I remember the issue with the school in Maine when Global Times was accusing one of their schools of running an out-dated school. Sounded like a story from Southpark!

Funny how those rants are taking twists and spread in the media. Great food for a journalist I guess.

Gotta say here that the Chinese language edition has been impeached of having a stiff pro-gov. slant and of attracting a severly nationalistic readers. However, the English-language version though has been reported as taking a less imperative approach.

Taken from page 4: The editorial continued: "But it is necessary to ask a question: What and who failed them? … Their formal colonizers, who now dominate the world market, told them exporting raw materials and opening up their markets to Western goods was the quickest path to prosperity. But most of their revenues ended up in the pocket of international corporations."

Is there a single thing said here that is false?

Great article, Christina. I just wish you could have done a tangent on the old "Ask Alessandro" column that Global Times used to publish. It was literally the weirdest column I have seen in any publication in the world...unbelievably racist, misogynistic, and lewd (but actually kind of funny). I would have been curious to know why they allowed it to be published in a state-run paper.

Here's a link to an old column of his: http://beijing.globaltimes.cn/life/edu-tech/2011-04/501593.html

Would you mind pointing out which part of your piece makes Bill O'Reilly seem fair and balanced? As a foreigner who has lived both in the US and in China, I would agree that both countries do have their fair share of nationalistic, biased, narrow-minded figureheads, but by somehow implying that this is worst than Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the MANY crazies with influential positions at FOX and generally throughout the US gvmt and media, this author has willingly forfeited any legitimacy of unbiased, detached reporting. Same goes for the author of the accompanying photo piece.

It strikes me that the author tries very hard to cover up the fact that she cannot read the Global Times in Chinese. I wonder if FP would like to clarify whether, in fact, it has commissioned a reporter to write about a newspaper who cannot actually read that newspaper. As anyone who studies the Global Times well knows, the Chinese edition is substantially different than the English one. Not to FP's credit.

Seems FP has managed upset the fengqing (or would that be the wumaodang?) once again by tackling the subject of the Global Times, that ever-reliable source of vitriol.

I will say this for 'Global Times'. Despite giving Fox News a run on its money for pumping the public full of dangerously jingoist / chauvinist BS, it is at least a much more interesting read than the average Party mouthpiece tripe. Given their interest in covering domestic corruption and wrongdoings by the party, I don't see them lasting more than a few more years--just look at Caijing magazine if you want to see the writing on the wall.

In China, all it takes is crossing the wrong official or mentioning the wrong topic at the wrong time and this Hu Xijin will find himself 'harmonized' on trumped up charges as was Ai Weiwei and so many others. For crying out loud, if investigating the corruption that led to the deaths of so many children in Sichuan is to be seen as one person subjecting China to his personal morality, then hitting back over the exposure of government liquor expenses (or similar stories) is not exactly a moral line in the sand.

The reasons why OReilly is ridiculous is not because he is biased, but because he insists that he is Fair and balanced. The Chinese papers have never indicated that they are anything but fair and balanced, so the comparison of Hu Xijin to Oreilly is silly at best. The last time I checked op-eds are supposed to be biased and one sided to begin with so it's hard to see what is Larson's problem.

The way I see it, the likes of Hu Xijin is a counter to the likes of Christina Larson in that one writes pro-China opinion pieces all the time, while the other only writes negatives ones all the time. You don't need to read much beyond Larson's Beautiful Me! piece (Nov 2010) to see that Larson hates not only the Chinese government but the common Chinese people. Heck she wrote a whole scathing piece on FP just to bash Chinese brides for wanting to look good for their wedding photo.

The result of one sided reporting from both is plainly obvious. On the one hand you get the Chinese "ultra/hyper nationalists" (why don't journalists ever use this term to describe Americans conservatives) bragging about China despite the fact that China is still just a third world nation. On the other hand you get rabid China-bashing trolls whining about Chinese "ultranationalists" and accusing anyone who is not blatantly anti-China of being "fengqing", "50 cent' or other stupid terms which they have little idea about.

This is a very well written article that has a lot of good information in it. I don't think she's trying to change the world or force an opinion down anyone's throat, despite what you moron commentators are saying.

She's telling a story about a newspaper that has a nationalistic bias and how that came about. She's succeded in that respect. Which is impressive, especially given the fact that she probably has to write 10 1,500 word articles a month for $300 each just to make a living.

Sure there is a Chinese nationalist bias in the newspaper. But it is much more sophisticated than the utterly myopic and America centric crap on FOXNEWS.

And on some issues, like US meddling in other country's domestic affairs to serve its own narrow interests, they DO have a point.

Also another interesting takeaway: the "democratic China" that American liberal internationalists dream about may be a lot more nationalistic and aggressive and difficult to deal with than the current "authoritarian" regime.
Be careful what you wish for!

Fox is a bad comparison for FP to use here, because FOX is 1) a privately owned TV network and, under a Democratic Party administration, FOX is in effect 2) an opposition media outlet. China permits neither 1 nor 2.

I think many Westerners look to the Global Times op-eds for the same guilty pleasure rush they get from reading North Korea's KCNA. Not all of the GT's output is blood-curdling blood-and-soil nationalistic propaganda, but that is unfortunately what it has become famous for.

I write op-eds for GT's English edition (and China Daily). GT's editorial page is strongly pro-government and I would agree with both the FOX reference and the poster who wrote that it's not quite like FOX b/c there is no true other side in China.
The op-ed pages of the English edition however are not jingoistic. It's still difficult to criticize the government directly but it is possible to take on certain government policies.
I wrote the op-ed questioning whether the Maine hs recruiting Chinese students was a good value for Chinese families. It was neither a pro-government nor anti-government piece and nearly all the background info for my op-ed came from a NYT story. (I had included two credits to that story in the version I sent GT but they were cut). The criticisms of GT as a government shill were frankly laughable, at least with regard to that op-ed. I wrote follow-up op-eds for two Maine newspapers, visited the Maine town that is hosting the Chinese students, spoke to various interested stakeholders, and came to the same conclusion- the investment was not worth it. Apparently, Chinese families felt the same way as the school ended up with three Chinese students, not sixty as planned.

Having read the GT during my recent three-year stay in the People's Republic of China, I endorse and recommend the article. However, I recall around the June 6th date recently that GT published an unrefuted CCP "academic" who said it's often necessary and good to forget about certain events of the immediate past (the Tianemen Square massacre) so that the country could better develop its economy. So publisher Hu can be less forthcoming than the author states.

Then there are the usual parade of comments to the article. Most pro-GT commenters state, in the aggregate, the usual and predictable CCP-PRC lines about the United States, which Beijing blames for everything wrong with the PRChina, from inflation to earthquakes (US Weather Warfare) to the 'rennegades' on Taiwan, dissention in Tibet and Xinjiang, the price of gasoline etc ad nauseum. After all, there's absolutely nothing per se wrong with China (how could there be?).

JAMESLIP tries obtuse praise of the GT by groveling to say its English version is less stiffly pro-government than other CCP-PRC organs, still however failing to mention there is no anti-government publication in the PRC; moreover, CCTV has its same-same but different 44 government owned and controlled channels of what it calls news and entertainment, but what I call propaganda and indoctrination.

AGABOURY gets in the standard CCP line about colonialsim as "chief among reasons" why states fail (swiping FP for its "Failed States Index" which includes African dictatorship kleptocrats friendly to the CCP-PRC). We anyway know that monarchy initiated colonialism but only democracy could end it, as we did in fact do. The CCP-PRC is the new exploitative colonial master in Africa but increasing being rejected as such in the most recent elections.

JYS390 delivers another standard CCP line that we who are critical of the CCP-PRC censoring dictatorship and thousands of years of elite rule in China need to learn more about China - as if the oligarchy and autocracy that is China were a dark and mysterious place. In this regard, JYS390 joins to throw down the exclusive membership card, i.e., he lived "both in the US and China" so he knows the author and all the rest of we who criticize the CCP-PRC do so because we are uninitiated, perhaps even silly. This predictable CCP line highhandedly and conveniently dismisses all criticism in one supposedly unrefutable stroke. We read this condecending line often here in comments.

XTIANGODLOKI has softened his tone during recent months, and also has taken a new tact, saying a plague on both your houses but places a greater plague on the United States, freedom and democracy while being implicit that CCP censorship is a good thing (i.e., continues to be).

BALKAN_FALCON takes the always mightly CCP line that the US "meddling in others domestic affairs" is one of the worst crimes in history, especially when it comes to human rights and democracy. In other words, we in the West shouldn't be promoting democracy in the PRC because, given the nature of the fenqing and the blame the US gets by Beijing for everything wrong in China, we might get it between the eyes from the thousands of years of Chinese survivalist meanness, this time in new and, horrors, democratic ways.

Cleanup slugger ALANCHRISTOPHER takes the big guns CCP approach of presenting the economic data, conveniently chosen, selected, crunched - not to mention distorted by Beijing - to deflect the fact of a CCP-PRC political system that in the Age of IT is the most reactionary, censoring regime of the contemporary world.

When the GT opens its editorial pages to a comments from our readers section, or even something old-fashioned in liberal journalism - Letters From Our Readers - then I might make my first efforts to get published in the rag.

RAPH82 joins JYS390 concerning the "exclusive membership card" etc in the paragraph.

And, obviously, The author knows her stuff.

Chinese media don't tell the whole news but push Sinocentric news. Well, how is that different from the US media that are essentially owned by Jews. Most news networks and thinktanks are Jewish operated. Hollywood is Jewish-dominated. 50% of top pundits in America are Jewish, and most of them are ardent Zionists who care about Israel and Jewish interests before American interests.

I think it is important to note that this is not something unique to the Global Times or the mainstream U.S. media. Newspapers in Spain focus more on Spanish events than newspapers in Canada do. Democracy Now! focuses more on strikes, protests, and political radicals than the Wall Street Journal. Global Times and Beijing Daily publish content that is very different from and Danwei.org and China Media Project. Everyone, and every organization, has their own agenda, focus, and priorities. It is nothing uniquely Chinese (nor, I think, is there anything uniquely worth demonizing) about a newspaper publishing articles that are in accordance with a certain set of goals and priorities.

As for the criticism of anyone throwing down his or her "exclusive membership card," does it not make sense that someone who has lived in both China and the U.S. often possessing more knowledge of China than the average FP reader? Certainly, merely living in a certain location does not automatically make one an expert. However, is it not logical to suppose that a person who has experienced daily life in China, one who can read Chinese, one who has studies much about the country, would have a greater knowledge, and therefore (perhaps) a truer/wiser opinion than one who lacks these experiences? In the same way that "during my recent three-year stay in the People's Republic of China" automatically gives PUBLICUS's a little more weight, one's experiences and background is relevant to a discussion. If we were having a discussion on quantum physics, or space travel, or 17th Century poetry, wouldn't one's field of study affect how one's opinion is perceived. I am not claiming that JYS390, or any other commenter here reads Chinese news sources and has a deep and profound understanding of the country and the culture, but I can honestly say that it is easy to over-simplify things before one learns how complicated issues truly can be. This is, of course, applicable to many things, not just China watchers.

I have to venture to disagree with JYS390 as to the best Chines news source: I would propose the China Digital Times as the single source to go to if you only go to one place to read about China.

There is no denying the nationalistic bias in global times as the author pointed out. But it is not Fox, which distorts facts for a conservative audience. GT is a paper targetted toward the Chinese, who hate western and any kind of foreign intrusion (Great Wall being the perfect symbol of that country). So it's vital for western media to understand these feelings shared by the Chinese for over a century. For a country like the US or UK who have not been occupied by foreign powers, it is real easy for ppl to decry the nationalistic feelings of other foreigners. That passage on African poverty as a legacy of colonialism is very much true. I hope ppl can put themselves in the shoes of others if you truly seek to understand them and their positions.

There seems to be some puzzlement about the fact that the Global Times manages to get away with what might be regarded as provocative content in any other Chinese publication. I suspect that the answer lies in China's military, which seems to behind many belligerent trends in China, whether it is the threat to atom-bomb Taiwan, outrage over the Embassy attack in Yugoslavia, or threats against S.E. Asia. There are plenty of powerless Chinese who are only too happy to to join the PLA's chauvinistic chorus.

What is interesting about the Global Times' recent threats against South-East Asian countries over the South China Sea is that it controverts the principles of Chinese foreign policy for the past fifty or more years. China has always maintained that it was a victim of imperialistic bullying. That lay behind anger over 'interference in China's internal affairs' and accusations of imperialism against the West, all based on the idea that China is a helpless victim fighting back against Western bullies. As long as China was railing against the West, this all seemed to hold water. But the day that China deploys military force against the smaller nations of South-East Asia, the veil will be ripped from China's foreign policy pretensions. We can all feel sympathy for a nation that stands up after constant bullying. Both the legitimacy of China's foreign policy and any sympathy for China's situation will quickly evaporate when it is revealed that the Century of Shame has merely led in the Return of the Bully. Does the Global Times realise where its chauvinism is leading? Frighteningly, the answer may be yes.

Something which may be interesting and/or relevant here, I just finished listening to the most recent Sinica Podcast (http://popupchinese.com/lessons/sinica/the-extremes-of-china-media) in which the author of this piece, when questioned about Global Times and Fox News, seemed to deny responsibility for that by stating that writers don't always get to write the titles. It would make sense, because the impression she gives throughout the discussion makes it seem as though she, personally, does not equate Global Times and Fox News. I suppose this should teach us some humility, recognizing that our assumption that Christina Larson believed Global Times and Fox News to be similar is false.

Let's have them first stand trial to learn more about mens rea, that very criminal mind, then decide which deterring punishment they deserve

http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/682396/Foreign-Policys-limited-view-of-Chinese-media.aspx

But the Global Times is not journalism, it is the propaganda and indoctrination rag of a one party state - the CCP's Chinese soapbox. Who cares what the GT writes, except for instances when it is belligerent, such as pushing its control militarily over waters surrounding Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and in the specific case of the CCP Beijing's absolute claims of sovereignty over all of the misnamed South China Sea.

The sea needs to be named correctly, i.e., the Southeast Asia Sea given that 130,000 km are on the shoreline of Southeast Asia countries but only 1300 km are along the coast of southernmost mainland China. (Hainan Island is recognized globally as a PRC province so there's no dispute about that.)