We Cannot Let the US Lead This War of Public Opinion about the South China Sea

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 1 April 2016
by Gang Ding (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Rachel Critelli. Edited by Helaine Schweitzer.
In the war of public opinion between China and the U.S. about the South China Sea, the United States has once again taken a step forward. The New York Times recently published two articles in a row, both having to do with the South China Sea conflict. One of the articles even went into detail describing conversations during an encounter between Chinese and U.S. warships in the South China Sea.

It is not hard to see that the reason that The New York Times can report this is because the United States military provides reporters special interview access and even provides reporters with the names and military ranks of warship officers, including the name of a Chinese American officer. The U.S. military is relying on this Chinese American officer to send Chinese language messages to Chinese warships that are following U.S. warships. Cooperation between the United States military and the media is taking place, of course, not in order to provide neutral reporting. It is taking place to promote the United States' view on the South China Sea and to exaggerate the theoretical threat of the Chinese military.

The New York Times is very supportive of America’s position. The Chinese headline for the article was: “Dangerous Greetings: Encounters Between Chinese and American Warships in The South China Sea.” The article included a detailed description of a high-ranking American military officer’s views on what he called “a tense situation.” The time that the report was published was also specially chosen by The New York Times, which ran the article on the day that President Xi Jinping was to visit the United States. At almost the same time, a news analysis about the South China Sea headlined “Meeting Between Xi and Obama Focuses on the South China Sea — Will China and The US Head Toward Restraint?” was published.

You can imagine that the Internet and international media will now all be quoting these two articles, especially the first one, because it has many seemingly juicy details about the communications between Chinese and U.S. naval vessels. Next, readers of this article will have a more complete understanding of the U.S. position on the South China Sea and might even agree with the newspaper’s suspicions about China’s policies in the South China Sea.

Of course, China’s media can let readers around the world judge for themselves who is truthful and more reasonable by refuting the claims made by The New York Times or by using firsthand information. But today, when things spread rapidly over the Internet, refuting something can sometimes cause the person who is being refuted to receive even more attention and draw an audience to the original article. Doing this can have positive effects, but it will usually have little impact because of an inability to properly set the agenda. In the long term, a passive response implies that any initiative to launch an attack has been abandoned, decreasing the power to influence public opinion.

Within modern arenas of public opinion, controversies are time sensitive, especially controversies about the power to set an agenda. By using key materials and dissemination methods to send out information at key times, you will have already won the battle.

The South China Sea conflict is an important issue in China-U.S. relations and there is no way to get around it. If the Chinese media want to strengthen its ability to effectively promote China’s position on the conflict, then it must have the mentality and ability to set the agenda. Furthermore, the media’s ability to do this requires more support by the government and the military. Imagine, if the reporter from The New York Times didn’t have support from the U.S. military, how could the reporter have acquired so much detailed information?

Taking a step back, we must increase our speed, power and abilities to refute reported information, but even more than that, we need to cultivate the power to set the agenda. The media should recognize that the ability to set the agenda must be elevated to the level of strategy and should become an effective mechanism.

The author is a senior reporter for the People’s Daily and a senior research fellow for Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University.


丁刚:南海舆论战,不能让美国牵着走

2016-04-01 01:26:00环球时报 丁刚 分享 参与
  在中美有关南海问题的舆论战中,美国又先走一步。《纽约时报》近日接连刊发两篇报道,均涉及南海问题。其中一篇还详细引述了中美军舰在南海相遇时的“隔空对话”。
  不难想见,《纽约时报》之所以能有这篇报道,是因为美国海军给了该报记者采访“特权”,甚至提供了舰上军官的军衔与姓名,包括一名华裔军官。美军正是靠着这位华裔军官,向紧随美舰的中国军舰用中文传递了信息。美国方面军媒配合,当然不是为了做一篇中立性的报道,而是为了宣扬他们的“南海观”,渲染“中国军事威胁论”。
  《纽约时报》对美方这一立场也十分配合。这篇报道的中文标题就是《危险的寒暄:当中美战舰在南海遭遇》。文中还详细引述了美军将领对南海所谓“紧张局势”的看法。这篇文章的报道时间也是精心选择的,《纽约时报》安排在习近平主席出访美国时刊发了这篇报道,而该报几乎同时刊发的一篇新闻分析也与南海相关,标题是《“习奥会”聚焦南海,中美走向克制?》
  可以想象,今天很多国家的网络和媒体都会转引这两篇文章,尤其是第一篇,因为它有很多看上去很能“引人入胜”的中美军舰的“对话”细节。接下来,阅读这一报道的读者就会对美国在南海问题上的立场有更为完整了解,甚至会顺着文章报道的思路去质疑中国的南海政策。
  当然,中国媒体可以就此进行反驳,或者拿出自己的第一手材料,去让世界各地的读者判断:谁说的是真话,谁说得更在理。但在互联网高速传播的今天,反驳有时反而会引起受众对被反驳者更多的关注,吸引他们去看原文。这样做会有正面效应,但往往也会陷入因议题设置能力缺失而处于被动境地。长期被动的应对意味着放弃主动“出击”,会导致引领舆论能力的下降。d
  当代舆论场竞争是时效性的竞争,更是议题设置能力的竞争,在关键时候,用关键材料,以关键方式传播出去,就已经先胜一局。
  南海问题是当前中美关系的一个重要话题,无法回避。中国媒体要想在这一问题上增强中国声音的传播效果,必须要有抢先设置话题的意识和能力。而媒体的这一能力也需要得到政府和军方更多的支持。试想,《纽约时报》记者如果没有美国军方的支持,怎么可能得到那么多具体信息呢?
  从长远看,我们需要增强反驳的时效性、强度和能力,但更需要培育议题设置能力。媒体的议题设置能力应当上升到战略层面去认识,并形成一个有效的机制。(作者是人民日报社高级记者和人大重阳金融研究院高级研究员)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Afghanistan: The Trump Problem

Russia: Political Analyst Reveals the Real Reason behind US Tariffs*

Israel: Trump’s National Security Adviser Forgot To Leave Personal Agenda at Home and Fell

Topics

Israel: Trump’s National Security Adviser Forgot To Leave Personal Agenda at Home and Fell

Afghanistan: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Russia: Political Analyst Reveals the Real Reason behind US Tariffs*

Poland: Meloni in the White House. Has Trump Forgotten Poland?*

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Japan: US Administration Losing Credibility 3 Months into Policy of Threats

Related Articles

Afghanistan: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Japan: US Administration Losing Credibility 3 Months into Policy of Threats

Ukraine: Trump Faces Uneasy Choices on Russia’s War as His ‘Compromise Strategy’ Is Failing

2 COMMENTS

  1. China is bullying the other 5 claimants about their territory in the South China Sea. You can’t just manufacture good publicity by intimidating and stealing from others. Why not just agree to settle this peacefully by arbitration? The U.S. has no claims in the region except to uphold freedom of navigation that is centuries old. 🙂

  2. Veterans of anti-war movements in the United States are very familiar with the hypocritical slogans ( always a variation on ” freedom ” )and self-serving propaganda- and the subservient news media – of United States imperialism. It seems that every other week the U.S. war machine discovers a new arch-enemy- villain somewhere on the planet . As an ordinary citizen -with no ” investment ” in U.S. imperialism – I do not want the military industrial complex of this country to determine my ” enemy list ” : people who have never offended me in any way.
    It is reasonable to assume that islands off the coast of China are very much the business of the Chinese. We already know that the U.S. ” war on terrorism ” is mostly a cover for the New Colonialism.
    So far only Democrat Bernie Sanders shows support for the anti-war movement in this country. Hillary Clinton is too hawkish
    [ http://radicalrons.blogspot.com ]