Commentary
CGTN presents itself as a global news network committed to “objectivity, rationality, and balance.” While most recognize how far this is from reality, the report goes further, exposing a stark truth: Every word, every frame, and every story is meticulously controlled to align with the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) agenda.
That this is not journalism but propaganda is not surprising in itself. What is surprising, however, is the extent to which CGTN serves as a propaganda arm.
While it is easy to be surprised by the people who choose to work for such an outlet—often well-educated foreigners fully aware that it is pure propaganda—the report, drawing on extensive interviews with both former and current employees (many of them foreigners), also reveals how difficult it is for many of them to carry out their work.
In one instance, an employee quit upon realizing the harm caused by their reporting on the suppression in Xinjiang and the mass internment camps that followed. Many others simply tuned out, doing the bare minimum and working on rote to collect an easy paycheck.
Related Stories
Perhaps the most interesting insights come from the report’s descriptions of the work environment inside CGTN and its famed “big underpants” headquarters in Beijing. Former employees describe a newsroom devoid of the energy and debate typical of independent journalism.
Instead, it is a place where self-censorship is the norm, and deviation from the script is met with reprimands—or worse. Silence envelops the newsroom, literally: TV screens are muted, and no phones ring between the newsroom and the planning desks.
Anchors, of course, are forbidden from improvising, even when it would make logical sense to do so. Reporters largely avoid pitching stories, knowing they will never see the light of day—not because they lack newsworthiness, but because they cannot fit within the very tight rules in place.
When CGTN aired the forced TV confession of Simon Cheng—an act that largely sealed CGTN’s fate in the UK and a key reason it was ultimately taken off the air—foreign editors interviewed for the report called it “arguably the worst item I edited” and admitted that “there was no use pushing back on these things.” The workforce was drained of energy.
This low-energy environment also fostered a culture of fear. Some employees assumed their communications were monitored and operated under the constant threat of reprisals. Most former employees refused to speak openly for this report, fearing retaliation, and only agreed to do so under the condition of anonymity.
When discussing fear, many expressed surprise that the building—a news headquarters—is surrounded by armed guards and that there is a separate barracks-type building on its grounds. One former employee said: “Every day we’d see them doing jogging exercises around the building. Sometimes you’d see military-type vehicles.”
While the exterior of the building spared no expense, the interior is regularly described as sparse, run-down, or shabby. One person referred to it as “grey and confusing,” while another said, “In the newsroom, everything was broken and falling apart. Panels were falling off desks and there were not enough chairs.”
Despite the report revealing a sometimes humorous side to things—and proving that all the money in the world cannot buy even D-level journalistic output—CGTN remains one of the world’s largest propaganda operations. Understanding it is key to responding to it effectively.
For all its amateurishness, it does succeed in some parts of the world, and that makes it dangerous. One small step toward addressing this is understanding the day-to-day working reality for its many foreign staff, who are there to lend credibility and sometimes serve as its outward face.
CGTN invites viewers to “see the difference.” What we can learn from these new insights is how that “difference” is actually made—and it’s certainly not the difference CGTN wants people to see or think about.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
