Global Communications Toolkit: Applied to "China's Global Communications Challenge" (#1)
Michael J. Jordan
Global & Strategic Communications Expert | Author of "The Global Communications Toolkit" | Executive Coach & Writing Trainer | Former Foreign Correspondent | Visiting Professor of International Journalism
NEW YORK – Simply put, China matters. In every way imaginable. Politically, economically, diplomatically, militarily. This ancient civilization is our emerging global superpower, a rival to the West on the international stage, and the world’s second-largest economy. In fact, it’s simultaneously the world’s largest exporter and home to the largest consumer market.
Yet, China is hamstrung: by its struggle to communicate persuasively with the international community. Particularly those foreigners who are skeptical of – even worried about – the country’s ambitions around the world.
While living in Beijing, from 2015-2020, I dubbed this China’s Global Communications Challenge – and confronted it on multiple levels: as a Visiting Professor of International Journalism, teaching my own form of Storytelling from Chinato Chinese grad students in Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Hangzhou; as a Global Communications Consultant, training Chinese colleagues working for Chinese companies and non-profits; and, lastly, as an American who spent one year working as a News Editor, Scriptwriter and Media Analyst for the English-language channel, China Global Television Network. In fact, CGTN colleagues explained that they hired me, not for my native-English abilities, but for my grasp of how to impact the international audience.
I identified two key flaws in the Chinese approach to Global Communications: 1) An overall lack of empathy with the target-audience (understanding how exactly this audience views China, and what it needs to be persuaded – what I call The Spectrum of China’s Foreign Audience); and 2) An overall lack of concrete, credible, verifiable evidence, presented transparently (to support whatever they assert with facts, rather than routinely speak in fluffy, flowery, fact-free language, assuming the audience will – or should – accept such empty words).
Well, audience empathy and credible evidence happen to be two core values of my #MJMethod. In recent years, I’ve shared my analysis and solutions with various international audiences: from a CGTN staff training to my online and in-person lectures, as well as podcast interviews, opinion pieces and other essays I’ve written. In this Special Edition of my Global Communications Toolkit, I’ve compiled all the content related to China’s Global Communications Challenge.
Here, for example, is my 2020 interview with a podcasting team in Shanghai:
Then, a 2021 lecture organized for me by the Long Island University-Brooklyn History Department, at a time when I taught four Journalism courses at LIU:
With so much content, I've divided it into two parts. As a contextualizing curtain-raiser, I’ve started this Part One with an essay I wrote about my motivation to join CGTN – which some might see as a year immersed in Chinese propaganda. Yet the lessons-learned from my insider vantage-point were invaluable. This section also includes a Case Study, exploring: What it was like when the Chinese host of our CGTN show went viral for debating Fox News Channel.
Part Two is comprised of two more Case Studies: 1) Once COVID spiraled from epidemic to pandemic – and forced me to flee Beijing – my Crisis Communications strategy for China to “apologize” for it; and 2) Insights I gained from my four months as a Communications Consultant for Huawei, designing a Media Relations strategy for the controversial Chinese telecoms giant.
Contact me if you’d like more of my China analysis – or would like me to speak at your event.
*****
May 31, 2020
[NOTE: The following was originally published on May 6, 2019. To read how my new CGTN colleague, host?Liu Xin, went viral across China - and how I watched it unfold from my front-row seat -?please click here .]
By Michael J. Jordan
BEIJING?– My young Chinese colleague didn’t ask me in an aggressive or insulting way. Instead, I sensed genuine curiosity from her, if a bit blunt: “Why are you here?”
Now one month into my new job, I can confirm: this was too unique an opportunity to pass up. Indeed, I’ve become one of the few Westerners to work inside the belly of China’s?state-run media.
This is no ordinary media, mind you. In the world’s most-populous nation, and its second-largest economy,?China Central Television ?(CCTV) is arguably the most powerful TV empire on the planet.
Critics, of course,?paint it all as?propaganda , primarily aimed at?defending the government . As a?Western journalist, I once shared their view. However, I now see a reality that’s far more nuanced.
Specifically, I’ve begun a one-year assignment at the English-language?China Global Television Network ?– which is how CCTV re-branded its?CCTV International?operation – as a?News Editor?and?Scriptwriter?for one of its leading current-affairs programs:?The Point with Liu Xin.
This show, though, symbolizes much more than news and opinion from a Chinese perspective. China is currently?investing billions of dollars ?in its foreign-language media, as part of a broader effort to win the hearts and minds of more foreigners around the world. Since our show is primarily aimed at that international audience, I suddenly find myself on the frontlines of China’s?“soft power” campaign .
For me, this gig also represents more than a mere “job.” It marries three of my career’s consuming passions:?international storytelling,?journalism teaching?and?global communications. I now bring each into the?newsroom, applying them in different ways.
*****
First of all, it’s an exciting chance to return to my roots in media, especially in international journalism. For 20 years, I was a freelance Foreign Correspondent, at various junctures reporting from across?Eastern Europe,?Central Asia, the?United Nations, and, most recently, from?Southern Africa.
From 30 countries, I’ve produced stories for outlets like?Foreign Policy; French news agency?AFP; the?Christian Science Monitor?newspaper; Harvard’s?Nieman Reports; South Africa’s?Mail & Guardian; and many others.?Before China, as the?lone Western correspondent ?living in?Lesotho?– a tiny?African kingdom?– I covered the?2014 coup-attempt?and the months of?turbulence that followed .
In August 2015, I moved to?Beijing, and have since focused more on my?university teaching?and?Communications consulting. The closest I’ve come to “real” journalism is as the self-appointed “Editor-in-Chief” of the webzines I’ve created for my?Chinese grad students ?and?professional trainees , to provide them a platform and showcase for the storytelling projects that I guided them to produce.
Before?China, I was an international educator, as well, teaching students on four continents: from?New York?to?Hong Kong, from?Prague?to?Maseru. Since 2015, I’ve been fortunate enough to teach?International Journalism?at?some of China’s finest schools ?– like?Renmin University,?Beijing Foreign Studies University,?Communication University of Zhejiang,?Shanghai International Studies University?and?Hong Kong Baptist University?– where I taught as a?seven-time Visiting Scholar .
After sharing my own skills and strategies with more than 1,000 Chinese grad students?over the past decade , this move to?CGTN?feels like a logical next step: a chance to work shoulder-to-shoulder with young Chinese professionals. Happily, there’s also the opportunity to coach and?even train them , now and then.
*****
In fact, my new job already feels like I’m fulfilling a dream hatched more than 25 years ago. This dream, though, was borne of a deep disappointment with my own lack of mentors, as a young reporter. After graduating from university, I entered the news business by writing for a small daily paper in?Southern California, for two years. Then, for one year at a weekly paper in?Northern California.
Every day, I’d research topics, interview sources, write my stories. For sure, I was learning from the best possible teacher: experience. Yet something was missing. A mentor. I’d typically turn over my story to the editors, who always seemed frantic, on deadline. Their feedback to me was usually brief: my piece was either good, or no good. If “no good,” I rarely received guidance in how to do better.
At the time, I blamed two culprits for creating unrealistic expectations: Hollywood and my journalism school. So many American movies have portrayed the lives of a crusading journalist – who “couldn’t have done it alone.” Classic films, like?All the President’s Men .
That filled my head with the romanticized notion that once aboard a newspaper staff, if I stumbled in pursuit of a hot story, a grizzled old editor who’d “seen it all” would bark at me, to get into his office. (Back then, in the early 1990s, my limited imagination could only imagine men in that role.)
From the bottom drawer of his desk, he’d pull out a bottle of whiskey – and pour us both a glass.
“Kid,” he’d tell me, reassuringly, “pay close attention. I’ll show you the ropes.”
My college days further fueled such dreams. At the University of Missouri School of Journalism –?the world’s oldest such journalism school ?– our professors were our editors. Our editors were our teachers. I loved the practical, hands-on education. Yet, I didn’t fully appreciate that our faculty was also?paid?to guide, coach and mentor us.
*****
Thus, the table was set for my disappointment, even frustration, with real-life editors. At both of my first two newspapers, though, I was fortunate to have editors who were absolutely stellar pros. But they were also harried and over-worked, focusing on their own daily survival – with litte spare time to coach me, too. That’s why I had to settle for my only available option: “Experience is the best teacher.”
But at some point, I vowed to myself:?One day, I’ll provide the kind of mentoring to others, which I never get enough of. I was just 23 or 24, yet I’d daydream of a quaint, journalistic life in my middle-age: married with kids, working as Editor of a small-town daily, somewhere in provincial America.
My staff, I imagined, would be comprised of young reporters. I’d take each one under my wing, cultivating them to produce the kind of meaningful journalism, and impactful stories, that would make a difference in our community. Moreover, the skills and lessons I’d impart would leave a lasting impression on these young adults. Later in life, they’d remember me fondly … as a source of inspiration.
That was the dream, at least. But I’d soon put that on hold, as a more urgent dream crystalized:?to report from overseas . I moved to Budapest, Hungary, in 1993. Since then, I’ve spent 21 of the past 26 years living in Europe, Africa and Asia. That small-town-editor dream is so distant, I’d nearly forgotten it.
That is, until a variation of it magically came to life for me … in China, of all places.
*****
Now one month into this CGTN job, I’m already planning my first?series of skills-centric workshops ?– for members of our own team, or anyone else at the network who’d be interested.
But beyond my return to media, and the opportunity to coach, this job offers a third appealing benefit: the communications challenge. Upon arriving in China, in 2015, I also branched into?Strategic Communications , consulting and training Chinese communication staff in how to reach foreign audiences, more?effectively and persuasively . This is enormously important for China, and?I see how every . Chinese company and organization struggles with it: no one here seems to?know how to do it ?well.
Why’s it important? Simply put,?China matters. In every way imaginable, on the international stage: economically, politically, militarily, diplomatically, and so on. Take, for example, the?Belt & Road Initiative ?– the massive, Chinese-led infrastructural project that has so far attracted 126 other partner-countries. It’s already building new highways, bridges, ports and train-lines around the world.
However, within the foreign media, the skepticism and suspicion of Chinese intentions is palpable. That?may be understandable , but now I’m seeing “the Chinese side of the story” more clearly.
It’s also enabling me to comprehend one of the most common laments that I’ve heard from Chinese officialdom over the years: “We must do a better job of explaining ourselves to the world.”
However,?the need goes both ways . While China wants to “explain itself” more effectively to the world, its emerging “superpower” status means that the world also has a powerful self-interest to better understand China, and the Chinese people, as much as is possible.
*****
That’s why I relish my new role within Chinese media: as a?human bridge, trying to connect the Chinese perspective with the foreign audience. For two decades,?I myself have grappled ?with how to effectively reach this audience. Two audiences, in fact.
First, there are the editors who act as the “gatekeepers” of publications to whom I pitch my story ideas, trying to convince them of the value of my stories: why they should allocate precious space to publish it; why they should allocate precious budget to pay me for it; why they should even pay my travel expenses to produce it. These are high standards, indeed. Next, there are the readers themselves: I must persuade them why they should read the actual story I wrote from some faraway land.
My foreign audience, in general, has always shared certain traits: unlike the vast majority of people around the world, who are largely incurious about international affairs, ours is a more “elite” audience – smart and curious, yet mostly non-experts on the countries from which we’re reporting. Moreover, they’re generally skeptical: we must supply them with credible “evidence” – in the form of verifiable facts – to convince them that we mean what we say.
As I explain to students, colleagues?and wider audiences , when it comes to China, I’ve come to view our generally smart, curious foreign audience?through an additional lens . I lay it out as a spectrum, of three distinct categories of people:
1)?????Those who are anti-China, for some reason. Virtually nothing “positive” they learn will change their mind about China. So, we within Chinese media can basically write them off.
2)?????Those who are pro-China, for some reason. Virtually nothing “negative” they learn will change their mind about China. No need for us to “work hard” to persuade them, then.
3)?????Finally, the third cohort, in the middle. Perhaps they’re on the fence, but could swing either way. To register some desired impact on this viewer – to not see China in black-and-white terms, but rather in nuanced shades of gray – it’ll depend on how strategically, effectively and persuasively we deliver our words, messages, arguments, etc.
In short, our outreach to them should also rely on “evidence-based” communications, as that’s the only way to convince a skeptical mind – a mind that is at least open to potential persuasion.
How exactly to do that, then, is another challenge that excites me. It explains why I’m embracing this new gig as a hybrid of sorts: one part journalistic media, one part Strategic Communications.
These are just some of the insights – in how to touch our target-viewers – that I’m now sharing with my well-meaning Chinese colleagues. Which leads back to my new co-worker’s initial question:?Why are you here??She followed up with:?Why not work for foreign media in China, instead? Why us?
Sure, I probably could have. But there’s no shortage of foreigners doing that job, and thousands more who have done it before them. On the other hand, the chance to work on the?inside, for CGTN, side-by-side with the Chinese? That’s far more unique. And, potentially, more meaningful.
*****
[NOTE: I wrote the following essay just prior to this May 2019 debate, which?you can watch here . Within 10 hours, one Liu Xin clip was viewed by 400 million-plus Chinese; another by 700 million! For highlights,?click here ; for a CGTN fact-check,?click here .]
By Michael J. Jordan
BEIJING, May 29, 2019 –?Going viral. That uniquely 21st-century phenomenon, which so many of us crave – whether secretly or overtly. I myself have never gone viral ... until now. And it’s about to happen a second time.
To be clear, though, my viral moment is merely indirect, behind the scenes, as part of a team. In fact, I’m the one American on a Chinese team. Regardless, I’m proud of my role,?as the (relatively new) News Editor ?of?The Point with Liu Xin?– an English-language, opinion show on the?China Global Television Network?(CGTN).
领英推荐
At the heart of this viral moment are recent, dueling commentaries about the escalating?US-China trade war?– between our host,?Liu Xin, and?Trish Regan, a host on?Fox Business Network. Yet, the clash symbolizes much more: it's a virtual proxy war that speaks volumes about the state of Sino-American ties – including, between the societies on both sides.
For me, beyond the International Relations at play, I'm also captivated by the role of International Communications here: to have Liu Xin appear on such a potent American platform is a golden opportunity to "humanize" the Chinese. And this one of the?two core elements I preach : humanized, evidence-based Communications.
That's why I wrote this essay, as a case-study. Now, for the backstory: One year into trade tensions between?the world’s two largest economies, negotiations have suddenly disintegrated, amid finger-pointing and tit-for-tat tariffs – which, like an octopus extending its tentacles, is gradually harming more companies and consumers, day by day.
While Presidents and trade negotiators tend to grab the headlines, along came these two female TV journalists, both prominent enough within their respective media industries to host their own eponymous show. Though their verbal jousting was in English, once Chinese society caught wind of it, the feud spread like wildfire: from thousands of views, to millions, to tens of millions. The last tally I saw,?it’d surpassed 120 million .
Such numbers boggle the mind. That's why it's worth mentioning: China,?the world’s most-populous nation?(some 1.4 billion), is also home to the world’s largest number of netizens. (Roughly 800 million, or more than 10% of the planet’s population.)
All this, however, may be a warm-up for the main event: Regan challenged Liu to an “honest” debate on her show,?Trish Regan Primetime?– and Liu bravely accepted. The showdown is Wednesday, May 29th, at 8 p.m. in New York. That’s 8 a.m. in Beijing, from which Liu will appear, via satellite.
Foreign media has further fueled the hype, searching for the symbolism of this showdown, as this mini-drama unfolds. Among the stories,?this one by? Bloomberg , or?this by? Reuters .
To me, though, the reasons why this long-distance sparring between TV hosts went viral is even more interesting than the words they uttered. I’ve detected at least three reasons so far – and they speak volumes about the state of Sino-American relations today.
First, these are no run-of-the-mill TV channels: broadcasting from Beijing, Nairobi and Washington,?CGTN?is on the frontlines of China’s?“soft power”?efforts, as it disseminates a Chinese perspective on current affairs to audiences, worldwide. Sure, CGTN is state-run and government-controlled – but it's an affiliation it never hides. This fact is even emblazoned below its YouTube videos.
Fox, on the other hand, would prefer you not dwell on?its cozy kinship ?with the?White House. The relationship is so symbiotic,?many Americans wonder :?State-run media – or media-run state??Fox is more than the most popular cable-news channel in America. Besides the Republicans in Congress, Fox is arguably the most vital pillar that props up a scandal-plagued?Trump Administration. Without Fox’s daily drumbeat of support, it’s plausible that?President Trump?might’ve been forced from office by now.
Second, why did Regan take the bait? Liu Xin seemingly started it, when in a May 22nd commentary, she?called out Regan by name , chastising the style and substance of her?May 14th commentary . In it, Regan endorsed the use of trade as a “weapon” against the Chinese, whom she demonized by repeatedly accusing them of “stealing” from Americans -- as if China were a nation of criminals. Liu accused Regan of "economic war-mongering," and said her words were based primarily on emotion and accusation, with little substance.
(I won’t divulge my precise role in all this, to avoid violating any internal CGTN policies. That said, you don't need Sherlock Holmes to find my fingerprints on it. That said, I'm enjoying the chance to also serve as media analyst for CGTN, dissecting foreign-media coverage of China for Liu Xin's new feature,?Headline Buster. See?here ?and?here .)
Regan somehow saw the personal attack, and could’ve ignored it – if she had, Liu might have struggled to hit 1 million views. Instead, Regan pounced: with two more commentaries,?on May 22nd ?and?on May 24th . Her colleagues produced?a third piece ?on May 25th. By then, Regan had invited Liu onto her show – and logistics were underway.
Why did she pounce? Sure, she might have been offended. But I think she and her team sniffed out some tasty content. Though Fox News has a few respected journalists and anchors on the news side, the morning and evening TV hosts are notorious for fomenting fear, inciting hatred, and feeding their viewers a steady diet of U.S. victimhood, conspiracy theories, scapegoating of “the other,” etc.
Meanwhile, we Americans tend to see the world in terms of good guys and bad guys. Some societal influencers want a bogeyman, to scare people. Or a scapegoat, to blame for our troubles. The Soviets filled that role during the Cold War: they were often the bad guys in so many Hollywood movies.
Today, though, the Chinese make for an easy target, given their size and prominence.
The third reason this feud went viral, I think, is the Chinese mood nowadays. Especially, toward their American rivals. In a word, they say:?unfair. Trump blamed the Chinese for the breakdown in talks, for allegedly “reneging” on agreements toward a “good deal.”
Yet Trump himself?undermined his argument , when he told Fox News – in an interview aired May 19th – that he’d warned President Xi, prior to the latest round of talks, to expect less than a “50-50” deal. Call me crazy, but I, too, might walk away from negotiations if my counterpart were already telling me that I should prepare for an unequal compromise.
Then came the all-out assault on Huawei, the Chinese telecoms giant. It’s one thing to allege that one of China’s most prestigious brands is a “potential threat to national security” – but without providing concrete evidence. It’s another thing to then ban Huawei from doing any business with American partners, or in the U.S. market. That smacks of naked politics – and economic protectionism.
Back in late 2016, I recall how optimistic the Chinese were, that this new U.S. President – himself a “billionaire businessman” – would be good for China's economy, too. However, the moves on Huawei have fully soured their opinion of the Trump Administration. I’m guessing that many of them would love to give the American side a piece of their mind.
They can’t, of course. But in Liu Xin, they’ve found a vessel through which to do so. So, who’ll win this “debate” between Liu and Regan? Ummm … both sides. How? It depends on your definition of “win.”
Regan surely won’t “lose” it, for she’s in control: she knows the questions, knows her audience, and knows which “points” she wants to score on Liu – to feed her audience’s appetite. Though she claims her intention is to host an honest debate, she’ll surely want to serve up “red meat” to her viewers – and sling plenty of mud. That’s what they hunger for.
Regan’s main message will likely be two-fold: 1) the Chinese are victimizing Americans (“stealing jobs. intellectual property,” “hurting ordinary Americans,” etc.); 2) a tone of condescension, that America-is-better-than-you, with Regan up on a “soap-box,” declaring the U.S. “plays by the rules” and “competes fairly,” while the Chinese do the opposite.
That said, Liu can also “win,” in two ways. First of all, she presumably won’t change the mind of a single Fox viewer. However, while Regan had earlier accused Liu of merely reading a script, written by someone else, off a teleprompter. On Regan’s show, though, Liu would surely come across as smart, serious, tough, dignified, elegant, articulate, well-spoken in English – and quick-thinking on her feet.
Even among the biased Fox audience, I believe she’d earn respect as a worthy foe. Simultaneously, she’ll help “humanize” the Chinese – whom many Fox viewers may only know from their local Chinese restaurant, or grocery store, or as a student/tourist spotted on the street. During the 30 minutes of Liu’s appearance, then, she’ll at least open a few minds.
The second way she’ll win is that news of this “debate” has already gone viral, even beyond China, thanks to foreign-media coverage. Post-debate, I predict more of such coverage. When the media see how well Liu performed, they’ll likely find her the more impressive of the two – and proclaim her the “victor.”
With the piqued interest of both Chinese and Americans, our team will go viral once more.
*****
February 10, 2022
[The following opinion-piece - which dissects China's external Communications - was published on Feb. 15th , 2022, by Telum Media , a Singapore-based hub for the PR and media industries. Your feedback is most welcome.]
By Michael J. Jordan
NEW YORK CITY – As we watch the Beijing Winter Olympics, and hear Chinese officials try to fend off various allegations – especially centered around human rights – I’ve been reminded of when I first grasped the crux of China’s “global Communications challenge” with the West.
It was Spring 2017, well before the tit-for-tat accusations and angry threats that have erupted more recently over flashpoints like COVID, Xinjiang, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Huawei and the US-China trade war. At the time, I was living in Beijing and working as a Communications Consultant, among other roles .
I also realized why it all matters – because China itself matters: As the world’s most-populous nation and second-largest economy, virtually everything China does reverberates around the world. So let me share with you a few insights as to why China’s communication challenges are so challenging.
That Spring 2017 epiphany struck me just as China was about to host an international forum to support its US$1 trillion Belt & Road Initiative . Chinese officials were touting the massive infrastructure project – which spans the globe – in typically lofty, flowery terms. The BRI is “not a solo song, but a chorus.” A “symphony of all relevant parties.” A“Chinese solution for global economic blues.”
Then I read a Los Angeles Times report about one BRI project in Sri Lanka: a billion-dollar Chinese investment to revamp a poor port-city on the Indian Ocean. High in the story, readers heard from the Chinese ambassador to Sri Lanka, who promised locals that added investment of perhaps “$5 billion in three to five years” could “create 100,000 jobs.”
Nowhere in the piece, though, could readers find evidence that the project had yielded any positive impact yet. Instead, for local Sri Lankans, “Chinese ambitions” are “stirring distrust” and “violent protests.” Moreover, because “details are murky,” “suspicions run deep” of “Chinese colonization.”
I imagined how this story might impact a neutral, open-minded reader; it’s not hard to visualize the lasting impression of?negative messaging, delivered straight to the heart and mind.
On the other hand, I’d discuss this dilemma with many of my dear Chinese colleagues, students and friends. They’d collectively scratch their heads, puzzled by why Western critics weren’t placated by Chinese reassurances. Most often, these Chinese chalked it up as proof that the West is hopelessly biased against China – and bent on restraining its rise as a global, muscular superpower.
In response, I’ve often heard the Chinese lament : We must do better at explaining China to the world. (Even if the line between explanation and propaganda is often blurred.)?President Xi Jinping himself has advocated that “we must tell China stories better.” Like in June 2021, when Xi exhorted fellow Communist Party members to improve international communications.
However, I see other factors at work – especially the Chinese mode of communication. With all due respect, Chinese communicators routinely fail to first consider their target-audience: Who they are, why them, what they may already think or feel about China and the Chinese, and so on. (Though, some suggest that when they talk tough to a foreign audience, the true aim is domestic consumption.)
Next, there’s the need to muster some empathy, to imagine why exactly a smart, curious but skeptical foreigner might think what they think, or feel what they feel, toward China. Plus, how exactly to communicate with that audience – as strategically, effectively and persuasively as possible.
Then, my greatest lesson-learned about why the Chinese struggle to impact the most influential segments of their foreign audience: We must produce concrete, credible, verifiable evidence – and present it transparently – to underpin arguments and have any hope to persuade a skeptical mind.
Part of this, I attribute to cultural differences. Though I’m no expert in Chinese history or culture, my sense is that historically, the pronouncements of Chinese officialdom – when aimed at their Chinese audience –?featured a morepatriarchal, paternalistic form of communication.
As in: “This is what we’re doing.” Or “This is what we’ll do.” No compunction to explain “Why.” Nor, to lay out evidence and defend decision-making. After all, who’d dare question them, publicly?
The Western audience, though, is reared with a more “democratic” style of communications. While plenty of Westerners will swallow whatever news and information they’re fed, uncritically, many others feel empowered as taxpayers to demand transparency from the authorities. We’ve also grown to rely on a “watchdog media” to hold leaders accountable for their words and deeds.
Over time, when speaking to Chinese colleagues, trainees or students, I’d introduce what I call my Spectrum of China’s Foreign Audience. This is already a relatively “elite” strata of society, as I’ve learned from living in America,Europe, Africa and Asia: Most people are indifferent to the world beyond their borders, but more concerned with what affects them, their family, their community, their country. Among those who pay attention to China’s actions, I divide them into three cohorts:
On one end of the spectrum is the anti-China crowd. They’re anti-China, even anti-Chinese, for some reason. Nothing positive they hear about China will ever change their mind. There’s no budging them, so write them off as an unrealistic target.
On the other end of the spectrum is the pro-China crowd. Pro-China, even pro-Chinese, for some reason. Nothing negative they hear about China will ever puncture that notion. With this audience, you can communicate with relative ease – and without much effort.
Then there’s the cohort in between. They may be on the fence regarding China and the Chinese, viewing neither in black-and-white terms, but with nuance. They’re smart, skeptical, perhaps also open-minded, willing to be persuaded.?They could be potential foreign investors, diplomats, supply-chain partners, analysts, activists,professors, researchers, journalists, customers, among many others.
The bottom line is,?they may swing either way – depending on how we approach them.
It’s this audience that Chinese communicators should “work hard” (intellectually speaking) to impact. To reiterate, the most effective and persuasive way to reach this audience is with a lawyerly argument that transparently presents concrete, credible and verifiable evidence.
Without a clear understanding of this target – and striving to grasp their motivations, inspirations or mindset – we’re firing blindly in the dark. Even worse, without supplying a dose of credible evidence, we shouldn’t be surprised if our unconvinced audience ignores what we say.
That said, if we ourselves lack any credible, persuasive evidence, well … that’s another story.
Now based in New York, Michael J. Jordan is Founder of his Global Communications Consultancy, MJMethod LLC , and Vice President of Global Communications & Media Relations for North American Ecosystem Institute , which assists westward-growing Chinese companies with their Communication needs. While living in Beijing from 2015-2020, Jordan earned what he calls a “PhD in China’s Global Communications Challenges” from working as a Visiting Professor of International Journalism at top Chinese universities; a Communications Consultant for both for-profit and non-profit organizations; and as News Editor, Scriptwriter and Media Analyst for the state-controlled China Global Television Network.
*****
June 9, 2020
[Note: The following post was originally written and published on Aug. 7, 2019.]
By Michael J. Jordan
BEIJING – When I was teaching, training and consulting , I missed the thrill of producing my own journalism, writing and storytelling. Now that I’m back to working in the media, I miss teaching. Ironic, huh? Nah, just a reminder of how my core identity has evolved over the years. From a foreign journalist, to a journalist who teaches, to a hybrid human: both journalist and teacher.
That’s why I was delighted to recently deliver my first training for the China Global Television Network (CGTN) , where I now work as a News Editor, Scriptwriter and Foreign-Media Analyst. I was particularly pleased by the turn-out, as 24 Chinese colleagues from across the channel joined my voluntary, two-hour training – Producing the News, Effectively & Persuasively: A How-To Workshop on Skills & Strategies.
I look forward to more trainings in the future, to share more of my?MJ Method?skills in interviewing, writing, storytelling – and how I apply it to all my International Communication .
Curious to learn more? Feel free to contact me @ MJ Method Communications !
* ****
For Part Two of this two-part package on China's Communications, click here .
#China #ChinaCommunications #ChineseCommunications #ChineseGlobalCommunications #ChineseInternationalCommunications #ChineseCommunicators #GlobalCommunications 香港浸会大学 #InternationalCommunications #mjmethod #CGTN #Huawei #Beijing #Shanghai #HongKong #Hangzhou #HKBU