It's not that they need a Indian face to report. It's that the Chinese messaging style sucks and is ineffective.
Just compare the style of Ben Norton, Richard Wolff, Michael Hudson to CGTN, China Daily and others. The difference is in the messaging itself. There are other major factors.
You see difference in the language and the framing.
Asian reporters vs non Asian reporters
hegemony vs empire
military adventurism / world police vs brutal empire invades nations
ideology vs fascism
Taiwan independence vs separatists
color revolution vs coups, overthrow government
usa confronts China vs usa attacks China
usa discredits China vs usa smears China
usa discourse hegemony vs usa's global propaganda machine - you can even use ex-CIA director quote here.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William J. Casey, CIADirector (1981)"
usa protects Taiwan vs usa sells weapons to Taiwanese separtists
usa's trade restrictions vs America's tech war on China (this was from WSJ).
usa wants to contain Chna vs America wants to destroy China
will will crush Taiwan independence vs usa wants to use Taiwan as an unsinkable aircraft carrier
misunderstanding vs lying
spreading rumors vs atrocity propaganda
hyping up vs lying
lab leak theory vs anti China propaganda
The Chinese style of reporting is weak and tries to be inoffensive, which is useless. Because it's so inoffensive, the reporting rarely provides clarity or wins people over. I never watch the Chinese news and even get the impression that America is even attacking China. I keep seeing soft and/or insane terms like restriction, contain, confront (people confront bullies. China is not a bully), etc.
America is trying to destroy China with everything outside of a hot war and Chinese media presents this as "We are not a threat. Why don't you believe us. Please correct your wrong actions.". Useless.
The framing and wording is almost always wrong and self defeating. This is always related to their lack of skill.
Instead of pleading innocence which makes you sound guilty (mostly because of poor execution). An innocent person would usually lash out for being framed up with Western lies.
Try attacking the accuser's total lack of credibility instead. For example, "The Western butchers of Muslims pretends to care about Muslims in Xinjiang."
When China tries to debunk Uyghur genocide it rambles on about minor points like the number of temples built and showing dancing on the streets. Who cares. Start by stating the population has tripled. And Chinese media should focus on comparisons eg "Here's an actual genocide supported by the West who claims they love Muslims in China." Show the crimes against humanity they committed against Palestinians in Gaza. Use emotional videos and photos.
One more point about the futility of being inoffensive. Emotions are the most important thing to sway. Pictures and videos are the best tool to sway emotions. That's why Western war criminals hire paid actors to cry on camera in their fake testimonies.
from Empire of Pictures - Global Media and the 1960s by Sönke Kunkel (2015)
This is what your enemy fears - skillful use of content to sway emotions against them.
Most accusations by the West are best replied by a side by side comparison and include some damning quotes from famous Americans like Jimmy Carter.
Carter then referred to the US as “the most warlike nation in the history of the world,” a result, he said, of the US forcing other countries to “adopt our American principles.”
“Since 1979, do you know how many times China has been at war with anybody?” Carter asked. “None, and we have stayed at war.”
