What's new

UK moves to silence CGTN, but why?

The neofascist elites in the West want to isolate their populace from alternative voices.

This is also what they do via social media corporations.

They aim to build a massive echo chamber, in which pro-regime voices are multiplied and fortified.

The neofascists power elites realize they are internally weakened. Their own societies are deeply fractured. They cannot form a unified voice unlike the Cold War.

So, they just want to fortify an extremist core with immense influence over discourse - even at the cost of demonizing and alienating half of their own society.

Alternative models like that of China need to be more aggressively manipulate this weakness.
 
Do BBC CNN have broadcasting rights in China?? are they shown on television freely??
 
I'm shocked they felt the need to ban it - I don't think anyone in the UK watched it.
 
Freedom of speech only happens when you are in sync with their rhetoric, otherwise they will ban your, cancal or suspend your social media accounts.

100% agree.

For a long time ago, I'm wondering how long the so-called free speech and free press are going to last?

How long they can keep being "free and fair" when finally their value and narrative are going to be challenged and under huge pressure from foreign news and idea?

And today, with China's rise, they are hugely challenged.

When the so-called news is actually a curse, hoping other countries to fail, representing their elite and people's deeper desire.
 

Editor's note: Jonathan Arnott is a former member of the European Parliament. The article reflects the author's opinions, and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Jen Bricker is an inspirational figure. Growing up without legs, her attitude towards life was always that "can't is a four-letter word" to be treated in exactly the same way as all kinds of swear words which in the English language seem to often have four letters. The story of triumph over adversity and overcoming the most difficult of challenges is one which offers hope to many people struggling in their everyday life. That story, told on screen under the title "When can't is a four-letter word," won an Emmy award for CGTN. In other words, there is a level of quality from their productions that has long been recognized.

I was therefore surprised to read that the British regulator Ofcom has decided to remove CGTN's broadcasting rights in the United Kingdom. It turned out that they're unconcerned about the quality of programs, but rather about editorial control. Ofcom apparently claims they cannot establish that there isn't a chain link that eventually leads back from the UK television company to the Chinese government in Beijing.

I don't know about that. I cannot speak to the technicalities. I can speak only to what I've seen, and to my own perception of CGTN's editorial output. I watch and read the news from all political perspectives. Left-wing or right-wing, capitalist or communist, authoritarian or liberal, I want to develop a nuanced opinion on whichever topic I happen to be writing about. So yes I've watched CGTN, just as I've also watched CNN and Fox, France24 and RT, Sky and the BBC, precisely because I want to see the full spectrum of reporting on any issue.

There's a note at the top of this article. It explains that what I write represents my opinions, not the opinions of the outlet which happens to be publishing the article. My views may, or may not, accord with the views of CGTN on any given issue. That's because CGTN does publish content which it doesn't endorse, because it is interested in hearing both sides of the argument. My views also may, or may not, agree with the views of any other media outlet which I happen to be writing for at the time.

71af770c6030406e8b7bde3e25c41fbe.jpeg


The OFCOM (Office of Communication) logo at its headquarters in London, England. /Getty

If there's something which I believe, which goes fundamentally against the editorial principles of the outlet which I happen to be writing for, then a bit of common sense tells me not to send the piece. For example I have serious concerns about the TV license fee, which requires any British household wishing to watch television to pay £157.50 (US$215) to the BBC even if they never watch the BBC. I would rather see the BBC part-privatized, sold to raise money for the nation, and the remaining "public interest" journalism such as local and regional radio being funded through general taxation. I'd have to be a complete fool, on the other hand, to go live on the BBC and argue on air using their platform that the BBC should be "defunded."

Before Brexit I took a similar attitude towards companies like Euronews, which is partly state-funded by the European Union. I didn't want British taxpayers' money funding a TV channel that promotes a particular political agenda. But, now that Brexit has happened, I no longer live in the European Union. Frankly, how it spends its money is none of my business – I no longer have any right to quibble about how Euronews is funded.

Frankly, my experience has been that CGTN provides a broader range of perspectives than it is often given credit for. The reason I was asked to write articles for CGTN in the first place was to provide some political balance: when Brexit was dominating the European political agenda, they had more pieces from those who were pro-Remain than pro-Brexit. By commissioning opinion pieces from a Brexit supporter, they were able to ensure that a full range of views were represented. My belief in the power of business and free trade has not proved to be a problem; articles along those lines have been published.

My Christian beliefs and values have never caused an issue, nor has my support for religious freedom in general. My belief in freedom of speech has not been a problem either: indeed, it is on that very basis that I have serious misgivings about the UK regulator's decision to ban CGTN television from its airwaves. It is ironic that those who shout in British politics the loudest about "freedom of speech" often lose that belief when it comes to views they disagree with. Anyone can defend free speech when they agree with the opinions expressed. That costs nothing.

When I've written opinion pieces for CGTN in the past, nobody has ever tried to twist my words or to force me to say anything which I did not believe in. If writing a piece would go against my values, I wouldn't write it.

Crucially, there has never been any pressure on me to do so. I can only speak to my own experience, and that experience does not sit comfortably with Ofcom's decision.
 

Editor's note: John Ross is a senior fellow at the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Britain has withdrawn the broadcasting license for CGTN – China's English language TV channel. Within hours of the decision, CGTN was forced off the air in the UK. London is one of CGTN's three main overseas offices alongside Washington and Nairobi. CGTN in Britain employs over 100 journalists and support staff. The British authorities' real reason for this action was that they fear news of China's success being objectively reported in Britain.

This action in Britain also follows a state attack on CGTN in the U.S., where it was recently forced to register as a foreign agent – opening up its U.S. employees to witch hunts and damaging their careers.

The West has loudly claimed that it stands for "free speech," saying it one of its "universal rights." But the reality is that it only allowed free speech in very limited forms: as long as the overwhelming majority of the population supports capitalism in general and their own government in particular. The moment that there was any chance that a large number of people would disagree, then "free speech" would be restricted or closed down.

Because China has had success in fighting against COVID-19 and its economic recovery from the pandemic, it is therefore vital for British authorities favoring a new Cold War with China to prevent this reality from being known and reported on in Britain.

The formal reasons given by Britain for closing down CGTN are specious. Officially, it is because any holder of a broadcasting license in Britain must supposedly not be controlled by political bodies. But this law is selectively applied. For example, the BBC, which relentlessly broadcasts anti-China and pro-British government reports on issues such as Hong Kong, is clearly controlled by a political body – the British state.

Indeed, so tightly is the BBC controlled by the British state that since its earliest days, its staff has been directly vetted by the British security service – Military Intelligence, Section 5 (MI5). This coordination of the BBC with military intelligence was coordinated from a special office inside the BBC's headquarters.

There was a formal procedure that all staff should be vetted by MI5 except "personnel such as charwomen [cleaners]." The BBC agreed not to reveal the role of the British Security Services or the existence of the vetting itself.

The BBC directly lied regarding this. For example, in an interview by the then BBC director general Sir Hugh Greene, he declared, "We don't conduct an inquisition on people who join the BBC." But in fact, Greene knew perfectly well that the staff of the BBC were vetted, and its composition was therefore directly determined by Britain's security services.

Presenting the BBC as an impartial organization is, therefore, completely false. It was. in fact. tightly controlled by the British state. But despite this state control the BBC is allowed to operate as Britain's main broadcasting organization.

cd2c2e77a6df4302b69a5895f0238df0.jpeg


The Ofcom (Office of Communication) logo on the front of their headquarters in London. /Getty

There are numerous examples of channels with clear political agendas. For example, CNN has continuously broadcast programs favoring the U.S. Democratic Party and carried on political campaigns against both former President Trump and China. One may have different views on this content, but CNN clearly has a broadcasting license in Britain.

The British bias was shown clearly earlier in 2020 when Ofcom, the British state authority which regulates the broadcasting services, declared that CGTN had breached Britain's broadcasting code by failing to be impartial in its coverage of the Hong Kong riots. This was because CGTN accurately reported the violence used by the rioters and showed the real separatist politics of their leaders.

Meanwhile, the BBC was broadcasting programs several times a day describing the rioters as heroic "fighters for democracy," concealing their violence and their leaders' political agenda. But no sanction was taken by Ofcom against the BBC.

Thirty years ago, when China was still a very undeveloped country, it was, of course, attractive to few people in the West. They did not understand just how poor China had been when the People's Republic was founded in 1949 and what huge steps forward China had taken. Back then the British government could allow China to explain its reality because the British government was confident that this was not seen as being attractive by people in Britain.

But now the situation has radically changed due to China's success. Numerous British companies wish to do business with China. Regarding public perception China has taken huge steps forward in economic development, and in areas such as 5G or cashless payments, China is ahead of Britain.

It is crucial for those who favor a "new Cold War" that people in Britain do not understand the reality about China.

This general need is even more urgent when China has just had such great success in dealing with COVID-19 and in economic recovery compared to the situation in Britain.

Over 100,000 people have died from COVID-19 in Britain, compared to under 5,000 in China. But China has 20 times the population of Britain. So Britain's death rate would be equivalent to more than two million dead in China. It is crucial for those favoring a new Cold War that the British people do not understand that their death rate from COVID-19 is 400 times worse than that of China.

The international No Cold War campaign, in its statement on the withdrawal of CGTN's British broadcasting license, rightly said it "is directly dangerous. The world faces the threat of a new Cold War. Such a Cold War stands in the way of the global cooperation that is urgently needed to tackle the common problems faced by humanity: the pandemic, climate change, poverty and peace. At such a moment, it is crucial to build understanding between people and to accurately understand the positions of the chief actors in the global situation. Denying a voice to China's CGTN cuts across all these goals. The British authorities should therefore immediately reverse this decision to revoke CGTN's broadcasting license."

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom