Second, this whole affair has been a classic example of “PR-ing the problem.” By that I mean taking an undesirable situation (from the Chinese government’s point of view) and, instead of defusing it, exacerbating it and drawing attention to it in counterproductive ways. When journalists from even non-western international news organizations are tweeting from your press conference that you have a massive PR fail, there is trouble. The net result of the whole exercise has been the transformation of last Friday’s ceremony in Oslo into a high profile global referendum on China and human rights, and the transformation of Liu Xiabo himself into a figure of increasingly incandescent martyrdom. Against this kind of thing, tactical soft power projects like Xinhua CNC and the Confucius Centers have little impact.

A friend of mine believes that the Chinese government is completely unconcerned with international audiences and that everything it does is calibrated for internal audiences. I disagree. The recent major investment in soft power projects, or in at least the news-based aspect of it represented by Xinhua CNC and the other overseas news organizations, suggests that the Chinese are acutely aware of the need to woo international audiences. And if they’re not, they should be. China’s economy is now globalized, and the attitudes of especially western audiences toward China have the ability to influence critical things like trade and commercial policy. I expect, however, that there is a tricky balancing act between internal and external communication, which are increasingly hard to keep separate, and likely very different points of view on communication within different parts of the Chinese government

One of the challenges that China will face is that its major soft power investments appear to be predicated on a belief that the key problem is that international audiences don’t get enough exposure to the Chinese point of view. But what if that’s not the problem? What if the problem is that key international audiences are receiving the Chinese point of view but don’t like it very much? If that’s the case, a bigger pipe for delivering the kind of angry material we’ve seen from state media over the past week or two (see the Global Times links below) doesn’t sound like a great solution. (I should point out for the record that I think the issue of nation-state soft power is way too complex to be developed solely through things like news delivery. For more on that, see my write-up of the recent Capital-M Trialogue conversation with Kaiser Kuo, David Wolf and me.)

Assuming releasing Liu was a non-starter, a more “soft power” approach to the Nobel situation would have been to calmly express disappointment with the original nomination on the basis that it recognizes someone convicted under Chinese law (we can debate the possible interpretations of that some other time, but it’s the position the Chinese government has to take), withdraw from the ceremony, and propose a list of several internationally acceptable Chinese and, better yet, Asian candidates for recognition (not Chi Haotian). Then stay cool, at least internationally. Reserve any fire breathing for the domestic audiences.

This would have meant some serious biting of tongues, but biting your tongue is a critical and often underrated part of the art of PR.

Other reading:

Update:

Evan Osnos (@eosnos on Twitter), of the New Yorker, is one of the best Western journalists working in China today. His comments on the Nobel situation are well worth reading.

Readers in America: When was the last time any of you went to a Confucius Center? I thought so. How about watched a Chinese television program or a Chinese movie that wasn’t directed by Zhang Yimou or Chen Kaige? See any Chinese brands last time you walked down the street? Ever had an American tell you they think Hu Jintao is super cool? Driven a Chinese car lately? Right. Whereas here, people feast on American pop culture (especially TV and movies), the street corners are a plague of American fast food labels and Buick is an aspirational brand. Leaving aside your opinions as to the value of McDonalds and Starbucks as ambassadors of American values, let’s not get all hysterical about the Confucius Centers or wallow in insecurity about America’s cultural influence until poor American refugees start seeking a better life in Fujian.

In fact, China’s government is well aware of its soft-power deficit with regard to the US (see also this article on Danwei), and has been investing in building up its capabilities. International news is one of the key areas of investment, thus the revamping and expansion of China’s foreign-language media organizations. This has included a refresh of the venerable China Daily, the launch of the surprisingly interesting English edition of the Global Times, the revamping of CCTV’s English language station, and more. Most recently, the Wall Street Journal has an interesting story about Xinhua’s plans to roll out an international television news service:

China’s state news agency announced the launch of a global English-language television channel, part of a broader international push by the country’s government media aimed at countering the dominance of Western news outlets and conveying a Chinese perspective on events.

Xinhua news agency said trial broadcasts of the new 24-hour TV service, called China Network Corp., or CNC, will start Saturday, and the station will be fully operational July 1. CNC will be available by satellite, cable systems, the Internet and cellphones, Xinhua said, and will carry a range of programming on news, business and lifestyle issues.

“CNC will offer an alternative source of information for a global audience and aims to promote peace and development by interpreting the world in a global perspective,” Xinhua quoted its president, Li Congjun, as saying at a launch ceremony Friday.

Well, maybe.

I fully understand and even support the motivation behind this. China is a globally important country and has a right to be represented in international media. And as American news media continues its slow-motion implosion, you’d think this would be a good time for them to make their move. Nevertheless, I have a history of rolling my eyes at Chinese efforts to improve their international media efforts. This is not because I am some kind of cynical bastard (although that might also be true) or because I doubt China’s technical competence (I do not). It is because I feel that the natural control-freak inclinations of the Chinese government toward media essentially preclude any ability to develop a news organization with real, international credibility.

The objective–the real objective–is important. If the goal is simply to further disseminate the usual propaganda, then fine, they can do whatever they want. They’ll all feel good about themselves. But no one will watch.

If, on the other hand, the goal is to develop an international media organization that can compete with what’s already offered in English and offer a legitimately different but respectable perspective, then they’ll need to break their traditional mold a bit. Al Jazeera is perhaps the model here. It emerged from a country and region not known for a liberal approach to media and established itself as a serious and credible news organization largely on the back of its Iraq and Afghan war coverage. It did so while still presenting a point of view that was a clear alternative to most western media. They were helped along by some good journalism and slick packaging.

I don’t want to overwork the comparison. For one thing, Al Jazeera has had its problems (including serious personnel issues at their English service a couple of years ago). China certainly has the resources to try something similar to Al Jazeera, but it has some very different political and institutional factors to wrestle with than Qatar did. Also, the world isn’t necessarily screaming for an Asian alternative. Remember, Singapore has already tried the international TV news stunt with Channel News Asia, and it has had only modest international success at best. Even Al Jazeera kind of limped along for several years until it found its purpose and voice after 9/11 and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. One hesitates to imagine a Chinese news organization blossoming in the heat of such a controversial international incident.

So with all that in mind, here are a few things I think China should do if it is really serious about launching a successful international television news network.

Base it in Hong Kong
Let’s face it, as wonderful as Beijing is, nobody is going to take a Beijing-headquartered international news organization seriously. By my thorough calculations, credibility will increase by the square of the distance from Zhongnanhai. This will be especially true if your parent organization is formally a branch of the Central Publicity Department, as Xinhua is. Technically that probably makes Lima or Buenos Aires the best option, but since those might be impractical, how about Hong Kong? Hong Kong is an established media hub with a veneer of press freedom that will be important in helping a new network to establish itself. It’s visa situation will be easier for pundits and professionals, especially the foreigners (see the next point). And, hey, it’s still China, right? Beijing has no trouble calling the shots in Legco, so it could probably manage a Hong Kong-based media organization without too much headache.

Hire pros to do it
Al Jazeera raided the BBC Arabic service when it started, and then raided the BBC again when it started its English service. China should do something similar. There are a lot of good, unemployed journalists around these days, including TV journalists. Avoid the second-stringers and discount talent and hire some heavy hitters for the editing and mainstream talent. Go for some recognizable brand-names. This will be hard because most such people won’t want to work in a Chinese news organization. Basing it in Hong Kong will help, but people will have to believe it will be doing serious journalism.

Also, make sure the production values are competitive with the best out there. No college broadcasting, please.

Cover China for real
This is another area where the Al Jazeera comparison breaks down. Al Jazeera was able to concede limits to its ability to cover its patron’s country, Qatar. Fortunately for them, nobody outside Qatar much cares what happens there, and there are plenty of sexier, more powerful and weirder places in the Gulf, let alone the broader middle East.

This won’t work for China, however. China is pretty much story number one out of Asia these days. How a Chinese international news network covers China will be a key part of how it is evaluated by audiences. The real test will come when, inevitably, such an organization has to cover a serious disaster or bout of civil unrest in China. What plays domestically will not play internationally, especially when people are comparing the coverage to other international media organizations. With all due respect to the Chinese people, who have been poorly served by foreign media on more than one occasion, most people outside of China–even non-Westerners–don’t spend their time grumbling about how crappy and one-sided coverage of China is. So don’t waste too much energy tilting at that particular windmill.

I’m not sure how China could manage this. It might have to credential its own news organization’s China journalists as foreign media. Now wouldn’t that be something.

Less scolding, more seduction
We understand that this operation is there to present China’s point of view, but a little bit of nuance is called for. Sometimes, the organization is going to have to cover the Dalai Lama, or Rebiyah Kadeer, Taiwan’s DPP, or other people the Chinese government finds distasteful. The moment the announcers start slipping into hostile language about black elements, jackals (jackals always get a bad rap), splittist criminals, etc. it’s all over. By all means, be more sympathetic to the Chinese government point of view, but do without with the theatrical, throwback language that alienates foreigners and reminds people that the propaganda mission always comes first. Find articulate, polished spokespeople to present the Chinese government point of view and let them, rather than the journalists or newsreaders, present the government’s points.

Don’t forget the rest of the world
It shouldn’t be all China, all the time. Global news organizations report on, yes, the globe. If the big news of the day is from somewhere outside of China, let’s make sure we don’t lead with what the Standing Committee did today, in protocol order, and doesn’t Uncle Wen look nice with the bouquet those schoolgirls gave him. That means opening a lot of bureaus and sending hardcore journalists to interesting places. With many western media organizations in retreat, there are plenty of parts of the globe that could and should be covered better, and where China might get better access than Western media organizations. Africa and Central Asia come to mind. China has the resources and can do this if it wants to.

Or it could all be a fantasy. I’d be interested to see China come up with something polished, interesting and watchable. There have certainly been signs of life from corners of the Chinese English-language media in the last few years. But given the history, especially in the heavily state-managed regime of television, it’s hard to be optimistic.

Is this a new direction for Chinese soft-power? Does the China Daily know? They may have to get their pseudo-Italian-sex-fiend column or risk being left behind.

More here, if you must.

Update:

First, word has it that this was apparently sanctioned as part of the Global Times’ metro desk, which says a lot for the intrepidity of the foreigners currently working there, although not so much about the quality of the editing or the importance of the metro desk.

Second, the Wall Street Journal’s “China Real Time” blog, who’s authors were apparently watching the discussion on Twitter these evening, has just pointed the cannon at this, writing,

We can’t help but doubt that this is actually the voice that China’s internationally ambitious media masters want to project.

Indeed. Once the hijinks are embarrassing the Global Times in the eyes of important foreign media (even uppity, Western media), the editing standards may tighten up a bit. The good news for “Alessandro” is that even if he’s ejected from the Global Times, there will probably be a space in the blogosphere for him, somewhere on the same block as the late Chinabounder.

Speaking of photo-essays on bikini girls, Imagethief was surprised to find a very interesting article on online censorship in China in the English edition of the Global Times. I mention bikini girls here (for the third time, you’ll notice) not just to boost my search returns, although that will be a side benefit, but because at the foot of every page of this article was a link to a photo feature on “Sexy and Hot Philippine Beauties” provided by, yes, Xinhua. QED. The spread is here, if you must. Too much makeup for my taste, but, hey, to each their own.

If you’ve had your moment with the…alright, a fourth insertion would be gratuitous…the Global Times article is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, the source. The Chinese version of the Global Times is a fiery and thoroughly patriotic tabloid companion to the correct but turgid People’s Daily. The English version, launched last year, is among the slickest of the English language newspapers in China, and is a bit less flag waving than its Chinese companion. But it’s still a Party publication. The second surprise is the unexpected depth of the story and the conspicuous absence of the official point of view, which is heavy on the primacy of maintaining social harmony and purifying the Internet. The focus of the article is on the costs of censorship to regular net users and entrepreneurs.

The Global Times hedges its bets a bit, with the entire first page focusing on the censorship applied by popular forum Douban, but dig a bit deeper into the story and it gets to the heart of how the Chinese government censors websites. It is not, as many people think, primarily technological, but rather a complex system of rules that are so vague and inconsistently applied that Chinese websites self-censor ruthlessly rather than risk joining the growing list of sites shut down as object lessons:

What’s worse [than waiting for the call from the autorities, said website operator Zoe Wang] was the complete absence of clear-cut rules for deciding whether or not to delete an online post.

“The criterion of sensitivity depends on many aspects such as the political environment, the website’s background, size and location, as well as the different understandings of Web masters.”

Douban was extraordinarily cautious about its content as it had no background or ties to government, according to a source close to an editor at the site.

“Once you’re shut down, nobody can save you,” the source said.

No editor from Douban would go on the record when the Global Times contacted them.

“Douban recalls clearly the fate of Fanfou, Yeeyan and Blogbus,” Fang said.

They were three of the most well-known mainland websites closed down last year, according to the Southern Metropolis Weekly. The latter two were recovered in January.

Fanfou founder Wang Xing was pondering how much to up censorship during the July 5 Xinjiang riot last year when he got his answer.

The Twitter-style microblogging service for 100,000 registered users was closed down almost immediately for “violating related rules”, according to the China Business News Weekly.

Wang hasn’t given up hope of bringing Fanfou back some day. Seven months on, Wang still refused to comment.

It’s well worth reading the whole thing, and, considering the source, a welcome compliment to the western media’s tendency to focus on the (admittedly important) technological aspects of Internet censorship in China, and the heavily mythologized 30,000 Internet police.  As secret police forces through the years have known, uncertainty and paranoia are very powerful and very simple tools for keeping people in line.

See also:

• China Real Time Report: Report looks at China’s online censorship
• Digicha: “Publish and be deleted” – The Global Times on censorship in China

Previously:

• What to make of Edwin Maher? (December, 2007 – Opens on the old Imagethief blog)