{"id":46798,"date":"2021-02-12T20:03:57","date_gmt":"2021-02-12T12:03:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/?p=46798"},"modified":"2021-04-20T11:38:06","modified_gmt":"2021-04-20T09:38:06","slug":"all-this-talk-of-independence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/2021\/02\/12\/all-this-talk-of-independence\/","title":{"rendered":"All This Talk of Independence"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

One week ago, the\nUK\u2019s Office of Communications (Ofcom), the government regulator for\nbroadcasting and telecoms, withdrew the UK\nbroadcast license<\/a> for China Global Television Network (CGTN), China\u2019s\nstate-run English-language satellite news channel. The decision was made on the\nbasis of UK broadcasting laws, which stipulate that licensees must have full\ncontrol, including editorial oversight, over licensed services. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The revocation notice\nfrom Ofcom, available online and\ntransparent to all<\/a>, makes plain that the primary issue of concern in the\nregulator\u2019s investigation of CGTN last year was that of control, relating to\nthe question of CGTN\u2019s objects and purpose. The notice states:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[We] have\ndetermined that CGTNC could not currently be granted a broadcasting licence as\nit would be disqualified under the statutory scheme. This is because CGTNC is\nboth controlled by and an associate of an organisation, namely CCTV, which, as\na result of its relationship with the Chinese Communist Party through the China\nMedia Group, is a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature\nand\/or is controlled by a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a\npolitical nature.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ofcom\u2019s conclusion, then,\nafter months of deliberation, was that CGTN\u2019s operations in the UK are not independent,\nthat it does not have full control, or editorial oversight over its programming.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another fact is clear\nin the Ofcom revocation notice \u2013 that CGTN and its representatives sought to\nargue that it in fact did<\/em><\/strong> have control over the licensed\nservices. They asserted, for example, that \u201cthe news gathering and production\nactivities for the CGTN service are editorially independent and managed much\nlike that of other international news organizations<\/em>.\u201d They emphasized that\nCGTN\u2019s \u201cGlobal Editorial Board exercises independent editorial control<\/em>\nover the CGTN service.\u201d On the question of affiliation with CCTV, the state-run\nbroadcaster, and its subsidiary status under the China Media Group, they argued\nthat CCTV \u201ccontinues to exist as an independent legal person under Chinese law\nand its institutional nature remains unchanged.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What should we make\nof all this talk of independence?  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, we should note\nthat CGTN in fact accepted the basic legal premise behind the Ofcom decision \u2013\nthat a licensee must exercise full and independent control over the licensed\nservices. For any seasoned observer of the Chinese media, however, CGTN\u2019s\ndefense of its independence, and even that of CCTV, makes for odd reading. After\nall, that both networks are entirely beholden to the Chinese Communist Party could\nnever have been seriously questioned. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is a hard fact that these media are subject to the leadership of the CCP — a fact that has been constantly re-iterated by China\u2019s \u201ccore\u201d leader, Xi Jinping. Consider that in his February 2016 speech<\/a> on news and public opinion, his most authoritative statement of media policy to date, which was accompanied by an official tour of CCTV, Xi Jinping said: \u201cWe must take on this responsibility and mission [to raise the banner of the Party and lead public opinion]; we must give political direction the primary place<\/em>, firmly holding to the principle of the Party nature [of the media]<\/a>, firmly adhering to the Marxist View of Journalism, firmly adhering to correct guidance of public opinion<\/a>, and firmly adhering to an emphasis on positive propaganda.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In ruling that CGTN is \u201cis controlled by a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature,\u201d Ofcom is merely stating, albeit with a bit more concision, what the Party clearly and unambiguously insists upon. This is a point I will come back to \u2013 even though, as I said already, it should be painfully obvious. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/div>
A 2018 chart by the official social media account of the People\u2019s Daily<\/em> shows the Central Propaganda Department of the CCP \u201cleading\u201d the China Media Group, which newly combines CCTV, CNR and CRJ. <\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

As Ofcom\u2019s ruling\nagainst CGTN sets off a wave of verbal attacks in China against the UK, and as\nit has brought a retaliatory ban against BBC World News<\/a>\nfor \u201cviolating the principles of truth and impartiality,\u201d the sense of\nself-denial about the nature of China\u2019s media system has been incredible to\nobserve. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On February 6, a\ncommentary in the Chinese Communist Party\u2019s official People\u2019s Daily<\/em>\nattributed to \u201cZhong Sheng\u201d (\u949f\u58f0), a pen name used for\nimportant pieces on international affairs on which the leadership wishes to\nregister its view, called on leaders in the UK to \u201ccorrect the\nerror\u201d of the Ofcom decision. The move, it said, was \u201ca brutal suppression of\nChinese media,\u201d and it had \u201cfully exposed the falseness of the so-called press\nfreedom flaunted by the UK.\u201d  For good\nmeasure, the commentary tossed in the usual zinger about \u201canti-China\nforces.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the\ncommentary did more than just fume. It attempted to cross the aisle, seizing\nthe moral high ground and staking claim to the noble principles at the heart of\ncommunications and journalism. \u201cThe media are important bridges and ties by\nwhich the people of various countries strengthen their interactions and advance\nunderstanding,\u201d it said. And on media values: \u201cChinese media abide by\njournalistic ethics, and uphold the principles of objectivity, impartiality,\ntruth and accuracy, carrying out ordinary news reporting in various parts of\nthe world, including the UK.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/div><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Attacking the UK for\nits decision, Shanghai\u2019s Xinmin\nEvening News<\/em><\/a>, directly under the local CCP Committee, could not\nresist an Austin reference as it implicitly advocated the same values of\nimpartiality, truth and accuracy by sucker-punching the UK media:  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Belittling and discrediting the media of other countries\nwill not ultimately promote and demonstrate their own excellence. The British\nmainstream media have been frequently exposed in scandals for their pre-set\npositions and manufacture of fake news, revealing their pride and prejudice to\nthe world.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Character\nattacks on the British media have been par for the course over the past week.\nWith a hint of the sensational, the Xinmin Evening News<\/em> piece ran\nthrough several cases and points of criticism in the BBC\u2019s history. It cited\ncases like the misuse of a massacre photo, which the BBC\nopenly acknowledged<\/a> and which was robustly\ndiscussed<\/a>,\nas such cases should be in societies with professional media. It mentioned a\ndocumentary on racist violence the BBC aired ahead of Euro 2012, and which drew\nharsh criticism from several hosts, including Poland and Ukraine. BBC editors\nopenly responded<\/a> to criticisms in that case as well,\ndefending their work.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shanghai\u2019s Guancha Syndicate<\/em> (\u89c2\u5bdf\u8005\u7f51) similarly tried to revisit<\/a> every ethical outrage in the BBC\u2019s history in a diatribe that attacked the freedom of expression espoused by \u201cWestern capitalist nations.\u201d Parts of the attack were plain atavism, as though pulled directly from the Party media of the 1950s, when such broadsides generally criticized press ownership in the United States, arguing that only families like the Scripps and the Howards<\/a> could enjoy press freedom \u2013 because they owned the press. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We could go on and on about implicit bias<\/a> and institutional bias, about good reporters and bad reporters, about fairness and accuracy. But all this talk about \u201cexcellence,\u201d truth and bias is a monumental distraction. First, because excellence was never the standard applied in the Ofcom decision. And second, because the standard that was applied, independence, is actually an issue on which Ofcom and the CCP are fundamentally in agreement. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cZhong\nSheng\u201d commentary in the People\u2019s Daily<\/em> said that \u201cChinese media abide\nby journalistic ethics, and uphold the principles of objectivity, impartiality,\ntruth and accuracy,\u201d suggesting that these principles apply in the case of CCTV,\nCGTN and all Party-state media. But let\u2019s take another clear-headed look at the\nlanguage China uses internally to talk about these media. When it comes to analyzing\nthis discourse, the potential choices are legion. We could, for example, return\nto Xi Jinping\u2019s 2016 speech on media and his visit to CCTV, during which he\nstressed that all media \u201cmust be surnamed Party\u201d (\u5fc5\u987b\u59d3\u515a) \u2013 and specifically that they must  \u201clove the\nParty, protect the Party and serve the Party.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/div>
A sign displayed prominently at China Central Television in February 2016 for the official visit by Xi Jinping reads: \u201cCCTV is Surnamed Party, With Absolute Loyalty, Please Inspect Us.\u201d <\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

For anyone who was paying the least bit of attention to Xi Jinping\u2019s February\nvisit and speech in 2016, the question of independence is case closed. But let\nus turn for good measure to Xi Jinping\u2019s language about the media, and\nparticularly CCTV, that accompanied the 60th<\/sup> anniversary of the network,\ncelebrated on September 26, 2018. The day after the anniversary, the news of Xi\u2019s commemoration of the\nanniversary<\/a> was on the front-page of the People\u2019s Daily<\/em>, in\nprominent position just beneath the masthead. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The focus of the speech, as the headline indicated, was on fashioning major Party-state media as \u201cfirst-rate international mainstream media,\u201d the word \u201cmainstream\u201d referring here, as always in a CCP context, to media directly run by the Party and government. He also spoke of \u201cstrengthening mainstream public opinion\u201d (\u4e3b\u6d41\u8206\u8bba), meaning rather explicitly the Party\u2019s power to control the news and set the agenda.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/div><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

As Xi Jinping lays\nout the role of CCTV, today and historically, there is no mistaking the fact\nthat the concepts so recently and so fervently espoused by China\u2019s Party-state media\nin regards to the Ofcom decision are nowhere to be found. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Xi\nJinping said in his greeting that the television industry is an integral part\nof the Party\u2019s news and public opinion work. For 60 years, the masses of television\nindustry workers have under the leadership of the Party adhered to correct\npolitical orientation and [correct] public opinion guidance, focused on the\ncentral tasks [of the Party], serving its overall interests, propagating the\nviewpoint of the Party, reflecting the voice of the people, singing the main\ntheme (<\/em>\u5531\u54cd\u4e3b\u65cb\u5f8b<\/em>), transmitting\npositive energy<\/a>, making\nimmense positive accomplishments for the work of the Party and the people. <\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This, mind you, is only the second paragraph of the official Xinhua release in the People\u2019s Daily<\/em>. The rest of the release, as Xi\u2019s greeting to CCTV itself, is chockful of CCP jargon, including the notion that CCTV must continue to conduct \u201cexternal propaganda,\u201d presenting to the world a \u201ctrue, complete and three-dimensional China.\u201d This is the only point at which the notion of truth emerges at all, but of course this is the Party\u2019s truth, and about this fact there is never any mistake. At one point, too, Xi emphasizes CCTV\u2019s adherence to the so-called \u201cFour Consciousnesses<\/a>\u201d (\u56db\u4e2a\u610f\u8bc6<\/a>), which refer to consciousness of the 1)<\/strong> need to maintain political integrity with the Party, 2)<\/strong> think in big-picture terms of the Party\u2019s interests, 3)<\/strong> uphold the leadership core, and 4)<\/strong> maintain alignment with the CCP. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aspect three of the \u201cFour Consciousnesses,\u201d the so-called \u201ccore,\u201d refers of course to General Secretary Xi Jinping himself, which is why this CCP catchphrase is closely associated with the consolidation of Xi\u2019s position within the Party. So not only is the fundamental role of CCTV and all Party-state media defined politically as the need to adhere to the CCP and its prerogatives, but that role also formally revolves around China\u2019s most powerful individual.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If this is not yet clear enough, we can turn to page five of the same edition of the People\u2019s Daily<\/em>, where a \u201ccommentator from CCTV\u201d (\u592e\u89c6\u8bc4\u8bba\u5458) offers an organizational view<\/a> of the network\u2019s role. The entire commentary is a genuflection. But we can focus on one illuminating passage. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our\nbanner determines our direction [as a network]. We must take speaking politics\n(<\/em>\u8bb2\u653f\u6cbb<\/em>) as our first demand,\nmaking loyalty and reliability [to the Party] our first standard. As a member\nof the \u201cnational team\u201d at the news frontlines, and as the frontline troops of\nbroadcast television, we must firmly adhere to the principle of Party nature [of\nthe media], implementing the demand that \u201cParty media be surnamed Party. In\nspeaking politics we must hold to the highest standard, the strictest demands,\nfirmly establishing the \u201cFour Consciousnesses,\u201d with real actions and true\nresults firmly defending the core status of General Secretary Xi Jinping,\nresolutely defending the authority and unified leadership of the CCP Central\nCommittee, maintaining a high level of uniformity with the CCP Central Committee\nwith Xi Jinping as the core in terms of political position, political direction\nand political principles. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those who dutifully donned\ntheir Wellingtons and trudged through the muck of that paragraph will not have stumbled\nacross words like \u201cindependence,\u201d \u201cimpartiality,\u201d \u201cfairness\u201d or \u201ctruth.\u201d They\njust don\u2019t matter, and there is perhaps no better proof of this than the phrase\n\u201cspeaking politics,\u201d synonymous with obedience to the Party\u2019s political\nprerogatives, however expedient, and which had an unfortunate role to play<\/a>\nat the start of the Covid-19 pandemic last year. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But perhaps the best translation of the above paragraph might be lifted directly from Ofcom\u2019s revocation notice. The CCTV commentator might just as well have written that his network is \u201ca body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature and\/or is controlled by a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

How odd that this matter should cause such an international fury when all sides essentially see eye to eye. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Featured Image at Top:<\/strong> Screenshot from 2016 coverage on CCTV<\/a> of the launch of CGTN.]<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The withdrawal of the UK broadcast license for the PRC\u2019s state-run CGTN news channel has drawn fury in China. But isn’t the ruling that CGTN “is controlled by a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature” in line with Chinese policy on the media?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":1121,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-46798","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-going-global"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nAll This Talk of Independence - China Media Project<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/2021\/02\/12\/all-this-talk-of-independence\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"All This Talk of Independence - China Media Project\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The withdrawal of the UK broadcast license for the PRC\u2019s state-run CGTN news channel has drawn fury in China. But isn't the ruling that CGTN "is controlled by a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature" in line with Chinese policy on the media?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/2021\/02\/12\/all-this-talk-of-independence\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"China Media Project\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-02-12T12:03:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-04-20T09:38:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/CGTN-monolith-.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"799\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"David Bandurski\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@cnmediaproject\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@cnmediaproject\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"David Bandurski\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/12\\\/all-this-talk-of-independence\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/12\\\/all-this-talk-of-independence\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"David Bandurski\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/fa5f6226f58c45e8978385def39821cd\"},\"headline\":\"All This Talk of Independence\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-02-12T12:03:57+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-04-20T09:38:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/12\\\/all-this-talk-of-independence\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2218,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/12\\\/all-this-talk-of-independence\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/CGTN-monolith-.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Going Global\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/12\\\/all-this-talk-of-independence\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/12\\\/all-this-talk-of-independence\\\/\",\"name\":\"All This Talk of Independence - China Media Project\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/12\\\/all-this-talk-of-independence\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/12\\\/all-this-talk-of-independence\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/CGTN-monolith-.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-02-12T12:03:57+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-04-20T09:38:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/12\\\/all-this-talk-of-independence\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/12\\\/all-this-talk-of-independence\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/12\\\/all-this-talk-of-independence\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/CGTN-monolith-.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/CGTN-monolith-.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":799},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/12\\\/all-this-talk-of-independence\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"All This Talk of Independence\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/\",\"name\":\"China Media Project\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"China Media Project\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/11\\\/cmp-logo-web-gentle-red.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/11\\\/cmp-logo-web-gentle-red.png\",\"width\":926,\"height\":159,\"caption\":\"China Media Project\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/cnmediaproject\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/fa5f6226f58c45e8978385def39821cd\",\"name\":\"David Bandurski\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/9d470cebe2f0e854f0d74aeb5c036381627655204480c0f8466ead76979d112e?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/9d470cebe2f0e854f0d74aeb5c036381627655204480c0f8466ead76979d112e?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/9d470cebe2f0e854f0d74aeb5c036381627655204480c0f8466ead76979d112e?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"David Bandurski\"},\"description\":\"Now Executive Director of the China Media Project, leading the project\u2019s research and partnerships, David originally joined the project in Hong Kong in 2004. He is the author of Dragons in Diamond Village (Penguin), a book of reportage about urbanization and social activism in China, and co-editor of Investigative Journalism in China (HKU Press).\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinamediaproject.org\\\/author\\\/david-bandurski\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"All This Talk of Independence - China Media Project","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/2021\/02\/12\/all-this-talk-of-independence\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"All This Talk of Independence - China Media Project","og_description":"The withdrawal of the UK broadcast license for the PRC\u2019s state-run CGTN news channel has drawn fury in China. But isn't the ruling that CGTN \"is controlled by a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature\" in line with Chinese policy on the media?","og_url":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/2021\/02\/12\/all-this-talk-of-independence\/","og_site_name":"China Media Project","article_published_time":"2021-02-12T12:03:57+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-04-20T09:38:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":799,"url":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/CGTN-monolith-.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"David Bandurski","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@cnmediaproject","twitter_site":"@cnmediaproject","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"David Bandurski","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/2021\/02\/12\/all-this-talk-of-independence\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/2021\/02\/12\/all-this-talk-of-independence\/"},"author":{"name":"David Bandurski","@id":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/#\/schema\/person\/fa5f6226f58c45e8978385def39821cd"},"headline":"All This Talk of Independence","datePublished":"2021-02-12T12:03:57+00:00","dateModified":"2021-04-20T09:38:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/2021\/02\/12\/all-this-talk-of-independence\/"},"wordCount":2218,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/2021\/02\/12\/all-this-talk-of-independence\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/CGTN-monolith-.jpg","articleSection":["Going Global"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/2021\/02\/12\/all-this-talk-of-independence\/","url":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/2021\/02\/12\/all-this-talk-of-independence\/","name":"All This Talk of Independence - China Media Project","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/2021\/02\/12\/all-this-talk-of-independence\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/2021\/02\/12\/all-this-talk-of-independence\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/CGTN-monolith-.jpg","datePublished":"2021-02-12T12:03:57+00:00","dateModified":"2021-04-20T09:38:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/2021\/02\/12\/all-this-talk-of-independence\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/2021\/02\/12\/all-this-talk-of-independence\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/2021\/02\/12\/all-this-talk-of-independence\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/CGTN-monolith-.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/CGTN-monolith-.jpg","width":1200,"height":799},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/2021\/02\/12\/all-this-talk-of-independence\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"All This Talk of Independence"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/#website","url":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/","name":"China Media Project","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/#organization","name":"China Media Project","url":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/cmp-logo-web-gentle-red.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/cmp-logo-web-gentle-red.png","width":926,"height":159,"caption":"China Media Project"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/cnmediaproject"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/#\/schema\/person\/fa5f6226f58c45e8978385def39821cd","name":"David Bandurski","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9d470cebe2f0e854f0d74aeb5c036381627655204480c0f8466ead76979d112e?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9d470cebe2f0e854f0d74aeb5c036381627655204480c0f8466ead76979d112e?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9d470cebe2f0e854f0d74aeb5c036381627655204480c0f8466ead76979d112e?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"David Bandurski"},"description":"Now Executive Director of the China Media Project, leading the project\u2019s research and partnerships, David originally joined the project in Hong Kong in 2004. He is the author of Dragons in Diamond Village (Penguin), a book of reportage about urbanization and social activism in China, and co-editor of Investigative Journalism in China (HKU Press).","url":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/author\/david-bandurski\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46798","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=46798"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46798\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":47210,"href":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46798\/revisions\/47210"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1121"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46798"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46798"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chinamediaproject.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46798"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}