One of the big mistakes that many international observers make about the Chinese and their global media ambitions is to frame the issue in purely, Western terms.  That is, if CNC World or CCTV News are not competitive with any of the major American or European media brands than somehow China’s media strategy is a failure.  While the Chinese no doubt have ambitions to create media properties with equal heft of CNN, the BBC and Al Jazeera among others, I do not think that is their only benchmark of success.

There is growing evidence that networks like CNC may not be targeting already competitive markets in North America or Europe but instead focusing their energy on emerging ‘Southern’ markets in Africa, South Asia and elsewhere. So it is critical to look at this issue in considerably broader terms than most Americans and European media watchers are accustomed.

The barriers to entry in the mature media markets in the developed world are simply too high for networks like CNC to viable without billions of dollars to invest in marketing and distribution.  By contrast, it is considerably cheaper for the Chinese to gain traction in less developed markets where it will not only be cheaper to penetrate but their product will likely receive a much better reception.

Why?

China’s media leaders may want to consider the French approach with France24 if they want to grow audience share with their own media properties:

1. Editorial autonomy + Higher Content Legitimacy = Audience Loyalty

It is hard to tell if online users and TV viewers of France24 clearly understand that they are consuming a media property owned and operated by the French government.  Just as viewers of Al Jazeera may not be fully aware of the Qatari government’s backing of that network.  What’s important here is that both France24 and Al Jazeera afford their editorial staff considerable editorial autonomy in determining the news.  I can speak from personal experience (full disclosure: I am currently a freelance journalist at France24′s english language online service) to attest that there is never any concern among the editorial staff about government censorship or oversight of any kind.  Conversely, the pressure from management is to produce the highest quality news comparable to the standards of any of the international newsrooms I have worked in, including CNN, CNBC Asia and the Associated Press among others.  Consider this example from July 14, 2010, France’s national holiday.  In an effort to rebuild relations with its former African colonies, the French government invited those states celebrating 50 years of independence to have a delegation of military representatives march in the grand Bastille Day parade up the Champs Elysees. In China, such national day festivities would be greeted with patriotic enthusiasm by official media organs, but not so in France.

The Chinese are making it much harder than it needs to be for international viewers to access their content online.

Both the TV and online editors at France24 led with stories of accusations from a federation of  international human rights groups that war criminals may be among those marching in the parade. The headline (left) led the coverage for most of the day and never was there a concern that France24 was embarrassing France’s leaders or the state itself.  Instead, the story generated above-average traffic online.

The lesson here for China’s own media entities is that by giving experienced media producers greater autonomy to report a story, even if it may be critical of China, will ultimately improve the content’s legitimacy among its target audiences and thus lead to increased user loyalty.  I fully understand how difficult it would be for some within the Propaganda Ministry, and even in the State Council, to loosen the reigns of media control.  However, it should be considered essential if the ultimate objective is to persuade sophisticated international media consumers to divert themselves from rival websites and TV channels to CNC World, BON Live or CCTV International.

2.  Make it Easy to Watch and Access the Content

When CNC World debuted in July 2010, I rushed to find the live stream online the very first day it went on the air.  It went without saying that CNC would have a live-stream, or even on-demand video available, considering the importance the government had placed on reaching out to international viewers like myself.  Yet after four attempts using three computers on two platforms, I have still not been able to access the CNC World live stream.   CNC World is making it much more difficult than it needs to be for viewers to access their content online.  Here are a few suggestions on how the network can improve its usability to make it significantly easier for viewers, such as myself, to watch CNC World over the internet:

A. Domain Name: select an easy to remember URL.  http://www.xhstv.com is NOT a good domain name for an international audience.   Now, as a Chinese speaker, I understand that XHS stands for 新华社, the average American viewer will not.

B. Make it Mac Compatible:  No, in fact, make it platform agnostic.  Currently, CNC World can only be viewed on PCs which eliminates tens of millions of prospective viewers who use Apple’s products.  This is critical in both the United States and Europe.

C. No Plug-ins!:  This is a massive mistake on the part of Xinhua.  First of all, web users in the U.S. and Europe are accustomed to watching online video using any of the established methods ranging from Flash to HTML5.  The era of downloading additional software applications to run video ended about five years.  Secondly, Western internet users will NEVER download a plug-in prompted by text written in Chinese!   This is a screen grab of the prompt to download the program “UUSEE” to watch CNC World.  To the vast majority of non-Chinese speaking Westerners, this looks extremely ominous.

D. Do not use Chinese characters: Even if a user in the U.S. or Europe wanted to download the UUSEE plug-in, there is a very good chance that s/he would not be able to because many of the anti-virus programs block Chinese language applications.  This is even more so on corporate networks that often have much stricter security measures than most home users.  To avoid this restrictions, the English-language streaming site should be entirely in English with no Chinese language prompts for plug in requirements or any Chinese-character metadata that will trigger the security programs to block the site.

3. Quality Counts

Just as China is not a native-English speaking country, France faces a similar challenge in how it staffs its English language media channels.  Unlike most of China’s multilingual media outlets, France24′s english and Arabic services are staffed by native speakers.  In China, by contrast, CCTV9, China Radio International and other channels are often staffed with Chinese employees whose english skills are quite strong relative to other mainland Chinese however nowhere near international broadcast standards.  Subsequently, there are significantly higher levels of on air and online mistakes that are often directly associated with language abilities.  In an extremely competitive news markets, these kinds of mistakes are unacceptable as it undermines the credibility of the product and encourages consumers to seek elsewhere for similar information.  There is ample evidence of poor language and copy editing skills of China’s international media editors.  On three separate occasions over the course of a single week, the home page of CNTV (left) featured prominent spelling errors and template layout mistakes that, once again, indicate China’s media products are just not competing at the same level as French and other international media outlets.

]]> http://www.chinatalkingpoints.com/3-lessons-france-can-offer-china-about-government-run-media/feed/ 1 http://www.chinatalkingpoints.com/the-new-new-new-chinese-tv-network/ http://www.chinatalkingpoints.com/the-new-new-new-chinese-tv-network/#comments Mon, 03 May 2010 14:46:46 +0000 Eric Olander http://www.chinatalkingpoints.com/?p=635 Here we go again… yet again… a new Chinese international television network launches with great fanfare amid high expectations that this time, finally, China’s story will finally get a fair airing in the global marketplace.   After five months broadcasting in Mandarin, the all new China News Network Corporation debuted its English service this week. Admittedly, I have not seen the new service, either in Chinese or English, but I do approach this venture with the same skepticism I have had for the past ten years of other similar Chinese endeavors.  The Chinese are motivated by what they consider to be the unfair treatment they receive in the international media, particularly among the major global networks like CNN, the BBC and others.  Following the success of Al Jazeera in both Arabic and English, Beijing now has imperial media ambitions of its own to help promote its worldview and grab a larger share of the world’s television news audience.

A Bit of Background

First, it was CCTV9.  The ugly, English speaking cousin of CCTV that got a nice facelift a few years ago courtesy of Rupert Murdoch.  News Corp. advisors convinced CCTV9′s management to invest in new sets, a snazzy graphics package and replace the dour looking Chinese anchors with attractive Australians, Africans and other non-Chinese.   CCTV then leveraged its considerable political muscle to expand the network’s global distribution.  In the United States alone, CCTV9′s expanded distribution footprint is nothing short of amazing.   The channel is available on pretty much every major cable and satellite platform from DirecTV to Time Warner Cable.  You can also get your fill of watching Da Shan over the air as CCTV9 is making inroads in regional markets through digital terrestrial television stations as well.  Simply put, CCTV9′s distribution is phenomenal.  Nonetheless, CCTV9 is a tragic case study in how distribution alone is not enough.  I have yet to meet an American television viewer not affiliated with China who has ever heard of CCTV9, much less watched it, even though the channel is right there on their on screen TV guide.

Last year, the Chinese doubled-down on their English language TV investments with the launch of Blue Oceans Network, or BON Live.  Sensitive to the reaction of many international viewers that CCTV9 was simply an extension of the parent channel’s heavily censored content, the new BON brands itself as an “independent network” that produces “objective English language content for the Western world.”   While much of the content has that same “cable access” semi-professional feel to it that is so common on CCTV9, the difference with BON is that it is positioning itself as a Western channel designed exclusively for Western audiences.  That means there are few, if any, Chinese hosts and there is a pretense of independence from the government’s various media censors.

And now… CNC

That China feels the need to launch yet another network is indicative that its prior attempts have not fulfilled the government’s media objectives.  Beijing clearly perceives an injustice is being done by the international media in how it is perceived globally and the best solution is to follow the lead of the French (France24), the Russians (Russia Today) and Qatar (Al Jazeera) by deploying its own television platform to tell its story.   There is little, if any, evidence that suggests CNC will be any more successful than CCTV9 and BON Live in persuading the outside world of China’s positions on critical issues where it comes under such intense scrutiny by the international community.  On the key issues of human rights, Tibet, Taiwan and certain aspects of China’s relationship with the United States, China’s official government media simply lacks the necessary editorial credibility to be taken seriously as an impartial source of news.

Why Al Jazeera is Different

Beijing’s media leaders no doubt look to Al Jazeera as an example of how a state-funded media enterprise can have great effect in swaying public opinion.  Unfortunately for China, Al Jazeera is unique in many ways that do not benefit Beijing.   The key difference between China’s media ventures and Al Jazeera is the level of editorial independence the Qatari government affords the network’s management.  Doha provides Al Jazeera with seemingly endless resources to do pursue stories as it pleases, even if that complicates Qatar’s foreign relations.  Qatar is a staunch ally of the United States, even housing one of the largest American military bases in the Persian Gulf, yet permits Al Jazeera to feature guests and carry and editorial narrative that is constantly critical of American policies in the Gulf and towards the Arab/Muslim world at large.  It is hard to envision China permitting such editorial latitude with CNC’s editors.  Furthermore, Al Jazeera’s editorial management, both in Washington at Al Jazeera English and in Doha with its Arabic language service, is comprised of a journalists from around the world.   When Al Jazeera English launched several years ago, it cherry picked top editorial staff from the world’s leading news organizations with the offer of editorial independence.  While the full potential of that promise has predictably fallen short on some levels, overall that editorial freedom is also difficult to envision in Beijing where no such tradition exists.

What China Should Do…

There is a tremendous opportunity out there for a globally focused China-based television network that is essentially an english-language version of Phoenix TV News.  Instead of relying on its old ways of producing media, here’s what China should do:

• Engage the international media in a meaningful debate on the issues by making its government leaders more accessible to the English language media. It took years for the U.S. government to learn this lesson.  Initially, Washington avoided Al Jazeera, prohibiting its officials to appear on the network.  It then realized that by leaving a vacuum in the airspace, it allowed more time for critics to attack the administration for its Mid East policies.  Now, Arabic speaking American diplomats are regular guests on Al Jazeera.  China should follow suit by making media training in English mandatory for certain high level officials and follow the example of Beijing’s top diplomat on Africa Affairs, Liu Guijin, who appears regularly on international television to articulate China’s position and rebuff the government’s critics.

• Ease restrictions on China-based foreign correspondents to travel and access senior officials. I speak with firsthand experience here in how difficult it is to get officials in Beijing to talk on the record, or better yet on camera.  It takes days, even weeks, to get officials to agree to an interview and when they do it’s often accompanied by a long list of restrictions.  By making their officials more accessible to the foreign press corps and allowing journalists to form meaningful relationships with bureaucrats, they will find that the coverage will soften considerably.  The best example of this is in the United States where an extremely close relationship exists between the government and the media and more often than not, that close relationship often benefits the government significantly more than the media.

• Attract the best international journalists from around the world as Al Jazeera did.  To date, the quality of journalist at China’s english language networks is extremely green.  Largely, CCTV9 and BON Live, along with the China Daily and other similar outlets, are populated by journalists who are either too green to get jobs elsewhere or can’t find jobs elsewhere in the global media.  Instead, the Chinese should recruit from CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera and other established networks who have the experience to take China’s television programs to a much more sophisticated level.  Here’s the hard the part though: these experienced journalists will only come if they have assurances that they can truly tell the story as it is.  CNC’s management will have to include some international personnel and they will have to allow a greater degree of editorial freedom than they are accustomed.

In 2009 I was approached by a Hong Kong-based executive recruiter to join BON Live.  At the time, I was the Vice President of editorial affairs at the largest Chinese TV station in North America and I would have no doubt been a good fit for an endeavor like BON Live.  However, when I inquired about the degree of editorial control I would have over the programs I would manage, it was made very clear to me that I would be required to follow the guidance handed down from management on sensitive issues (those “sensitive issues” were not articulated however I knew exactly what they were: Taiwan/Tibet/June 4/etc…).  If China wants to really be taken seriously in the international TV marketplace, it will eventually have to soften those restrictions to allow for journalists with my level of experience to help them tell their very compelling story.

Quite a few blog entries and articles have been posted around the web regarding the CCP’s initiative to “channel public opinion.”  Authors mainly cite two pieces of information:

a) Hu Jintao’s June 20, 2008 speech on the role of news media organizations in undertaking a dialogue between the Party/Government and the public.

b) An August 13, 2009 publication of the All-China Journalist’s Association that discusses guidelines & recommendations for certain agencies that may need to respond to sudden public rancor.

The more I read about the activity of “channeling” in China (kudos to HKU’s China Media Project), the more I start to think of government “spin” in the United States.  China can’t control public opinion, and I believe they don’t seek to do so anymore as much as influence it.  Like any government, it wants to have its version of the story told.

I used to think that the Party had an unfair advantage because it controls the fourth estate so absolutely, but to see the widespread usage of and engagement of internet BBS, Blogs, and SMS information exchange, that sense of unfairness has eased.  And after living through US media coverage of our own government these past 8 years, I don’t find myself as fervently believing our own media’s independence which affects how I view the Party’s efforts at spin control.

For the most part, I view the efforts by the PRC government to build “channeling” skills as an effort to rid propaganda departments of stodgy tired phrases and rigid stubborn personalities.

Additionally, there is an emphasis on preparing for direct participation in public dialogue by officials responsible for activities that come under intense public scrutiny.

The Journalist’s Association article contains the following advice/guidelines:

A) Perceptively finding and compiling relevant information about public opinion.
(B) Correctly discriminating and screening. Ensuring the objectivity of public opinion.
(C) Carrying out tracking of [opinion] activity
(D) Scientific evaluation and analysis. To the highest degree possible,
comprehensively and objectively exposing the current state of public
opinion and what direction it is trending.
(E) Achieving a system
of regular analysis [of public opinion]. Regularly carrying out
assessment and analysis of trends in public opinion, making an
appropriate analysis of the situation.

Ok, so that isn’t the most well written set of guidelines (still a hint of party-speak in there), but it basically spells out a PR crisis response management plan that an corporation, institution and government agency has in the US.

This is not to belittle the issue of self-censorship and the risks of arbitrary imprisonment, but I do think channeling reflects the Party’s own admission that it can only have a voice in most matters, and that it has to take divergent views into consideration before acting.

1) from the Communist Party and government institutions telling the population what to think,

to 2) telling them what they’d like them to think,

to 3) telling them what they are thinking.

This latest stage coincides with the now ubiquitous activity of public opinion surveys in the PRC.

The Communist Party does not see itself as omniscient.  It actively needs to get a read on the population and balance public attitudes and perceptions against the Party’s own interests.  Since the Party’s basic interest is the retention of power and social stability, it can use public opinionto  engage in a dialogue of sorts with the public.  But assessing public opinion is getting harder these days, and it moves at a faster pace than traditional polling can sometimes keep up with.

The China Media Project at the University of Hong Kong provided a translation of a very insightful article that explains how the Party and government agencies believe public opinion can sometimes be a crisis.  The crisis articulated in the article is one of ability to react to meet or confront the opinion.  The root of this is the manner in which opinion can be expressed via the internet or mobile phones – general word of mouth.  Consensus for action among a subset of the population can be reached before the Party and government even understand the root cause.

I found this all the more interesting in light of a speech given by Hu Jintao that Drew Thompson of the Nixon Center wrote about

in his most recent paper on responses to refugee crises in the PRC.  In the paper, Drew highlights the new emergency response

planning that China has implemented which I connect to mass issue incidents that are directly related to crises of public opinion.

While I have moments of viewing this evolution with optimism and pessimism, it is, of course, only half the story because public opinion expressed through surveys and digital communication reflects only the urban and sub-urban population mindset.  There are still another 600 Million individuals who don’t have the same benefit of voice that the 700 Million wired/wireless population has.

To Be Continued….