Talk:China Global Television Network

Television

Whats to be believed? Mistyfinchet (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

"Propoganda"

This section is to discuss whether or not it is appropriate to include the reporting of multiple WP:RS that China Global Television Network publishes Chinese state propaganda. As these reliable sources are extremely clear about what is going on and the current language is the epitome of WP:NPOV I don’t see an issue. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The article's lead includes several sources suggesting that CGTN has a role in China's foreign influence efforts. Other independent WP:RS sources also indicate that CGTN is used as a propaganda outlet. These sources provide sufficient reason to believe that including information about CGTN's bias and role as a propaganda outlet is in line with due weight. WP:LEAD requires that the lead summarize the body; in a fully-fleshed out article about CGTN, the body would likely include an entire section on editorial control and bias because it's a salient part of the topic. Thus, the policies all appear to be in support of including several sentences on editorial bias and governmental control.

The current language, however, could be improved. The current wording of the article is as follows:

CGTN produces mostly innocuous content but has at times pushed propaganda on behalf of the Communist Party of China.

This seems to fall short of meeting WP:NPOV, and is far from an epitome of it. It uses "propaganda" in WP:Wikivoice, but in general, words like "propaganda" are judgments made by the sources and therefore should be attributed even if they are stated by reliable sources, as seen on pages like RT (TV network). It also editorializes by using the word "pushed", which connotes a certain level of aggressiveness and deceit, and the word "innocuous", which is an opinion judgment that should be attributed. Overall, the word usage in the sentence fails MOS:WORDSTOWATCH in spirit. While User:Horse Eye Jack has asserted that MOS:WORDSTOWATCH does not apply to the words in question, MOS:WORDSTOWATCH does not only caution against words explicitly written on its list, and should be interpreted according to its spirit. The spirit of the policy is to ensure that loaded words and words that detract from an impartial tone are not misused. Words like "propaganda", "innocuous", and "pushed" are either opinion judgments or editorialization and should be used with caution.

Overall, we should let the facts do the talking. We should summarize the relevant facts and let the readers make their judgment, instead of relying on loaded words. One possible amendment is as follows:

In addition to normal news content, CGTN has broadcasted misinformation and made false allegations against opponents of the Chinese government. The network has been investigated by Ofcom for biased coverage and the airing of forced confessions, and is considered a propaganda outlet by several sources.

Jancarcu (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree on almost everything except that it is inappropriate to say “propaganda” in wikipedia’s voice, there is longstanding consensus that when used properly propaganda is not a WP:NPOV or MOS:WORDSTOWATCH issue hence pages like Propaganda in China, Propaganda in the Republic of China, and Propaganda in the United States heck there 22 subcategories to Category:Propaganda by country. Again, saying propaganda is *not in any way* "opinion judgments or editorialization." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The RT comparison also doesn't work, RT is a nominally independent organization which receives Russian state support and funding whereas CGTN is directly owned by the Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China, the second section of the lead for which reads "It was founded in May 1924, and was suspended during the Cultural Revolution, until it was restored in October 1977.[2] It is an important organ in China's propaganda system,[1] and its inner operations are highly secretive.[3]" Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Article is biased, tone has been re-written

This article was very one-sided. It did not represent anything on the broadcaster's own terms and instead focused extensively on criticism, passing off some unverified or disputed allegation as proven fact. I have accordingly, re-wrote the tone without deleting content:

This involves:

• Changing the term "propaganda" for a more neutral reference to links with China's government. The term propaganda is an inflammatory, idealized word which is often presented in one-sided contexts.
• Placing the term "accused" in several context. It has been accused of certain things, but it has never been proven and investigations against it have not come to anything
• Using the existing sources within the article to outline the broadcaster's own vision and how it understands itself, such as "telling China's story well".

--180.233.219.133 (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Who are you? and why are you here when you only have a few edits all of those being regarding China Tisthefirstletter (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Repeated Removal of Cited Content Which Contravenes the Narrative

Several editors are attempting to dictate the content of this page in bad faith by repeatedly removing cited content for no good reason, simply because it does not coincide with their anti-china activist views. [1] [2] [3]- --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)o

Dude... Read WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:PA and then edit or self revert your comment. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, agents are on this page to present the usual corporate-paid-media's negative narratives of China. Quite obviously. When you watch both back and forth arguments in open format it truly is much more entertaining. For example this is China's ministry of Foreign Affairs responding back to the BBC on just some--- of the daily allegations the BBC made. MOFA: BBC is not trusted even in the UK But that would be to- NPOV, to have as balance for this page.

CaribDigita (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Needs a section on 'Purpose and mission'

This article needs a section on why CGTN was started and how it describes itself. Some of it is described here: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/behind-news-inside-china-global-television-network

Mainly to counter what they say as western media bias against China etc. No need to remove any other criticisms of it, just a small section on the motivations behind starting and rebranding CGTN. Even CGTN anchors have spoken out about this. After all, if we can include the views of a British anchor about why he left CGTN, why not include the views of a Chinese anchor about why he joined?

Then, the Xi Jinping and Liu Yunshan quotes I've included in the lead can be moved to this new section.

I think this will help readers get some context behind CGTN and its motivations.

Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

You're not allowed to write that, the cartel of editors aimed at keeping the page as negative as possible consider it "promotional" to put in its actual purpose- --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Need a section on CGTN's influence and reception in other countries

Such as Africa and Australia: https://qz.com/africa/1736534/china-daily-cgtn-fight-for-influence-in-africa-vs-bbc-cnn/ https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/chinese-television-and-soft-power-communication-in-australia and many others.

While they can always be included in the respective channels (CGTN Africa), they can always be replicated. The page of CGTN Africa (which is anyway a semi-stub) can be included as a 'see also' link.

CGTN is receiving a lot of attention abroad, for better or worse, and I think its wise to include at least some of that here.

Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

"False information"

Sunderland Renaissance: You should stop edit warring and provide what you consider to be "false information" here for discussion. For example, why did you remove information such as the following paragraphs?

Observers have noted that the "aim [of CGTN] is to influence public opinion overseas in order to nudge foreign governments into making policies favourable towards China’s Communist party" through subtle means. Some scholars have noted that CGTN has a "dichotomous role as a credible media competing for audience attention on the world stage, and a vital government propaganda organ domestically." According to James Palmer, the contrasting aims of RT (formerly Russia Today) and CGTN, "mirrors wider strategies: Moscow wants chaos it can exploit, while Beijing wants a stable world order—on its terms".

---

In March 2021, an investigation by Le Monde reported that a supposed French journalist for CGTN named "Laurène Beaumond" had been fabricated. Le Figaro disputed this, saying Beaumond was a real French journalist from Sarthe, but had been publishing for CGTN under an assumed name.

Normchou ^💬 01:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I did not remove this section, I removed a part of it which was an unsourced opinion wrote in a passive voice- --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the French journalist paragraph, I removed it because it was a false accusation being reported by an unreliable tabloid newspaper which is being presented here as fact, which was later discredited. There is a onus on a group of editors controlling this page in order to keep the content slanted negative as much as possible with the view of discrediting CGTN. I appreciate why this is newsworthy, but the content should accurately reflect the facts and that a misleading claim was made against them. The article has a very "guilty as accused"- tone concerning CGTN. I have re-added this section. However, I have since reworded it to reflect the true situation. --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your claims of Le Monde's reliability, please check WP:RSP first because that is not what consensus currently is. -- Amigao (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that the claim was disproven, but you're more interested in discrediting this subject matter than reflecting the facts- --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Recommended that you review WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:AGF regarding your claims about other editor's motives. -- Amigao (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Just as a note, this is the line I am trying to get rid of "Rebranded from CCTV English CGTN is much more risk-adverse in such content due to the danger that an extreme left/right viewpoint could turn against China which in turn would hurt a CGTN journalist's career trajectory."- This is not cited face, this is unsourced opinion wrote in an unencyclopedic style Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

References

"Critics have accused”

@Sunderland Renaissance: per WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS please get consensus for the inclusion of "Critics have accused” in the lead now that it has been challenged, I’m not seeing it being supported by the sources... Especially if its meant to cover both part of the sentence, nobody disputes that the televised confessions are forced. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed a portion by Le Monde as that site engages in fake news

Le Monde is not a very reputable site and has engaged fake news. CaribDigita (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

This recent edit of this Wikipedia article about cgtn is bias propaganda and used to lie about China's dealings with the news

You showed no evidence of forced confessions you are a terrorist organization inciting violence and this edit needs to be taken down 69.160.186.193 (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Did CGTN claim Wikipedia is a "terrorist organization" or "inciting violence"? If yes, please provide a link. It might be an interesting addition to this article (in case it is deemed relevant). — Chrisahn (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks like UK has forgiven CGTN. British PM on CGTN.

Looks like London has forgiven CGTN, the British PM was on CGTN this morning wishing Happy New Year. Video -- CaribDigita (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

"Propaganda Department" vs "Publicity Department"

All official discourse and the Wikipedia article itself refer to it as the "Publicity Department" of the Chinese Communist Party; and yet for some reason, this article uses the term "Propaganda Department" rather incongruently with the rest of the articles on wikipedia, which use the former term.

Why is it that this article uses the term "Propaganda Department" if that is not the official name of the Chinese state agency that is charged with controlling CGTN? I believe it should be changed back to the proper terminology, as per the state agency's official name, not an unofficial translation. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

"Propaganda Department" is fine, as it's used by [4]. Lowercase "propaganda department" is used by [5] and [6]. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Who is the master of propagandaish in the World?

Of course is the US, spending 3.2 billions dollars to create propaganda around the World. You tell me is all the western mainstream media not sponsored by US governments such (CIA)? 142.189.224.141 (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

But that's literally not the name despite the English translation: RFA (aside from literally being a US propaganda outlet and not a reliable source) is using common nomenclature, as are the other sources; We don't refer to it as the 'Propaganda Department' because a few sources in English on the internet refer to it as such, defying all more credible sources from scholarly and official organisations that supersede it in importance. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The current consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources is that RFA is a reliable source rather than a US propaganda outlet, feel free to bring up any complaints on that page's talk page if desired. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You can look and see which editor keeps switching it back to that. The word "propaganda" means: "the dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumours, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion." -- https://www.britannica.com/topic/propaganda . Technically any government spokesperson falls under that definition. Should all government spokespersons on wikipedia be called that? CaribDigita (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It was changed due to vandalism. A simple Google search tells you the correct name. -- "Publicity Department of the CPC Central Committee" for example CaribDigita (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

In Mandarin its "Propaganda," it should be noted that in the Chinese context propaganda is not a dirty world like it is in America. I would also note that in much of its American use publicity is a euphemism and means propaganda. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• And I get that about the Propaganda context as I've heard that elsewhere. The name of the article appears to be titled correctly as is. 'Publicity'. The only reason why it says "Propaganda" though in the title on the wikipedia page of CGTN is because of what amounts to both WP:OR / vandalism. Amagao is wrapping the link in that name to give their own personal POV and force that into the article through that method. Which Wikipedia is not supposed to be about. If you check both: the Economist reference calls it the "Publicity" department. The Diplomat does the same "Publicity" department. And the third is a school journal from Hong Kong which refers to it as a noun and doesn't call out the full correct name itself just refers to it in a context. CaribDigita (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Amago, why would you put this back again? It doesn't belong there. I am trying to help preserve Wikipedia's integrity because I happen to cheerish it. Wkipedia should not be getting into the name-calling basis un-necessarily. And I get that you don't like the regime, and you are passionate about your agenda. And I get that. But at the same time, we're all trying to build an encyclopaedia here and your actions are serving to damage Wikipedia when you knowingly introduce stuff you know is wrong.

To use your own phrase. Did you (even) 'have a reference for that edit?' A simple Google search as I said discovers what the name is and you're literally wrapping the name of the department in a name-calling link to aire your POV. That's a no on Wikipedia. It's not worth it. If you want to see the regime down let it fall but let it do it by tripping itself up. Don't put yourself in trouble unnecessarily. CaribDigita (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)