Isn’t China’s population almost 22 times larger than the UK’s?

And what else are they going to do with those foreign exchange reserves, other than promote and protect their foreign investment and aid through a world media organisation?

“But is it always wrong to report things that may provoke tensions?”

I don’t think they’re saying it is. I think they’re saying they won’t exaggerate bad news for dramatic effect.

“In China, we believe in balancing news with social responsibility, so we do not provoke tensions in our society.”

You know, this line rather calls this story to mind:

Journalists at a major Chinese paper, Southern Weekly, have gone on strike in a rare protest against censorship.

The row erupted after a New Year message which had called for guaranteed constitutional rights was changed by censors into a piece that praised the Communist Party.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20929826

This new project sounds rather more like TASS than the BBC.

Isn’t China’s population almost 22 times larger than the UK’s?

Not sure that comparison holds – you need a larger budget to cover a larger population but there are economies of scale too! It’s not a direct correlation.

The BBC is the world’s largest media organisation. This is very little to do with population size.

Spot on Sunny, especially the bits about reaching non white global audience, AJ has shown the way, interesting times ahead…

In China, we believe in balancing news with social responsibility, so we do not provoke tensions in our society.

‘Social responsibility’ in State owned media meaning ‘responsible to the State’ rather than ‘responsibility to the people’.

“‘Social responsibility’ in State owned media meaning ‘responsible to the State’ rather than ‘responsibility to the people’.”

And social responsibility in privately owned media means either (1) responsibility to our commercial sponsors (2) responsibility to our advertising partners or (3) responsibility our company shareholders.

What is to be done?

I watched a lot of the CCTV English language channel whilst in China; and I also read a lot of English language print media.

I came back fully aware of the problems of state censorship, but nevertheless very positive about the editorial approach that has more of a focus on good news and positive narratives.

We should remember that in the UK, lack of state control and censorship does not mean lack of undemocratic control and censorship of media.

Small elites of media moguls and their toadying editors get to decide the content and framing of most of our print news. And the BBC has allowed its own editorial agenda to become increasingly swayed and subdued by the print media and their anti-BBC campaigns.

Timbo: “We should remember that in the UK, lack of state control and censorship does not mean lack of undemocratic control and censorship of media.”

Fortunately, without government control we have access to a range of press and broadcasting which is not under the control of News Corp.

The Pearson press – the FT and The Economist – has extensive international readership, which acts as a check on unfetterd chauvinism and partisan loyalties. And there is the web – devised by a Brit, Tim Berners-Lee – which gives access to world media. The search engines for the web make it easy to retrieve archived press, government and think-tank reports and academic papers. Cover-ups of mistakes of omission and commission by governments and authorities are so much more difficult to sustain now. Politicians have trouble delivering different messages to different audiences.

A challenging question is about why such large funding by China’s government for English language broadcasting? Why not for broadcasting in French or Spanish or German? Maybe there is something about what Niall Ferguson is saying on how Britain made the modern world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk_quPDD1vo

And social responsibility in privately owned media means either (1) responsibility to our commercial sponsors (2) responsibility to our advertising partners or (3) responsibility our company shareholders.

None of whom execute people

What is to be done?

When Murdoch and Google bow to Chinese political pressure and censor themselves its because they’re Evil Capitalists but when the Chinese State broadcasts its propaganda directly it will give us a ‘fresh perspective’ which will no doubt cover Chinese affairs better than Western media ever could.

Now, now Shatterface no need to get silly.

CCTV doesn’t execute people either.

And just because a person or individual like Murdoch or Newscorp does not execute people, it doesn’t mean we can simply ignore other things that they do that are democratically or morally objectionable.

And just because the Chinese government uses execution, and often in unjust or political ways, it doesn’t mean that we can therefore say nothing good about any aspect of Chinese culture.

It doesn’t mean for example that because of the use of execution by the Chinese Communist Party, Szechuan hotpot therefore tastes shit. It tastes bloody lovely, despite the fact the CCP officials are regularly seen enjoying it.

And there is some good journalism with a focus on good news with good broader social benefits in China; and we can learn lessons from it.

And China can learn lessons from us about the benefits of the state not killing its citizens.

Do please make an effort to disaggregated issues from each other. That is what helps make for constructive intelligent debate.

11 – I think the fact that the Chinese state systematically censors its media, to the point where editorials are entirely re-written by an appointed censor does mean that we can have serious misgivings about the value of a Chinese state broadcaster.

“we can have serious misgivings about the value of a Chinese state broadcaster”

As a news source, I agree entirely, but it’s always illuminating to have authoritative official insights into the currently prevailing official POV.