China Propaganda Network Targets BBC Media, UK in Large-Scale Influence Campaign(recordedfuture.com)
recordedfuture.com
China Propaganda Network Targets BBC Media, UK in Large-Scale Influence Campaign
https://www.recordedfuture.com/china-propaganda-targets-bbc-uk/
32 comments
"democratic governments haven’t figured out how to combat these soft attacks from the CCP, because it’s very hard to form a national defence against subversive outside influence (good) without trampling on the freedom of expression of our own citizens (bad)."
I don't think that is even the beginning of the problem.
The West doesn't 'react' because they are systematically incapable.
Nobody is 'in charge' in the West, there are thousands of politicians, heads of states and provinces, heads of security, CEOs. The government is very tightly bound by laws. Politicians are temporary and populist.
So how would the UK react to 'this thing'? Which agency? And who in that agency? Will they draft laws? What exactly would it entail? Or would it be a matter of foreign policy aka tit-for-tat? That gets complicated.
There needs to be a coordinated and cohesive strategy vis-a-vis China within the nation so that lowly disempowered students who are bullied, the little company who has IP stolen etc. can all participate in some kind of meaningful process. Or probably not 'process' but at least some kind of coordinated activity.
I don't think that is even the beginning of the problem.
The West doesn't 'react' because they are systematically incapable.
Nobody is 'in charge' in the West, there are thousands of politicians, heads of states and provinces, heads of security, CEOs. The government is very tightly bound by laws. Politicians are temporary and populist.
So how would the UK react to 'this thing'? Which agency? And who in that agency? Will they draft laws? What exactly would it entail? Or would it be a matter of foreign policy aka tit-for-tat? That gets complicated.
There needs to be a coordinated and cohesive strategy vis-a-vis China within the nation so that lowly disempowered students who are bullied, the little company who has IP stolen etc. can all participate in some kind of meaningful process. Or probably not 'process' but at least some kind of coordinated activity.
Any rational or truthful reporting will, of course, be highly critical of the government. But most reporting on China in the US and Europe is very far from this ideal, and swings over into demonization and absurd caricature.
Nearly every story on China is intensely negative - even reporting on things that are mostly positive, such as the reduction of extreme poverty or the successful epidemic control measures. By all means, report on political repression in Xinjiang, but don't try to manipulate people by throwing around absurd accusations of "genocide." This is causing a backlash in China, and among people who know about China to any extent.
There's very little attempt to explain to Western audiences, in broad outlines, what Chinese society is like, what the major government policies are, or what the background of various conflicts is. That's what I miss most in reporting in the US and Europe. It comes across as a crude attempt to demonize a country, and to manipulate public opinion into supporting an aggressive posture towards a geopolitical rival.
Nearly every story on China is intensely negative - even reporting on things that are mostly positive, such as the reduction of extreme poverty or the successful epidemic control measures. By all means, report on political repression in Xinjiang, but don't try to manipulate people by throwing around absurd accusations of "genocide." This is causing a backlash in China, and among people who know about China to any extent.
There's very little attempt to explain to Western audiences, in broad outlines, what Chinese society is like, what the major government policies are, or what the background of various conflicts is. That's what I miss most in reporting in the US and Europe. It comes across as a crude attempt to demonize a country, and to manipulate public opinion into supporting an aggressive posture towards a geopolitical rival.
> Recorded Future’s Insikt Group has discovered a large-scale, likely state-sponsored influence operation against the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) and the United Kingdom (UK). The campaign involves hundreds of websites and social media accounts and thousands of comments across state-affiliated news sources, fake news websites, and Chinese and Western social media platforms.
> There have been over 11,000 references of the Mandarin-language term for “gloom filter” across open sources in the past 6 months, with over half of them occurring in the last 30 days. English-language mentions of “BBC underworld filter” have also spiked over the past several weeks, totaling over 56,300 in 6 weeks. [...] We are confident that this uptick results from recent pro-China influencers amplifying the “gloom filter” theory.
> On July 19, 2021, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Zhao Lijian asserted across social media that BBC edited the color out of a photo of a popular British pro-China social media “influencer” named Jason Lightfoot, who also goes by the moniker “Living In China”. One post stated, “#GloomFilter comes again! It could be accounted as one of BBC’s familiar supernatural skills, to turn a green and prosperous city into a grey desolation”.
> The volume of activity paired with a clearly identifiable narrative, coordination across the Chinese state-sponsored media apparatus, use of both Mandarin and foreign-language content, use of dozens of fringe media outlets, and the campaign’s alignment with the CCP’s objectives create a clear picture of how the CCP is conducting large-scale information operations to counter criticism and censor foreign media
It doesn't matter whose side you're on folks, the age of trustworthy news and journalism may very well be behind us. We need to equip future generations with the ability to think critically and clearly, challenging any trends driven by "likes" and "shares" with a tremendous amount of skepticism.
> There have been over 11,000 references of the Mandarin-language term for “gloom filter” across open sources in the past 6 months, with over half of them occurring in the last 30 days. English-language mentions of “BBC underworld filter” have also spiked over the past several weeks, totaling over 56,300 in 6 weeks. [...] We are confident that this uptick results from recent pro-China influencers amplifying the “gloom filter” theory.
> On July 19, 2021, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Zhao Lijian asserted across social media that BBC edited the color out of a photo of a popular British pro-China social media “influencer” named Jason Lightfoot, who also goes by the moniker “Living In China”. One post stated, “#GloomFilter comes again! It could be accounted as one of BBC’s familiar supernatural skills, to turn a green and prosperous city into a grey desolation”.
> The volume of activity paired with a clearly identifiable narrative, coordination across the Chinese state-sponsored media apparatus, use of both Mandarin and foreign-language content, use of dozens of fringe media outlets, and the campaign’s alignment with the CCP’s objectives create a clear picture of how the CCP is conducting large-scale information operations to counter criticism and censor foreign media
It doesn't matter whose side you're on folks, the age of trustworthy news and journalism may very well be behind us. We need to equip future generations with the ability to think critically and clearly, challenging any trends driven by "likes" and "shares" with a tremendous amount of skepticism.
https://vodpub2.v.news.cn/publish/20210721/XxjfyxE007098_202...
They color corrected his over saturated video, but also went ahead and removed green from the trees. Sure looks like like someone at BBC playing propaganda.
They color corrected his over saturated video, but also went ahead and removed green from the trees. Sure looks like like someone at BBC playing propaganda.
>Sure looks like like someone at BBC playing propaganda.
Or, maybe, it could be as simple as whoever color-corrected the over-saturation just did a shitty job.
Or, maybe, it could be as simple as whoever color-corrected the over-saturation just did a shitty job.
And as a third possibility, color correction can be difficult when trying to achieve "white-balance" (usually involves tweaking green & magenta) that looks appropriate on a wide variety of displays and monitors.
Still, ideally everyone in the modern era should be aware of basic techniques to manipulate the look and feel of photos and videos - from color correction and filters to lighting and camera angles.
Still, ideally everyone in the modern era should be aware of basic techniques to manipulate the look and feel of photos and videos - from color correction and filters to lighting and camera angles.
That looks relatively normal? I don't see what different impression slightly darker trees give?
I was expecting something a bit more blatant, like putting Corbyn on a Kremlin background https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainmen...
Personally the UK government influence on the BBC matters a lot more.
I was expecting something a bit more blatant, like putting Corbyn on a Kremlin background https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainmen...
Personally the UK government influence on the BBC matters a lot more.
Color correction as propaganda seems like a stretch in this case. A more obvious example may be Time magazine's treatment of the famous OJ Simpson mugshot.
http://www.alteredimagesbdc.org/oj-simpson
They just brought his skin back by bringing down the reds and greens…
That would be the most ridiculous attempt at propaganda ever, by any nation - to change the green on one, single image that almost nobody would ever see.
"Henry, change that tree to grey, it'll change hearts and minds!"
More likely is that it was either a mistake, a joke, an individual actor doing something they shouldn't.
If it were an effort of 'systematic propaganda' then it would be consistent, you'd be able to find a number of such images.
"Henry, change that tree to grey, it'll change hearts and minds!"
More likely is that it was either a mistake, a joke, an individual actor doing something they shouldn't.
If it were an effort of 'systematic propaganda' then it would be consistent, you'd be able to find a number of such images.
50 years of systematically covering up for pedophiles would be 'most ridiculous' "ever', yet it also happened
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scan...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hall_(presenter)#Child_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolf_Harris#Operation_Yewtree
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Lee_Travis#Conviction_for...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Clifford#Indecent_assault_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Glitter#Sex_offences
Someone individually deciding to do it is one thing, institution with extensive ethical oversight letting it happen is another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scan...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hall_(presenter)#Child_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolf_Harris#Operation_Yewtree
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Lee_Travis#Conviction_for...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Clifford#Indecent_assault_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Glitter#Sex_offences
Someone individually deciding to do it is one thing, institution with extensive ethical oversight letting it happen is another.
No, it's more ridiculous to change the colour of a single image, and to posit that it's 'propaganda' in some way.
Covering up for pedophiles, if that's the case, is actual propaganda, which probably takes some skill.
Changing the colour of one image is obviously not propaganda, is the point.
Covering up for pedophiles, if that's the case, is actual propaganda, which probably takes some skill.
Changing the colour of one image is obviously not propaganda, is the point.
i mean in this case it's an influence campaign to educate people on some of the tools bbc uses to push propaganda.
It's no secret that color grading is used to invoke mood from the viewer and bbc takes it into overdrive whenever it reports stuff on china.
also it's bbc.. pretty much one state media against another...
It's no secret that color grading is used to invoke mood from the viewer and bbc takes it into overdrive whenever it reports stuff on china.
also it's bbc.. pretty much one state media against another...
evgen(1)
I'm not a fan of the bbc, but this is a pretty weird interpretation. This is clearly a campaign to discredit the BBC as a news source both internally in and externally to China, by latching onto some bad editing. BBC is a known and generally trusted source, the aim here is to make people question any negative news on China, e.g. the ongoing Uyghur genocide or the takeover of HK.
> e.g. the ongoing Uyghur genocide or the takeover of HK
Both of which are major issues relating to the policies of the sitting UK governement. Like many outlets, the BBC only recently discovered the plight of of the Uyghur people when it became politically interesting.
When the UK government policy was the transition of power in Hong Kong to the Chinese was a good thing, the BBC faithfully reported that this was a good thing, without challenge.
When the case for weapons of mass distruction was being made, the BBC faithfully reported those without any skepticism, in accordence with UK governemnt policy at the time.
Obviously this is not proof or even a suggestion that they are not to be trusted, but it is pretty clear that editorially at least, the position of the UK governement, who effectively appoints the BBC Board, Chairman and Director General is of great importance to the stories that are reported.
Both of which are major issues relating to the policies of the sitting UK governement. Like many outlets, the BBC only recently discovered the plight of of the Uyghur people when it became politically interesting.
When the UK government policy was the transition of power in Hong Kong to the Chinese was a good thing, the BBC faithfully reported that this was a good thing, without challenge.
When the case for weapons of mass distruction was being made, the BBC faithfully reported those without any skepticism, in accordence with UK governemnt policy at the time.
Obviously this is not proof or even a suggestion that they are not to be trusted, but it is pretty clear that editorially at least, the position of the UK governement, who effectively appoints the BBC Board, Chairman and Director General is of great importance to the stories that are reported.
> Like many outlets, the BBC only recently discovered the plight of of the Uyghur people when it became politically interesting.
I guess your google-fu is weak. It took me seconds to find BBC reports from 2015-2017 documenting the tension between China and its Uyghur population in Xinjiang and by the fall of 2018 the BBC was regularly reporting on the roundups of Uyghurs and the reports of concentration camps. At what point does this reporting become 'only recently' when placed in comparison to what was publicly known?
I guess your google-fu is weak. It took me seconds to find BBC reports from 2015-2017 documenting the tension between China and its Uyghur population in Xinjiang and by the fall of 2018 the BBC was regularly reporting on the roundups of Uyghurs and the reports of concentration camps. At what point does this reporting become 'only recently' when placed in comparison to what was publicly known?
Yes 2018 is recent. Are you really suggesting that the 2015-2017 reporting is the origin of tensions between China and the Uyghurs?
How about 2008 and the Olympics - google-fu away and see if in the midst of enhanced coverage of the country due to the presence of a major sporting event such 'issues' were uncovered.
How about 2008 and the Olympics - google-fu away and see if in the midst of enhanced coverage of the country due to the presence of a major sporting event such 'issues' were uncovered.
Anyone who knows the area is aware of the centuries of tension there, but the current crackdown and ongoing genecide is a recent event. It is not hard to find random articles discussing this tension for decades (originally spun as a crackdown on 'terrorists' starting in the early 2000s and well before the Olympics) but Xi Jinping significantly ramped things up. What you need to do in order to support your claims is show that there were other news organizations that were doing better at reporting the problem or that there were third parties and NGOs that were making claims supported by evidence.
This is definitely not true.
If the BBC's bias was so ridiculous that they literally changed colour filters to remove green trees from China images, then it would be obvious.
You'd be able to find dozens of such images, it would be trivial to spot.
A commenter above posted something about 'critical thinking' and yes, this is an example of that. Which stories are 'errors' or 'oddities of some kind' or 'individual doing something wrong' vs. consistent propaganda.
The BBC is a state actor and dose filter information in some ways, but 'painting Chinese tree grey' is definitely not it.
If the BBC's bias was so ridiculous that they literally changed colour filters to remove green trees from China images, then it would be obvious.
You'd be able to find dozens of such images, it would be trivial to spot.
A commenter above posted something about 'critical thinking' and yes, this is an example of that. Which stories are 'errors' or 'oddities of some kind' or 'individual doing something wrong' vs. consistent propaganda.
The BBC is a state actor and dose filter information in some ways, but 'painting Chinese tree grey' is definitely not it.
BBC foreign policy reporting is every bit as influenced in establishment propaganda as RT or Xinhua. It's a running joke among diasphora from global south that BBC framing on issues in their countries, align with with UK's foreign policy and consistently cross into territory of manufactured fake news.
> dozens of such images, it would be trivial to spot. ... > 'painting Chinese tree grey' is definitely not it.
If you actually follow the subject matter, color grading trees is just one bite-size talking point about the BBC's reporting on XJ. It's being highlighted for counter-propaganda because it makes for easy visual comparison. Many of BBC's segments have been broken down by domestic PRC audiences and amount of consistent manipulation and misrepresentation can only be interpreted as malicious propaganda. It is indeed trivial to spot. China isn't the first party to call out BBC for what it is - state media that operates no different than any other. Many countries have critically assessed BBC agenda setting before, it's naive to dismiss it as errors / individual wrong doing. Again this is with specific reference to their foreign reporting.
> dozens of such images, it would be trivial to spot. ... > 'painting Chinese tree grey' is definitely not it.
If you actually follow the subject matter, color grading trees is just one bite-size talking point about the BBC's reporting on XJ. It's being highlighted for counter-propaganda because it makes for easy visual comparison. Many of BBC's segments have been broken down by domestic PRC audiences and amount of consistent manipulation and misrepresentation can only be interpreted as malicious propaganda. It is indeed trivial to spot. China isn't the first party to call out BBC for what it is - state media that operates no different than any other. Many countries have critically assessed BBC agenda setting before, it's naive to dismiss it as errors / individual wrong doing. Again this is with specific reference to their foreign reporting.
But isn't BBC itself a propaganda arm for the UK ? So now they simply hate it cause they have competition ?
No. On paper, the BBC is independent of the UK government. Its funding comes from a licence fee rather than general taxation in order to emphasise that.
In practice, the BBC is part of the establishment but that doesn’t mean it is an arm of or voice for the government. Governments of all stripes have had a rocky relationship with the BBC.
The BBC outside the UK is a voice of a particular kind of Britishness rather than of the government. You could perhaps call that a soft power promotion of that aspect of British culture but no more than CNN International is for one aspect of US culture.
The BBC is very far from perfect and in danger of losing relevance but it is a misunderstanding to think of it as propaganda for the UK.
In practice, the BBC is part of the establishment but that doesn’t mean it is an arm of or voice for the government. Governments of all stripes have had a rocky relationship with the BBC.
The BBC outside the UK is a voice of a particular kind of Britishness rather than of the government. You could perhaps call that a soft power promotion of that aspect of British culture but no more than CNN International is for one aspect of US culture.
The BBC is very far from perfect and in danger of losing relevance but it is a misunderstanding to think of it as propaganda for the UK.
We need to be united against this kind of thing or it will not stop.
US, Japan, Aussie, EU, UK, Korea, India, Canada, Taiwan etc. literally need to form a 'China Issue Council' to inform, share info and be consistent with all such issues across media, intelligence, trade, foreign affairs etc..
US, Japan, Aussie, EU, UK, Korea, India, Canada, Taiwan etc. literally need to form a 'China Issue Council' to inform, share info and be consistent with all such issues across media, intelligence, trade, foreign affairs etc..
Good luck getting that many factions to take a consistent line. You'd have to start by acknowledging Taiwan.
Yes, the first thing the group would do is acknowledge Taiwan.
Either we acknowledge Taiwan, or expect that it will become like Hong Kong. Probably recognizing the relative autonomy of Hong Kong and Tibet would be a good first step.
China will not go to war over it 'today' so harbour a fleet there in Taiwan, put some airbases nearby, run some heavy patrols and then 'recognize' Taiwan publicly.
What can China do at that point? It can't do anything militarily.
Importantly, it's still an export-based economy, and though no single export market (not even the US) is super critical - major markets together are, as are certain key parts.
Since they've transgressed all sorts of WTO rules, they should be removed from the WTO.
Since they lied about the pandemic and more importantly, will not allow an open investigation into the roots of the pandemic that has obliterated the world economy and killed millions of people - they should definitely be removed from the WHO.
Any interference into media culture of politics in outside nations has to be confronted: they're actively bullying students on campuses in North America (especially in Canada), that definitely stopped.
The new 'group' should set up an few outposts in the S. China Sea with naval patrols to ensure the continued freedom of navigation in the area.
Supporting the industrialization SE Asia (aka Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, India) so as to be able to remove dependency on 'one source' for labor.
Etc. Etc..
Either we acknowledge Taiwan, or expect that it will become like Hong Kong. Probably recognizing the relative autonomy of Hong Kong and Tibet would be a good first step.
China will not go to war over it 'today' so harbour a fleet there in Taiwan, put some airbases nearby, run some heavy patrols and then 'recognize' Taiwan publicly.
What can China do at that point? It can't do anything militarily.
Importantly, it's still an export-based economy, and though no single export market (not even the US) is super critical - major markets together are, as are certain key parts.
Since they've transgressed all sorts of WTO rules, they should be removed from the WTO.
Since they lied about the pandemic and more importantly, will not allow an open investigation into the roots of the pandemic that has obliterated the world economy and killed millions of people - they should definitely be removed from the WHO.
Any interference into media culture of politics in outside nations has to be confronted: they're actively bullying students on campuses in North America (especially in Canada), that definitely stopped.
The new 'group' should set up an few outposts in the S. China Sea with naval patrols to ensure the continued freedom of navigation in the area.
Supporting the industrialization SE Asia (aka Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, India) so as to be able to remove dependency on 'one source' for labor.
Etc. Etc..
I would acknowledge Taiwan and offer them protection just like that if I had the power. I'm sick of the CCP sqawking like chickens every time they hear or see something they don't like. Sad.
Man if only we had a politician who would make Chinese accountability a major part of their platform, I'm sure HN would line up behind such a person...
Yeah we need to censor Chinese media to not report on bbc propaganda. They are supposed to manufacture our stuff and not voice their opinion.
And their overreactions and undisguised attempts to shut down all criticisms just make it worse, in an ever-deepening spiral where the response to the story IS the story.
Unfortunately, democratic governments haven’t figured out how to combat these soft attacks from the CCP, because it’s very hard to form a national defence against subversive outside influence (good) without trampling on the freedom of expression of our own citizens (bad).
There is also still much to be gained from engaging with Chinese citizens, who represent both a huge market and a huge pool of under-utilised talent.
It is the biggest question of our time: how to maintain our open and free societies, maintain productive engagement with Chinese citizens, and simultaneously defend effectively from attacks by the CCP across all attack vectors both cold (soft power, social media influence, ransomware, IP theft, biological warfare, supply chain attacks, university think tanks, deficit infrastructure investment abroad, etc.) and hot?