Jump to content

Talk:CGTN (TV channel)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Hi everyone

I have edited and expanded this page about CCTV-9 as I am a regular viewer by satellite and interested in media matters.

I have tried to be as objective as possible regarding the station but I welcome comments and feedback to improve the page further.

That aside do readers have any comments on their perceptions of CCTV-9?

My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that there is a subtle level of propaganda and censorship but it is not overt and you have to be consciously looking for it most of the time. It certainly is nowhere near the levels that used to exist on Radio Beijing 20 years ago but maybe in a sense this subtlety is actually worse because it is less noticeable.

CCTV-9 is not alone in putting a particular slant on the news. Many sat tv outlets do the same in a variety of different ways. For example look at Fox News for a right wing slant to US news, or Channelnewsasia in its lack of criticism of the Singapore Government.

I look forward to reading some feedback about CCTV-9 here

cheers Pberrett 10:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I have seen much more than news on this channel. I have seen much art programming, even long 40 minutes programs which are part of an even longer series on the same subject. I have seen entertainment programs also. Unfortunately there are editors who DO NOT WANT IT KNOWN when these programs occur. Twice I have added a link to the schedule; twice it was removed. FOR THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO KNOW:
HERE IS THE PROGRAM SCHEDULE.1archie99 (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's true CCTV9 aren't alone in injecting a prejudice to news reporting, but they are opnely owned and operated as state-television and thus suffer from the type of reporting you'd associate with Orwell's 1984. Cannot be trusted as a geo-political news source to a greater extent than any media outlet in the US. Only ever delivers content approved by gov't censors, and simply airs voice-of-the-government content where everything in the country appears rosy. Problems are apparently a "foreign" thing, with the occasional exception of corruption, AIDS and crime, but even then the gov't is still portrayed as combating these issues diligently.

Hi, I want to second the above comment. Fox and other mainstream media have their biases, but they don't blatantly misreport or mislead in order to serve the state. On those occasions when they get caught being dishonest or biased, they are exposed and held accountable to their audiences. Vigorous debate is permitted on their neutrality and accuracy. Comparisons between Fox and CCTV-9 aren't really fair.

I found disturbing that the Joan Maltese's account is linked to a Falun Gong website. Can we replace that with a link to a more conventional media outlet? I googled and found conservative website maxnews.com also published her story.

Hi all

I have made a couple of changes.

First the reference to the article being written for Falung Gong appears to me to be incorrect. The article is also hosted at Newsmax (I have changed the links to go there instead) and what appears to have happened is that Falung Gong have copied the article to their website for their propaganda purposes. I think the article is not pushing a particular religeous barrow - it gives one correspondent's impressions of working at CCTV-9 and people can make up their own minds on whether what is written is true or not.

The later paragraph about post 2005 events was not verifiable by cited links so I have removed it.

Regards Peter

Pberrett 08:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see how bias from government sources is more or less insidious than any other type of bias. 129.97.219.94 (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For China or not for China, that is the question

[edit]

It currently says in the article's infobox that CCTV-9 was intended for external consumption only, but it says in the article that the channel was also intended for English speakers in China. Which is it? 86.56.48.12 17:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "only" from the infobox. The article is pretty clear it is for international purposes, but is aired within China for English speakers. As a side effect, it has gained a huge audience within China of those desiring to learn English. SchmuckyTheCat 14:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biased?

[edit]

Interesting to see several paragraphs tagged as needing examination for bias - particularly when the subject matter is bias itself! One I removed but not for this reason - rather it did not cite its source.

The Joan Maltese article I have discussed before so I won't go over old territory. If people are able to balance this article with some other articles that would be helpful.

As to the infamous blood streaming incident I quoted. Well its factual and it really happened. I do not know if this is typical of CCTV-9 today but it is worth mentioning as an example of propaganda and also for its lack of subtlety. If nothing else its an example of CCTV-9 programming.

Regards Peter Pberrett 10:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:News hour cctv.jpg

[edit]

Image:News hour cctv.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HI. I went into this page on November 11, 2007 and overhauled the citations and some of the content. I tightened up the description of the channel to emphasize its 'soft power' function, which is clear from Jiang Heping's published remarks and Jirik's research. I removed the 'bias' marker in the debate about Joan Maltese's work, balancing her statements with reference to News Corporations's work. Although News Corp. may not be the best model for journalism, the consultant they hired, John Terenzio, has an extremely strong background in credible news, see his biography, which is now linked in the CCTV-9 piece. I hope I've improved the page. But welcome improvements on my changes. Best Rgds. Maswa 12:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Again. Attempted to clarify the status of Taiwan, which is yet to declare formal independence, so my understanding is should not be referred to as an "independent Republic." Maswa 01:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CCTV Cup

[edit]

Hey Pberrett: Mention something about the CCTV Cup... the English-speaking contest. I love watching that every year... At first, back in 2005, it was fun watching the Chinese students screw up their English... but, after watching awhile, I realized how difficult it must be to debate (come up with arguments and continue to support those arguments) in a foreign language. I think all the particpants are some of the most bravest people on the planet... DO they know how many people are watching them?

Thanks. Goodnight3455 (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing of it. May I suggest that you edit the page? Just make sure you quote support your statements with references. Editing is not hard.

Regards Pberrett (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DirecTV

[edit]

DirecTV is pulling the channel off the lineup on August 25. Any reason as to why? --Son (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they already did; I have the service and 455 is no longer operative. -- M (speak/spoken) 20:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New viewer

[edit]

My family and I just switched over to Dishnetwork a few days ago and I saw the channel. I think it is interesting to have a news channel based in another country, but I am going to keep an eye out for propaganda. Are there any shows that don't have as much propaganda as other shows, or perhaps none at all? Fantasyleaguer (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what you call propaganda I suppose. In terms of the news there is a clear pro China slant and the Government censors news items. But the current affairs shows do have interesting discussions about some current issues and don't appear to be very censored. the coverage of space missions is good but the It is hard to know when something is propaganda - sometiemsit simplyu the omission of a news item that is teh propaganda. the wisest way to deal with this is to look at news from a variety of different media outlets (eg BBC, Fox news etc) so that you can compare and see what is different about cctv-9's coverage. To be fair most media outlets have their own bias's and faults so don't rely on any single one. Australia's ABC is pretty good though.

Regards Peter 211.28.133.138 (talk) 10:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Seems like a wikiwar might be starting over the links to the Joan maltese articles.

We need some kind of moderation here but I don't know how that can come about. Can a panel of experts adjudicate on relevance?

Until then I think they are very worthwhile links that do give a unique insight into the inner workings of CCTV-9 and raise genuine issues about editorial policy.

I am curious about the opinion of the user of who deleted the references. I also invite the user to declare any association her or she may have with the Channel or other relavant organisations. For the record I have none.

Pberrett (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm

Someone anonymously deleted the Joan Maltese links. Their IP was 124.126.131.178

I have reverted the edit but its time for some detective work!

A quick search of Google finds the following

http://whatismyipaddress.com/staticpages/index.php/ip-details?ip=124.126.131.178

A visitor from Beijing no less!

Pberrett (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a program guide: Discussion

[edit]

Programming is highly interesting. I note that commercial are limited and they don't constanly beg for money from their viewers which makes it much more viewable than either commercial or public television in my country, the U.S. It is much more accessible than the 24 hour news services in the U.S.; I simply refuse to pay over fifty dollars a month to receive CNN, Fox News, etcetera.1archie99 (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We did have this link. I moved the link to the programming section where it is easier to find.1archie99 (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I removed the link. The section is fine if we want to educate readers on the networks programming, but we shouldn't be advertising their schedule. Akerans (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So by your reasoning we should not eat because we might gain weight. This is information that should be where I put it. Akerans read "Reasons for deletion" at WP:DEL1archie99 (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion policy you cited is in regard to deleting articles, not deleting content. I specifically cited linkspam in the edit summary as my reason for removing this link. In addition, I also removed the link per the external links guideline, which suggests that links "should not normally be used in the body of an article." You have not provided a valid reason to keep this in the body, other than to promote their programming because you seem to have some dispute about paying for some content. If you can not provide a valid reason, then I will continue to remove the link. Akerans (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting wiki policy:"Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." I moved a link that was in the External Links section that is not required to be there per the above quote and because I think it belonged in the existing programming section. If you are so set upon our readers not knowing what is on the station; why don't you remove the entire programming section? That would make the same amount of sense.1archie99 (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I briefly mentioned in my first reply, there's a difference in telling our readers what they show, and advertising what they show. We can inform our readers without advertising. If you feel there's something within that link that offers something to our readers, then add it to the article instead of sticking the link there. Akerans (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to appease you as I truly think the info belongs in the article.

For those interested; here is what I added to the end of the programming section which Akerans deleted:

Here is the CCTV-News full schedule.

1archie99 (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the schedule now exists as a citation with the bonus of establishing a link to a related Wikipedia article. This is better than the original edit. I thank Akerans for initiating a discussion without doing a second revert. I still think the original edit was not all that bad.1archie99 (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is preferred to edit warring. Thank you for taking the effort to incorporate into the article. Akerans (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As discussion has ended amicably; I changed section title.1archie99 (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in the news

[edit]

As an American who has lived and worked in multiple countries overseas, both as a student and later as an expat, I came to realize that every media outlet puts a nationalistic bias or spin on what or how they report the "news". If you are only using one source, from one country, for your knowledge/opinion base, I can guarantee that your view of the world is skewed towards the bias of that source. So I suggest that if you wish to have a well rounded view of the world and would like to form your own opinion as to both current and historical events, don't just watch CNN, CCTV, BBC, MSNBC, or FOX, watch them all! In addition, each of us should be mixing/blending our media input, watching and reading both news and op-ed pieces. You will find that the written word still has immense power and offers many advantages over the news interpreters, news readers, editorialists, and bloviators so prevalent on the networks today. One final thought, if you have the ability, there is great value in being able to listen/read the news from non-English sources - you gain a unique perspective when the media controllers aren't trying to direct the content to an English speaking community. Pedia3491 (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I suggest either eliminate or update streaming links in info box. I cannot find any streaming on those pages. I am from the U.S.; perhaps that is the problem? If that was the problem I would get a message from the webpage informing me. It appears that CCTV News and also the Documentary channel no longer stream.1archie99 (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too long

[edit]

There are many repetitions, as well as obvious broad statements that are not unique to CCTV. For example, Its employees range from interns to professionals. Its on-air staff change. Higher ranked staff have university degrees. These sentences can all come out, as they would apply to just about any company. I also propose getting rid of the list of former correspondents. Already, listing every current correspondent seems a bit much. Most of them are obscure. There's no reason someone should be on Wikipedia just because they happen to work at a TV station. Even the CNN and BBC pages only mention a few their real celebrity talent who are relevant to the article. For ex, they hosted their own major talk show. Long roll-calls of names - whom almost nobody has heard of - makes this sound like an ad.

CGTN

[edit]

@SMTNinja and LNDDYL: Currently there are two articles China Global Television Network (CGTN) and CGTN (Channel), which was renamed from CCTV News. Should these be merged?—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

①CGTN (TV Channel).②No.-- By LNDDYL. (Talk) 11:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CGTN (TV channel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just watched a discussion between Li Dongning and Li "You know' Yong." I quit counting how many times Mr. Li used "You know" after 100 times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.117.239.164 (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced satellite entries

[edit]

There is a large template devoted to the satellites used by CGTN. Though, there seem to be no sources backing up the existence of these satellites. Please add the appropriate citations. Sociable Song (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Propaganda" or "Publicity"?

[edit]

As I have noticed, the page is being constantly revert-edited by two people insisting that the department in particular should be called either the "Propaganda" or "Publicity" Department. Both of them having doing this for days, perhaps weeks now are technically in violation of WP:3RR and it is not a good solution to said dispute in my opinion. I have now taken upon the decision to reach a general consensus in the talk page for a permanent decision. Thanks for taking your time. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The common name should be "Propaganda Department". Normchou 💬 14:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The current page for the relevant organ refers to it as the Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party, which appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME of the entity. This sort of editing back and forth mirrors a similar sort of thing that happened over at Chen Weihua recently, though that was ultimately resolved on the talk page. I'd recommend "Propaganda Department" as well. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 11 May 2021

[edit]

I would like to add RTHK to the See also section. RTHK is the public broadcaster of Hong Kong, so it seems like an appropriate addition. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done However @Mikehawk10: the page is no longer protected and may be edited as appropriate. — xaosflux Talk 10:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of CGTN as a primary source

[edit]

Hi @Rastinition: - I've reverted your removal of the CGTN cite, as in this case it is verifying a direct quote from the company, as a WP:Primary source, rather than using them for independent secondary analysis. Although CGTN is generally deprecated, this would appear to be covered by the part of WP:DEPREC which says that "the source may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions". They are describing their own stance on the Ofcom ruling. The alternative would be to remove the quote altogether, or see if it's obtainable from another secondary source, but it seems reasonable to include the company's response to the revocation of their licence.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It means that if Washington builds a page introducing Obama, he can use Obama’s Twitter or Youtube as references,right? I don't oppose or support this issue.I tend not to use it at all,unless no one can find another reference to replace. Rastinition (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there was some direct quote that Obama had made on his Twitter or YouTube, and if (a) the use of that quote was clearly relevant to the article and proportionate, and (b) it was clearly attributed as being a quote to him, then I think it would be OK to make a direct citation to those sources, yes. Obviously they wouldn't be good for any other sort of citation though. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage, I assume that there is no other reference to replace, so I don’t insist on deleting that.Thanks for the topic you created, let me clarify some concepts. Rastinition (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Amakuru, this is covered by WP:ABOUTSELF so its not a RS question but WP:DUEWEIGHT question. That being said there is actually a legitimate challenge to the inclusion of the material on due weight grounds, we must be careful not to create a false balance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That being said you, Amakuru, need to get consensus for inclusion now that you’ve restored the challenged material. In the future please get consenus on the talk page first before restoring the disputed material, that goes for you too @Sunderland Renaissance: and doubly so as your edit summary "Revert, no consensus for this unnecessary change” appears to indicate that you don’t even have a clue about how WP:CONSENSUS works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rastinition: You continue to contend that a third-party citation would be preferable to CGTN's own statement. As has been pointed out previously, the claim that has been made isn't that Ofcom had been manipulated, but that CGTN claimed that Ofcom had been manipulated. The cited source isn't so much a primary source as it is the evidence itself. If some newspaper story made a claim that the New York Post published a story with particular content and provided a link to that story, you presumably would contend that we ought to look for a story in The Washington Post (as an example) confirming this fact. This is highly dubious. I suggest that your position is just plain wrong. Fabrickator (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fabrickator: it *would* in fact be preferable, thats not really debatable. We do in fact *prefer* independent third parties over primary sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: Which of the following would be a better source: the story in the Washington Post or a Wayback archive copy of the New York Post story created a few days after it was published? Fabrickator (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WAPO story of course, not only would it be primary but the NYP is a questionable source (as is CGTN). We don’t do WP:OR here. This is a bit of a sidenote but in general we also give preference to more recently published pieces over older ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind what the claim is, i.e. that the NY Post published a story with particular content. A Wayback copy of the relevant page from the NY Post would be very strong evidence of that. In any case, your position seems to be in conflict with Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources § "Primary" does not mean "bad". Do you have any other evidence to support your position? Fabrickator (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the New York Post’s and CGTN's entries at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, they are in fact questionable sources. We don’t evaluate “very strong evidence” ourselves at all in our coverage of the topic, again that would be WP:OR and beyond our mandate. WP:DUEWEIGHT might also be of use to you, if theres no coverage outside of the NYP article its almost certainly not going to be included on their wikipedia page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back: in fact, there wasn't a challenge to the material on due weight grounds. The prose itself had not been removed by the edits, it was purely the citation supporting the quote that had been removed. Also, due weight is a discussion matter, it's not that we default to not including something if there's a balance question: balance by definition means it might or might not be included, and the default should be the status quo ante, as indeed is the default in many instances on Wikipedia. I don't think there was anything wrong in my restoring that cite for a piece of material that had long been included in the article. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I guess in that case I will challenge it on due weight grounds myself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fair enough, although I would have do disagree that it's a false balance. The prose in question is a single line, entirely attributed to the company with no suggestion that it's a view endorsed by Wikipedia and seems in keeping with a general right of reply which one would accord to any organisation accused in that way. Obviously we've established on WP that CGTN are generally unreliable, and as such most likely Ofcom were right to shut them down, but I don't think it's incorrect to include that one quote.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn’t aware that a right of reply was part of wikipedia policy or guidelines, WP:FALSEBALANCE suggests otherwise as does the essay WP:MANDY. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheng Lei disappearance refs

[edit]

{{Citation needed}} tagged for CGTN having "disappeared" Cheng Lei from its network. Here are some potential sources:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CGTN_(TV_channel)&oldid=1206041035"