and reports are used to push policy issues and to set the policy agenda" hence in many of these cases: "the media reporting follows information shared by lobby groups or anonymous officials, with little critical reflection or investigation."

First, for me personally, I've been saying this for years and this study only serves as an affirmation of what I've been speaking out against, often at a great cost to myself. Not only is this present in the obvious right-wing, government-linked British newspapers, but also in broadcasters such as the BBC. Beginning around the year 2019, media coverage against China, in line with the shift in US policy and its strategic objectives, became deliberately and obsessively negative, and in line with that public opinion also changed. I watched how they seized upon demonizing China over the COVID-19 pandemic, how endless stories about the "Uyghur genocide" appeared in line with State Department narratives, and how large-scale paranoia was proliferated over companies such as Huawei, amongst other things.

Although reporters pretended all these things were legitimate "concerns", I repeatedly noted that it was agenda driven reporting in order to manufacture consent for US foreign policy objectives. On these matters it is foolish to treat such reporting as objective, factual or impartial, because it isn't. As the study notes, there is a whole ecosystem in place dedicated to creating these kinds of discourses. The U.S State Department typically cultivates a set of talking points on given issues, which are then coordinated with a web of think tanks and institutions, such as for example Australia's ASPI, who work to "launder" the given talking points into the form of studies, analysis, and publicity, which are then lapped up accordingly by a series of compliant journalists who report what they state as indisputable fact.

We see numerous such US sponsored think tanks established across most "allied" countries, with many them based in continental Europe. Their fellows tend to constantly call for transatlanticism and berate any attempts by European countries, especially Germany, from pursuing an independent foreign policy. In line with this, bidding politicians, such as those belonging to the fanatical IPAC group, coordinate to pick up the issues the US is putting on the agenda and begin to weaponize them against their respective governments accordingly, as did Iain Duncan Smith in the UK with Huawei, the Uyghur Genocide, amongst other things.

It might be added, although omitted from this study, that IDS has become the individual "go-to" man for the mainstream media in the United Kingdom to receive talking points and commentary on China-related matters, even though as a matter of fact he does not know anything about China and cannot pronounce the name "Xinjiang." Such individuals and organizations receive preferential coverage in shaping the narrative, not because of their expertise but because of the political priority that is given to them. Individuals who present a differential, objective or contrarian view to the official narrative are not given a platform. Despite this, the public largely believes they have an "objective" understanding of China-related issues, despite being fed this cherry-picked narrative. It is worth noting finally, that the UK narrative has got worse and worse over the past year or so, with papers such as the Telegraph producing unhinged op-eds every single day. Similarly, I have long noted the BBC's deliberative preference for pushing whatever negative China news it can muster via its World Service, questioning its self-proclaimed "gold standard" of neutrality and impartiality.

In conclusion, as the study states: "The almost total lack of any positive coverage of China in the British media further closes off the scope even for making arguments that policy should reflect opportunities from dealing with China. The Overton window on China policy does not allow for positive coverage of the country at the moment. Others have commented on this – for example, Daniel Bell said, 'There is almost universal consensus in the West that China is led by an evil government that is bad to its own people and dangerous to people in other countries. It's extremely difficult to publish views that argue otherwise', and continued, 'Public opinion makes it almost impossible to publish comments that offer a balanced picture of Chinese politics in leading Western media outlets."

The author is a well-seasoned writer and analyst with a large portfolio related to China topics, especially in the field of politics, international relations and more. He graduated with an Msc. in Chinese Studies from Oxford University in 2018.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.

Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:

Opinion | The inconsequential and inevitable landslide, a British election without real choice

Opinion | Can China-Japan-South Korea trilateralism achieve meaningful results

Opinion | How Hamas is politically and diplomatically defeating Israel

Opinion | US hegemony and the rule of law are two different things