I have to say, I am very very impressed with this article. There's a great breakdown of actions, behaviours, values, comparisons, and explicit mentions of psychological processes such as outgroup/ingroup. One of my initial beliefs had to do with the attack on press freedom which the West prides itself for, which led to the great uproar. How the article addressed that reinforced my beliefs and was kinda a great feeling. However I didn't know the French culture enough to realize the value of satirical media(no matter how much we disagree with their contexts this time for cultural inappropriateness). I also liked how the end of the article did make a great point about the West encourages discussions on these matters while the Chinese side seeks for the opposite.
For a very long time I did feel there are some disconnect between the outside culture vs China's domestic. The conventional argument, especially from the Chinese side or sympathizers or critics of Western journalism, would boil everything down to bias, double-standard, discrimination, stereotype, prejudice(if anyone recalls, years ago back around 2008, 2009, I expressed similar anger at Western media hypocrisy). It was a standard argument most of us have taken, but my opinions evolved past that because I felt the explanation was over-simplistic to address the weight of the trend, and so I felt there's more than that and never sealed my conclusion with that belief. Anyways if I recall right in one of my earlier posts in this thread, I did mention the foreign press' skepticism(even dislike/hatred) of Chinese/official accounts and side of the picture(which again might have motivated their greater interests to cover an non-official/underdog side of the argument), hence they don't trust them. But off course a very valid element also involved the an ongoing mistrust(or belief) that any ongoing campaign or events conducted by the authoritarian regime are the continuation of their systematic oppression lined with Chinese-skewed conspiracy. And in this case, I am kind of happy to think/realize the authors of the article echoed a similar sentiment. I checked their credentials and was surprised however, that none off them registered psychology as their discipline. Regardless, the article, I felt, had quite some weight in terms of its balance too.
Anyways, let's assume we use today's argument/analysis to set the frame for the question, "What can we do about it?", then the prospects for a finding a solution become more optimistic and possible. (the previous, conventional beliefs of the West hates China, doesn't leave much room for exploring what we can do about the issue, as the argument rested on a belief/prejudice that the West and China are like water and fire)
- First off, if the scenario is constructed as the article described (and seems quite accurate as it is), then to disintegrate the current buildup will be for the CCP loosen the grip on information and press freedom. CCP needs to be able to accept and permit the media run their stories whichever way, whenever they want, regardless if they are pro or against the government or other shades of viewpoints. I don't know if there's foreign press corps having HQs in China, but again like the article had suggested, China still remains a very mysterious place to foreigners due to language and cultural differences and upbringing and values.
- This therefore sets my second argument, which is the need for China and the outside to be exposed and open for longer periods of time for some real relationship building. Something like 50 years rather than just 10, 20, and actually being onboard with the international community for a lot of things, will be required before foreigners begin to see the Chinese side of things, as actual in-depth understanding require extended periods of immersion, not like the current relationship where most of the relationships stem from strategic and economical interests. Being quiet or inactive will mean people won't really remember you. This is especially if you have an impression to make.
- The Chinese emphasis or ethnocentric/sinocentric views should also be dropped because China needs to remember its real influence in mass culture is minimal. How to appeal to the mass audience is the most important for changing impressions. Some may say China doesn't need to care about what others think, but that's just simply being self-centered and living in its own world.
- Let the press write whatever they want. This will show ability to accept ideas, criticisms, and also the fun and weird stuff foreigners and foreign press likes to do(from satirical cartoons to Chinese Alex Jones(which there are plenty) to some other weird stuffs) that may not really exist as much in mainland Chinese culture by default. It doesn't matter whether the government agrees with it. In a way, I start to believe good journalism first comes from the freedom to cover anything.
- Privatize CCTV, Xinhua, Global Times, and other state media. No one will report or believe something CCTV and Xinhua had already covered when they both are considered one of the not-trusted sources as they are seen as government mouthpiece. Bringing them down to equal fair playing ground would give further incentives for the foreign press to see this as a fair playing ground and then compete for perspectives or arguments, ideas, interviews.
Other non-Chinese issues include language barrier, education/literacy rates, cultural exchanges, transparency of government, living standards, etc. Those will take time, but if all are done correctly, the genuine interests in covering China will be greater, which will also facilitate greater flow of information.
Finally, a comparison I'll like to make is the Umbrella Revolution. The amount of media coverage received around the world and the global response was/would be something the mainland observers should also critically compare and ask, whether they agree/disagree with what happened. Why HK was able to garner such a huge audience and attention from everyone around the globe? Some may conveniently argue it's Western conspiracy or to take a cheap shot at the CCP, but those are conspiracy responses without any depth.
This is why I am reinforced in my beliefs that CCP is extremely terrible when it comes to PR. It likes to believe it's doing the greater good and it's a good guy(or maybe CCP is deep inside and acting for the best interests), but as long as all your neighbors perceive you as an abusive parent and you act like one, the mistrust naturally continues. And if you remain stuck in your own side of argument and not listening other's perspective and neither do they (because they don't trust abusive parents with past histories of violence), then neither side will ever understand each other. You believe they hate you, while they believe you're a bully, even if both prejudices are only a small portion of truth of the whole picture.
While again it's impossible to dismiss stereotype, prejudice, and what not, I do think incorporating and exploring new explanations are important as we may eventually dig out something useful.
A big comparison I'd finally like to note is compare the amount of depths that Western press has in covering, criticizing US government on everything, anything, for any topic, ranging from abortion to Obama to the medicare to ridiculing something, somebody. It's pretty much press freedoms which permits these depth to occur. If China wants the same level of spotlight, it must be willing to accept this realm of discussion on it. And also social media platforms thus have been greatly underestimated. It is almost one of the best portals for information for often the relays, tweets, shares, posts, are voluntary, many times first-hand, intrinsic in motivation, and genuine. Of course some could be fabricated, but those are generally chain-letters and the only current widespread of hoax through social media that I recall that have the biggest impact will be Kony 2012. That's all I recall for now.
In the future I will expand into looking at Western spheres of influences in terms of culture, which I feel also plays a very important role of coverage by the media.
Another big point I failed to mention which the article did was the prevalence and the effect of social media. Pretty much banning the most popular platforms such as Google, Facebook, Youtube really reduced the outreach of China, which in these instances play against them. It's also attributable to social media which of course saw the proliferation of grassroots civil actions around the globe for not only the Umbrella Movement, but also of course the flow of fighters to Syria.
