News outlets warning about ‘disinformation’ are also printing Chinese propaganda for millions
U.S. News Outlets Continue to Accept Chinese Propaganda Money
In 2019 and 2020, it was a scandal when U.S. news outlets were exposed for peddling Chinese propaganda. The New York Times and Wall Street Journal swore off Chinese Communist Party money, and human rights groups condemned the practice. However, despite the backlash, several major newspapers and magazines have continued to accept millions of dollars from the Chinese Communist Party in exchange for publishing content by China Daily, a state-owned English-language paper.
According to China Daily‘s Foreign Agents Registration Act filings, between October 2020 and October 2023, outlets such as Time, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, and the Chicago Tribune received a total of $8.2 million from the CCP mouthpiece.
This ongoing promotion of Beijing’s propaganda by mainstream media comes at a time of growing U.S.-China tensions and fears of a full-scale war between the two superpowers. Meanwhile, China has been investing billions of dollars each year in a global disinformation campaign to shape its image and influence political outcomes.
Media Outlets Warn About Disinformation While Participating in It
Ironically, the same outlets that have been accepting money from China Daily have been warning about the dangers of misinformation. Headlines such as “WA Elections Officials Need Rapid Data To Match Misinformation Age” and ”Corporations Are Juicy Targets for Foreign Disinformation” highlight the threat posed by false information.
These outlets have reported on the rapid spread of misinformation on social media, its impact on elections, and the potential for violence. They have emphasized the need for data literacy and the role of fact-checkers in combating disinformation. Yet, they have willingly participated in China’s propaganda campaign.
China’s Propaganda Tactics and U.S. Media Complicity
The China Daily has been publishing propaganda articles disguised as ordinary news stories in influential U.S. newspapers. While some articles focus on China’s economic achievements and tourist attractions, others push explicit political messages. These articles contain a Disclaimer that a Chinese entity prepared the ads but fail to mention that China Daily is owned by the Chinese Communist Party.
Despite criticism and pressure, some media outlets have continued to collaborate with China Daily. For example, Time has dedicated an entire landing page on its website to content from China Daily. The page features a banner that reads “China Watch: All You Need to Know About China and the Dynamics of Sino-US Relations,” with only a “Paid Partner Content” Disclaimer indicating its CCP affiliation.
Financial difficulties faced by many newspapers may explain their willingness to accept money from an authoritarian government for disguised propaganda. However, this raises ethical concerns and the risk of self-censorship within media organizations.
John Dotson, deputy director of the Global Taiwan Institute, highlights the ethical question of accepting money from an authoritarian government for publishing propaganda. He suggests that the funding from Chinese state agencies may be motivated by a desire to encourage self-censorship within media organizations.
What impact does accepting money from a foreign government, particularly one with a controversial human rights record like China, have on the integrity and independence of news outlets?
Outrage Over False Information Spread on Social Media” can be seen on their websites and in their articles. These news outlets claim to be committed to providing accurate and unbiased information to the public, yet they are accepting money from a state-controlled media outlet known for spreading propaganda.
This raises questions about the integrity and independence of these news outlets. How can they claim to be impartial when they are accepting money from a foreign government with a clear agenda? It also raises concerns about the content being published. Is it truly objective and unbiased, or is it influenced by the Chinese Communist Party?
Furthermore, accepting money from a foreign government raises ethical issues. Journalists are expected to be objective and independent, free from any outside influence that could compromise their reporting. Accepting money from a foreign government, especially one with a human rights record as controversial as China’s, undermines the credibility of these news outlets and their journalists.
The argument that accepting money from China Daily allows these news outlets to continue their journalistic work does not hold water. Journalism should be funded by ethical means, such as subscriptions and advertising revenue, not by state-controlled propaganda machines. By accepting money from China Daily, these news outlets are compromising their journalistic integrity and the trust of their readers.
The role of the media in a democracy is to hold those in power accountable and provide the public with accurate and unbiased information. When news outlets accept money from a foreign government, they undermine this important role and jeopardize the public’s trust. It is imperative that these news outlets reassess their relationship with China Daily and prioritize their journalistic ethics over financial gains.
In conclusion, the continued acceptance of Chinese propaganda money by U.S. news outlets raises significant concerns about their journalistic integrity and independence. These news outlets claim to be committed to providing accurate and unbiased information, yet they are accepting money from a state-controlled media outlet known for spreading propaganda. This compromises the credibility of these news outlets and their journalists, undermines the role of the media in a democracy, and ultimately erodes the public’s trust. It is time for these news outlets to prioritize their journalistic ethics over financial gains and sever their ties with China Daily.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
