A good post from Bill Bishop, aka @niubi, arguably the most indispensable China-Twitterer (who I hope forgives me for pigeonholing him this way). Bill points out that much of the recent discussion of China’s soft power strategy has focused on traditional media, and wonders where the new media strategy is:
There are no domestic Chinese Internet firms that have a shot at developing the global impact of a Facebook, Google or even Twitter. First, the language barrier is a real issue; maybe the Confucius Institutes will eventually teach decent Chinese to millions, but that will take decades and even then there will still be vastly more people outside of China more capable of reading English than Chinese.
Second, none of the top Chinese Internet firms-Baidu, Tencent, Sina, Sohu, Shanda, Netease-have either the DNA or the credibility to succeed materially in major overseas markets. In most markets they will face the same kinds of difficulties that Western Internet firms face in China. They may gain share, especially in gaming, in parts of the developing world, but not in any significant way that would have a meaningful impact on the overall soft power goals.
China’s soft power push is likely a boon to western media consultants, cable channel and radio station owners, and advertising sales people, but is the currently strategy flawed to the extent that worries about China’s media soft power efforts are overblown?
Personally, I’d day yes. I agree that the Internet is a big hole in the soft power strategy. As much of a net geek as I am, however, my personal bugbear with China’s soft-power efforts is pop-culture. I think they’d make much better headway by unchaining their popular culture industries from state management and working harder to help them export. But, hey, tie that to a solid Internet strategy and then you’d be talking. Chinese movie stars on Facebook. Solid gold.
Bill includes a bunch of good links to other articles as well.
Links:
Sinocism: Can China Successfully Build Soft Power Without a Global Internet Strategy?
Previously on Imagethief:
Unsolicited advice for Xinhua’s new CNC TV outfit (May, 2010)
i am blown away by china fashion mags, graphics, art, film, history, old spirituality, bands, architecture, fashion … in short, by almost all non-internet expressions of culture … and “soft power” can ride a long ways on that … maybe take awhile to beat american hip hop global influence and style, but that just shows the non-internet influences can be far more influential than internet stuff ..
Will,
David Shambaugh has beat you to the punch on this topic. See IHT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/opinion/08iht-edshambaugh.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y
I did not install a new satellite dish when I moved to my current Shanghai apartment, because I am willing (now, as opposed to 2004 when I first moved here) to give these repackaged Xinhua, CCTV, other mainstram China media, a chance. CCTV 9 set looks like an exact copy of CNN’s, and even the shuffling of papers at lap level is mimicked. I attended a Confucius Institute class in Hawaii last year just to see what propaganda gets served up. It is not much different than any standard Chinese course in Beijing or Shanghai.
The central government would do well to add one soft power distribution channel beyond the movies, cultural arts, etc. All the Chinese citizens now traveling abroad on tours or on business put a face on modern urban Chinese. Maybe the State should be training tour leaders and travel agents to encourage their clients to be good emissaries of the motherland. One could wish for a China version of the Peace Corps, young volunteers working abroad, but I assume there are too many disasters in China needing those very same recently graduated and unemployed young people.
Watching only Chinese language domestic TV does have a benefit: Listening Comprehension improves.
ChangEr, read Bill’s post. It’s largely responding to Shambaugh’s piece in the IHT.
I’m not sure the five internet companies you re-cite are supposed to be anything more than national champions – they’re just the outcome of a defensive strategy to keep the Chinese and English-language internets segregated (and the former more or less under control).
Is Bill Bishop’s point about no Chinese internet pioneer specious? To a large extent I think it is – the big breakthrough internet sites like Facebook and Twitter have all been US-based. China has failed to develop any innovative Web 2.0 platform, but so has every other “national economy”.
But blocking, and failing to develop are two different things and come under two different headings.
Further to which: the issue is more about how China tries to influence discourse ON the (English-language) internet, not whether it spawns some new internet platforms.
I don’t expect any direct massive astroturfing, as 50 US cents still costs a lot more than 50 Chinese cents. But there are plenty of intelligent people in China who could just about blog in English, for example, if they were inclined to. More Wang Jianshuos talking about more subjects, perhaps?