The Economist ran an article on CCTV, China’s state broadcaster last week titled ‘The Pathetic Fallacy‘. In it is the common perception and prejudice of the broadcaster, everything from a fire that led to the HR change at the top management to the role that CCTV plays in stifling the truth and the mediocre programs it makes.
Though there is a lot of truth in the article, but it doesn’t quite capture the full picture of CCTV and TV in general in China. Of course CCTV is not the flag bearer of journalistic integrity and balanced reporting. But ironically it is the only TV outlet in China that can expose injustice to the masses. In the past 5 years or so, CCTV has taken quite a different route than it has ever done (reflecting a more significant but incremental shift in the government’s approach). The broadcaster has started to engage in critical investigative journalism, especially in exposing malfeasance in small cities and villages where the local authorities are particularly corrupt and iron-fisted. Cases of mining accidents, unlawful land seizure and tainted food are exposed on the national stage. Of course, many brave journalists and the public are often the ones who do the ground work. CCTV only picks it up when it gets green light from the authorities, but the fact is that CCTV is the only mass media outlet that has exclusive access to report local malfeasance and corporate misconduct. And it helps Beijing scrutinise and expose some of the outrageously corrupt local officials whose misconducts are otherwise covered up locally.
Besides its decreed status and access, CCTV also has China’s best media talents. That brings us to the quality of its programs. The Economist was right about its often languid programs. A powerful example is the national evening news where footage of politbureau meetings run for half an hour. But on the other hand, the cash-rich broadcaster has resources to invest in programs as long as it chooses to do so. In fact, there has been a marked face lift and substantial quality improvement to CCTV’s programs. Part of the reason is that it has been losing audience and advertising revenue to local channels. Combined with its special role in China as well as talent pool, the result is substance and depth in programs compared to most local stations. But unfortunately, very little of its revealing and intellectually challenging programs get shown on CCTV 9, CCTV’s English channel. It prefers not to air China’s dirty laundry to the world.
Like the Economist, many well-intentioned outsiders worry about a population that watches CCTV, but the real worry seems to be a population that religiously tune into Chinese versions of American Idol and Dancing with the Stars on local channels.
« Prev：China’s Creative Community and Youth Culture: Interview with Adam Schokora Migrant Worker Blogger：Next »
June 3, 2009 9:10 am
I think the Economist’s focus on good or bad misses the point. The bigger issue is: open competition and free expression. Most US TV nightly news programs are pretty bad (shallow soundbite reporting, populist bent), but they have the right be mediocre as they see fit, in order to cater to their chosen customer market segments accordingly. And, other media outlets (Wall Street Journal, NY Times, etc) have the free right to step up and provide worthwhile reporting and analysis as an alternative.
Most western news organizations view critical monitoring of the government – especially the Federal government – as one of their primary societal duties. Federal government control of all the primary national media outlets is a necessity for totalitarian regimes to survive, but completely incompatible with the concept of democratic republics. I.E. as long as the governing concepts used by China and most of the West are so diametrically different, the media markets and outlets will be, too.
June 3, 2009 12:28 pm
and that’s why Jenny Zhu needs her own tv show !
June 3, 2009 2:39 pm
@Prez Life,
Well said. Step by step. TV in China is an area that even Rupert Murdoch backed out after 10 years of hard work and burning tons of cash.
June 3, 2009 2:41 pm
@Brett,
^_^
June 5, 2009 12:33 am
What happened to my comment about Tiananmen 1989? Was it sensured?
June 5, 2009 2:00 am
I mean censored, of course.
June 5, 2009 5:17 am
Hey! There it is. I can see my original post now. I couldn’t see it for a while, and new posts where printet, so I jumped to conclusions. Great! :p
June 7, 2009 7:29 am
the Jenny Zhu radio show broadcasting Monday to Friday !
Imagine, callers from all over the world !
June 7, 2009 11:00 pm
Hi Knut,
There is no coverage in Chinese media. But I have watched and read several special reports on overseas media. In a CNN interview, a man who took part in the movement said despite what happened, he believes change has been taking place and substantial change will eventually come. Very encouraging words especially coming from someone like that.
June 7, 2009 11:27 pm
Living in China for the past couple of years, I have to agree that CCTV 9 can be somewhat one sided, it also gives us human interest stories and great ideas for travelling within China.
American stations also have their moments of propaganda.
June 8, 2009 9:07 pm
So does Chinesepod/Jenny Zhu have an opinion on it’s investment in twitter technology only for the government to scupper your ship? This in addition to blocking youtube, and you having to use alternative video sharing sites. Is it time for you guys to make a political stance or should Chinese E-companies to move into Hong Kong where websites arent blocked?
June 9, 2009 9:20 am
@Russell,
I think a free environment is what we all desire, but when you have a vested interest here and have things to lose, it is not that easy.
June 10, 2009 3:43 am
The thing that most people in the ‘west’ are either completely blind to or choose to ignore is that the so called ‘free-press’ is actually riddled full of propaganda. The difference? *State* propaganda in China, *Commercial* propaganda in ‘western’ capitalist states. For example, is there any true free and open debate in the press about the capitalist system itself in the US or UK? Or the actual ‘democratic systems’ of government we have? Nope, virtually none whatsoever. Criticism is only acceptable and published in a very narrow frame that serves to maintain the idea the capitalism and the current forms of democracy are not only the best systems but that they are the only systems available! There are plenty of examples of journalists and writers losing their job, their career and all sorts of opportunities for stepping outside this framework. Of course we love shopping so who’s complaining!
And the term “free-press”?! Patently ridiculous. Media companies that claim to be ‘serious’ news outlets actually generate approximately 75% of their revenue from advertising, so who do they really cater for? Commercial interest & their shareholders. Their business is NOT delivering news to the the readers / listens, it IS delivering readers / listeners to their advertisers.
Interesting also is that in China as far as I understand it many (perhaps most?) people are actually familiar with the unspoken codes and can tell easily what is state propaganda and what it really means. On the other hand commercial propaganda is just so insidious that most people simply have no idea that they are subject to it.
June 18, 2009 6:52 am
puerhan should be the first guest on your radio show !
June 18, 2009 9:51 am
@puerhan,
Your point about the tacit understanding that people have is spot-on. But some might argue that that is precisely the great tragedy because most people withdraw from what would move a society forward. It was interesting to watch CNN and MSNBC’s reports during the 20th anni*** of the T*M movement. When asked if they are still hopeful of substantial change to the system, the Chinese who actively took part in it all said as incremental as it is, change has come and will eventually take root in China.
June 19, 2009 5:49 am
Yes I certainly agree that it could well a great tragedy. Apathy is very dangerous!
best wishes.
July 16, 2009 1:38 am
Here in Germany, CCTV is quite popular – among soccer aficionados. On CCTV (via web) you can follow games that otherwise only run on Pay TV.
That leads to another, more interesting question: Isn’t the business model “TV station” already of declining attractiveness? When I can access all the content I want via the net and usually directly from the source? I myself haven’t watched TV for quite a while now. I sometimes rent DVDs, the rest comes straight from the web.
July 21, 2009 3:58 pm
@henning,
That’s way cool! A boomerang effect. I think charging for European leagues will cause a revolt in China since there are more soccer fans than Communists.
July 29, 2009 1:46 pm
God I can’t believe anyone would watch CCTV-9. Poor English commentators such as Liang Hong and worst everything is censored. A commentator will front a super foggy background and tell you how wonderful the environment is. What shit! Do they think we are Chinese and have no education about the world about us????
July 29, 2009 1:52 pm
What I feel most sympathetic to is the attempt by amateurs like James Chao, Annie Fu and others in an attempt to build a career of credibility which all worldwide broadcasters need to expound on the propaganda of the CCP.
August 4, 2009 12:18 pm
@Daiweisi,
Why ‘sympathetic’? Where else could someone anchor the national news (be it on CCTV 9 and watched by no one) without spending ten years in a local station first?
December 28, 2009 12:38 am
fascinating There is at this time quite a lot of information around this theme around and about on the net and some are for the most part superior than others. You have caught the detail here just right which makes for a uplifting change – thanks.
April 11, 2010 7:57 pm
i want cctv detailes and price list send immedietly