HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020529.jpg
2.1 MB
Extraction Summary
4
People
8
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Government/congressional report
File Size:
2.1 MB
Summary
This document appears to be page 70 of a House Oversight report detailing Chinese foreign influence operations, specifically focusing on the relationship between US think tanks and Chinese state media. It describes how outlets like CCTV, Xinhua, and CGTN interact with American scholars, including instances of censorship, the fabrication of a positive op-ed by Xinhua to misrepresent an analyst's views, and the payment of $150 fees by CGTN to incentivize favorable coverage. The text highlights the varying strategies US analysts use to mitigate these risks, ranging from refusing interviews to insisting on live broadcasts to prevent editing.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Unnamed US think-tank analysts | Interview Subjects/Scholars |
Various scholars interviewed for the report regarding their interactions with Chinese state media.
|
| Unnamed Female Scholar | Analyst |
Reported that Xinhua drafted a fake positive op-ed in her name; also noted CGTN pays for interviews.
|
| Unnamed Male Scholar | Analyst |
Reports giving frequent interviews to CCTV/CGTN/Xinhua; claims he has never been censored.
|
| Unnamed Male Scholar | Analyst |
Had pieces commissioned by Global Times spiked due to controversial content.
|
Organizations (8)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| US Think Tanks |
General category of institutions being analyzed.
|
|
| CCTV |
Chinese state media outlet conducting interviews.
|
|
| CGTN |
Chinese Global Television Network; noted for paying interview fees.
|
|
| Xinhua |
Chinese state news agency; accused of fabricating an op-ed.
|
|
| People’s Daily |
Chinese state media outlet.
|
|
| Shanghai Media Group |
Chinese media outlet.
|
|
| Global Times |
Chinese newspaper that commissioned but spiked op-eds.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Implied source/recipient of document via footer stamp.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where US think tanks hold public events flooded by Chinese media.
|
|
|
Context of media origin and publishing location.
|
Relationships (1)
US Think Tank Analysts
→
Adversarial/Transactional
→
Chinese Media (CCTV, Xinhua, CGTN)
Analysts use strategies to avoid censorship; some accept payment ($150) but face content restrictions; others refuse interaction entirely.
Key Quotes (5)
"the Chinese media undertake such distortions in a far more systematic manner, with a pointed political agenda that is usually determined by the government’s current political 'line.'"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020529.jpg
Quote #1
"he knows he may be censored in 'inappropriate ways.'"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020529.jpg
Quote #2
"Xinhua then drafted a full, positive-sounding op-ed in her name, which they planned to publish without her approval."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020529.jpg
Quote #3
"She noted that CGTN pays $150 per interview."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020529.jpg
Quote #4
"CGTN also indicated that she should be 'more like' another think-tank analyst who had become a regular on CGTN."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020529.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,971 characters)
70
increasingly flood public events put on by US think tanks in Washington, using the
events as press conferences and to pose leading questions. While Western reporters are
not immune to this type of behavior, the Chinese media undertake such distortions
in a far more systematic manner, with a pointed political agenda that is usually
determined by the government’s current political “line.”
events as press conferences and to pose leading questions. While Western reporters are
not immune to this type of behavior, the Chinese media undertake such distortions
in a far more systematic manner, with a pointed political agenda that is usually
determined by the government’s current political “line.”
With this in mind, US think-tank analysts have developed a varied set of approaches
to their interactions with the Chinese media. Some see the Chinese media as an
opportunity to get their views across to the Chinese public, even though, as one think
tanker acknowledges, he knows he may be censored in “inappropriate ways.” Another
stated that despite the obvious biases, he still gives a lot of interviews—to CCTV,
CGTN, Xinhua, People’s Daily, and the Shanghai Media Group, among them. At least
one claims that while he does frequent CGTN interviews, he has never been censored.
to their interactions with the Chinese media. Some see the Chinese media as an
opportunity to get their views across to the Chinese public, even though, as one think
tanker acknowledges, he knows he may be censored in “inappropriate ways.” Another
stated that despite the obvious biases, he still gives a lot of interviews—to CCTV,
CGTN, Xinhua, People’s Daily, and the Shanghai Media Group, among them. At least
one claims that while he does frequent CGTN interviews, he has never been censored.
Several US think-tank scholars indicate that they keep track of their interviews, and if
they are misquoted, they stop speaking to that journalist. One notes that he refuses to
do interviews on sensitive political issues, such as party congresses. Another indicates
he will only do live television as a hedge against being censored, while another
indicates he will only be interviewed in written email form. Two analysts refuse to
give interviews to Chinese media at all, with the exception of those that occur in
the immediate aftermath of a public talk when an analyst is approached by Chinese
journalists. In one case, an analyst reported that Xinhua conducted an in-person
background interview after she refused to write an op-ed, but she was willing to share
her views (which were negative). Xinhua then drafted a full, positive-sounding op-ed
in her name, which they planned to publish without her approval. She successfully
blocked it, and her institute now has a blanket ban on interviews with the Chinese
press unless there is a special reason. This is intended to send a message that they do
not believe the Chinese media can be trusted.
they are misquoted, they stop speaking to that journalist. One notes that he refuses to
do interviews on sensitive political issues, such as party congresses. Another indicates
he will only do live television as a hedge against being censored, while another
indicates he will only be interviewed in written email form. Two analysts refuse to
give interviews to Chinese media at all, with the exception of those that occur in
the immediate aftermath of a public talk when an analyst is approached by Chinese
journalists. In one case, an analyst reported that Xinhua conducted an in-person
background interview after she refused to write an op-ed, but she was willing to share
her views (which were negative). Xinhua then drafted a full, positive-sounding op-ed
in her name, which they planned to publish without her approval. She successfully
blocked it, and her institute now has a blanket ban on interviews with the Chinese
press unless there is a special reason. This is intended to send a message that they do
not believe the Chinese media can be trusted.
The opportunity to earn money through interviews was mentioned by one scholar. She
noted that CGTN pays $150 per interview. The network warned her, however, that if
she was too critical of the Chinese government, she would not be invited back. CGTN
also indicated that she should be “more like” another think-tank analyst who had
become a regular on CGTN.
noted that CGTN pays $150 per interview. The network warned her, however, that if
she was too critical of the Chinese government, she would not be invited back. CGTN
also indicated that she should be “more like” another think-tank analyst who had
become a regular on CGTN.
Writing and Publishing in China
The majority of the think-tank analysts who have been interviewed for this section
have refused to write op-eds for Chinese newspapers, with several stating that they
have had bad experiences in which content has been censored. One scholar reports
several instances of pieces being commissioned by Global Times, only to have his piece
spiked after submission because of its controversial content. Others, however, have
have refused to write op-eds for Chinese newspapers, with several stating that they
have had bad experiences in which content has been censored. One scholar reports
several instances of pieces being commissioned by Global Times, only to have his piece
spiked after submission because of its controversial content. Others, however, have
Think Tanks
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020529
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document