Great wall of media



When the Indian media interacts with the Western press, there isn’t much talk about journalism per se. It’s about the kind of stories being pursued, anecdotes and, increasingly, about the parlous state of Western print journalism.

When the Indian media interacts with the Chinese press, it’s an exploration of life between the inhabitants of two different worlds.

The first round of an India-China media dialogue sponsored by the two foreign ministries was held this week in New Delhi. Beijing and New Delhi have both gotten into this business – there are other unofficial media dialogues as well – because both media are becoming increasingly belligerent in their coverage of each other.

I’ve noticed a widespread view among Chinese officials that government-to-government relations are fine; the real problem is the jingoism of the Indian media, especially the television stations.

One of the issues I and others raised was the nature of the media in China and how different it was from the Indian variety. The Chinese participants at the roundtable admitted they were all state-owned, many were state-financed or their seed capital had come from the government, and that many senior journalists were members of the Chinese Communist Party.

India, with some 90,000 newspapers and magazines, has no state-owned newspapers and only one state-owned TV news channel – out of about 400.

I argued that the structure of Chinese media meant it was often difficult for Indian media to determine whether, say, the nationalistic Global Times was speaking for itself, for the government or just reproducing some scholar’s point of view. The same was doubly true for state-owned television.

A number of Chinese argued that the iron hand of government censorship was rusting away. They made these points:
One, the print and to a lesser extent the electronic media was driven by market forces. Beijing no longer provided direct funds.

Two, Beijing did offer “guidelines” on news coverage to the Chinese media. But these were often ignored, especially if the demands of the market were in play. The government, in any case, did little more than wag a finger when they broke the guidelines.

Three, as one Chinese scholar noted, Beijing’s concerns were really about domestic issues, not foreign policy. India was not the type of topic they would get guidelines about.

Four, broadly the trend was a loosening of government controls in China over the media. The rise of social media, entry of foreign players, and so on was leading Beijing to slacken off on its controls. It wasn’t freedom, but there was a bit of Middle Kingdom spring in the air.

The Indians were skeptical that a newspaper wholly owned by a government could really have that much leeway. In any case, editors were chosen by the Beijing authorities so the control was in the form of choosing seniors who could be expected to hew to the party line.

Another key and palpable difference was attitudes towards government. On hearing from Indian journalists that they didn’t necessarily trust their Ministry of External Affairs on foreign policy, an astounded Chinese TV correspondent said, “But we completely trust our government on foreign policy. How can you not do so?”

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
  • anil

    Aftyer all the scams and corruption if you still have no word against Congress than you must be one of them!

    [Reply]

  • Abu Ahmed

    All scams of the Congress has a very high percentage of its allies as well as opposition politicians neck-deep in the scum along with it. that would help it retain its hold on power at the next hustings.

    [Reply]

  • Raghavendra

    i feel this writer either has limited knowledge of indian politics or she is under illusion that only congress party would be voted at the center and no body else.
    whole india knows how these parties maintaining distance from the BJP would behave if that party crosses the mark of 170 lok sabha seats . if congress party can get more than 200 lok sabha seats quite un expectedly then i feel BJP can always get around 170-175 seats . the day that happens the likes of mulayam, communists aided indirectly by SONIA BHAKT CONGRESS would require to do all kind of political circus to save this country from what they shout as COMMUNAL FORCES.

    [Reply]

  • Ymethink

    What Indian Media forgot to tell Chinese Media was that the Indian main stream media was relatively dishonest on reporting the truth when it comes to Narendra Modi (SC gave a clean chit) but on the other hand the actual criminals like Azam Khan are willingly covered up using flowery language. In China State guides media to look after public agenda and interest, the proof is China has managed to reduce poverty and improved the living standard. In India main stream media choose its own interest at the expense of the public agenda meaning protect government with lies and planted stories. The classic case being Gujarat riots of 2002 when the Mainstream Media forget to mention the involvement of Congress that used minority cell in Gujarat to flame the train carriage in which 58 real people got burnt to death, a fact proved in the court. However in the case of planned riots 2013, UP; the mainstream media try to absolve Akhilesh Yadav and Azam Khan who actually created the situation to kill 50 or so of its own people and displace over 50,000. instead of addressing the question who actually lit the fire physically with meticulous planning over the period of 18 month, media started orchestrating BJP’s Amit Shah. Basic truth is that Chinese Media is conscious to help citizens with State information. Indian Media consciously support the state to enforce brutality against its own citizens for shear appeasement politics.

    [Reply]