The dichotomy of China Global Television Network’s news coverage
Although much is made of the universalisation of ‘US-style’ journalism around the world and Chinese journalists’ shared professional values with counterparts in liberal-democratic countries (Zhang, 2009), the effect of these trends on journalism in China is yet to be fully explored. Using the 2015 Tianjin blasts as a case study, this article investigates China Global Television Network (CGTN) and CNN International’s coverage of the disaster. The empirical study finds that despite their overlapping news values, the two networks’ opposing ideological objectives contributed to different framings of the Tianjin blasts. Although CGTN, as a symbol of Chinese media’s presence on the world stage, has clearly travelled far from its past era of party-line journalism, it still hesitates to apportion responsibility to those in power. The authors argue that CGTN is increasingly torn by its dichotomous role as a credible media competing for audience attention on the world stage, and a vital government propaganda organ domestically.
Copyright (c) 2019 Thomas Fearon, Usha M. Rodrigues
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors submitting articles for publication warrant that the work is not an infringement of any existing copyright and will indemnify the publisher against any breach of such warranty. By publishing in Pacific Journalism Review, the author(s) agree to the dissemination of their work through Pacific Journalism Review and on the PJR databases.
By publishing in Pacific Journalism Review, the authors grant the Journal a Creative Commons nonexclusive worldwide license for electronic dissemination of the article via the internet, and, a nonexclusive right to license others to reproduce, republish, transmit, and distribute the content of the journal. The authors grant the Journal the right to transfer content (without changing it), to any medium or format necessary for the purpose of preservation.
Authors agree that the Journal will not be liable for any damages, costs, or losses whatsoever arising in any circumstances from its services, including damages arising from the breakdown of technology and difficulties with access.