Modal close

Dear Democracy Now! visitor,

You turn to Democracy Now! for ad-free news you can trust. Maybe you come for our daily headlines. Maybe you come for in-depth stories that expose corporate and government abuses of power. Democracy Now! brings you crucial reporting like our coverage from the front lines of the standoff at Standing Rock or news about the movements fighting for peace, racial and economic justice, immigrant rights and LGBTQ equality. We produce our daily news hour at a fraction of the budget of a commercial news operation—all without ads, government funding or corporate sponsorship. How is this possible? Only with your support. Right now, a generous funder will match your donation dollar for dollar. That means when you give $10 to Democracy Now!, we'll receive $20. So, if you've been waiting to make your contribution to Democracy Now!, today is your day. It takes just a couple of minutes to make sure that Democracy Now! is there for you and everybody else in 2017.

Non-commercial news needs your support.

We rely on contributions from you, our viewers and listeners to do our work. If you visit us daily or weekly or even just once a month, now is a great time to make your monthly contribution.

Please do your part today.


Danny Schechter, the News Dissector, Analyzes How the Media Corporations' Own Interests Inchina Color Their Coverage

StoryApril 10, 2001
Watch iconWatch Full Show

The Bush administration is not alone in exercising restraint with China to protect business interests: the corporatemedia has also taken a mild tone. Despite China’s long history of human rights abuses, including its recentcrack-down on the Falun Gong spiritual movement, the U.S. media has noticeably refrained from spinning PresidentJiang Zemin into a Saddam Hussein, or a Milosevic. Much of the emphasis during the current spy plane stand-off hasinstead been on diplomacy.

While many progressives welcome this restraint, Danny Schechter argues in a column titled "Media Prostitutes andChina Coverage" that the diplomatic tone is due largely to the corporate media’s business interests in China.

The Murdochs are a prime example. Rupert Murdoch, who runs the Star satellite system in China (and also owns Foxnews) and his son James, who heads Murdoch’s News Corporation in Asia, have become famous for their pro-China bias.According to the New York Times, James Murdoch "stunned listeners" at a Milken Institute business conferencein Los Angeles when he called the Falung Gong an "apocalyptic cult" which "clearly does not have China’s interests atheart." And Murdoch senior has described the Dalai Lama as "a very political old monk shuffling around in Guccishoes." The London-based New Statesman wrote: "Murdoch is not falling for Chinese propaganda. He’s repeatingit word for word."

Why the bias? The Murdoch’s plan to expand their investments and satellite distribution into the world’s largestmarket. They have already been rewarded for their biased coverage: two weeks ago the Independent reportedthat

Murdoch’s News Corporation had agreed to a $325m deal to take a 12.5 per cent stake in China Netcom, which isbuilding the country’s first broadband telecoms network. But Chinese law prevents foreign investors from owning anypart of the country’s basic telecoms network.


  • Danny Schechter, Executive Editor of

Related link:

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Non-commercial news needs your support

We rely on contributions from our viewers and listeners to do our work.
Please do your part today.

Make a donation