i come from c t n. we call ourselves the international television of china. i mentioned you're working for a safe run channel without any judgement. i myself work for a state funded channel. and in fact, the, a great value in, in a national effort to try to shape global story. but i noticed that when you talk to some of our western colleagues they, they're always a bit skeptical. it's not understanding of your affiliation. is this your affiliation somehow that influences the quality of your work? you have anything to say about? i the reason why i have to correct people almost all the time, including my colleagues from our team, for instance, is because i believe this is part of the essence to use perception to shape people's understand the world. because in a western context, the word state is almost has very negative connotation to it. it's opposed to the people. it represents power that is not necessarily representing the overall interest of the people. it is kind of viewed as the opposite side. whereas in the eastern context, for instance, it is very different. and so i don't, i don't want to be given that label before i open my mouth, which is the case every time. and i don't know about your case on twitter for instance. we are, we are given the naval status in the media, which immediately gives people the impression that we are also credible or what we face propaganda to be very, very careful. whereas, whereas those people who work for money, you know, they're not given the, the, the tag, copper media, for instance. if you look at the state or our media, we have many state from media by the way, all over the world. you mentioned this distinction has been perception in reality and you heard line production this this much for is i think very central to how western media operate. and since you cater to an international audience, i'm sure you encounter the facts of it in your work. but do you subscribe to, do you believe that's perception trumps reality rather than the other way around? i think perception is, unfortunately a way how human beings see the world, whether we like it or not. and that is used sometimes for good cause sometimes for a bad cause it can be weaponized. everything we are doing in journalism is about perception because you are hearing me talking about china all about myself. and it is your perception that will make up your mind what you see, what you get, or what you kind of image you can do in your brain. so perception is, is absolutely critical, but how do we make sure that we don't manipulate perception so that people have the wrong or a very, an impression or reality that is very much twisted or very distant from reality. i think that is the challenge because nobody is able to give reality 100 percent as it is. but how close are you able to give it and how to school, how genuinely, professionally repair professionally you're trying to do a job do a job. i think that is the biggest challenge really. i mentioned we f. what are in my introduction, the youth republican strategist, who in my you influence the american political, immediate communications for decades to come. and he also played on this very emotional badge issues. and all sorts of unscrupulous means he truly believe he was very open about it. that any means justified the goal. it also needs to be added and died very young, all of a brain tumor. i wonder if you think that the approach of trying to let me place the perceptions so that you have the reality that you live. you can actually ural government tend to sort of choke up on its own contents over a pretty short period of time. misperception is very you may, if you're very good at it, for instance, if you work in the media and you know how to do it, you can do a very good job and manipulating public opinion. you can paint white as black. you can, you know, totally twist reality and sometimes not even by lying, sometimes just by picking what you want to pick or putting things in a certain order or putting human emotions into one side of the story. well, while not giving irrational analysis of the whole picture, and that's where we're moving in on a daily basis. not just what we see in our hands on tv and our phones, but also how we produce constantly as journalists as to the present. and so it is, i have to say it is part of human nature that we're prone to manipulate. it is also the beauty of human life that we are emotional animals. the challenge is whether we're able to cultivate our literacy, our ability to distinguish what is missed information. what is this is what's, what's perception, what's reality, and how we can on ourselves with the ability to say, okay, this is perceived in this way. but what is the reality that we are in a constant pursuit of truth as closely as close as possible? is great conversation i came across your interview with a b, c. i think it was last year where the journal, if the sterling journalists tried to really on the state of freedom in china and how supposedly constricted it is in comparison to the west and fast forward one year. and i'm sitting here in moscow with my channel being taken all the air, all social media for explicitly legal reasons. to me, it's not even ironic. i think there's something barry to tell the terry and then that that's why i wanted to try to try to table here and ask you about this. save all media freedoms in the west. as you see, i think at this moment we see extremely clear what they mean by freedom of press, right? when freedom of press is in other country, they're defending it. they're even paying money. the latest us competes act allocates actually $500000000.00 us dollars to you know, false so, so called independent media in, in china, basically to malign china. but when it comes to freedom of press in their own countries, i'm not sure whether they will be leading by example, despite their claims. as you said, r t is taken all which is out of the reach by the regulators. i understand it is not done due to so due process. you know, there are all kinds of button lines that have been just totally ripped apart because i guess it's a war on the west that russia is waging. and for them, it's just totally not possible. and everything russian seemed to have become a target. so where's the freedom of expression bed? so i think it is lane, it is laid back in front of the rest of the world. what they really mean by freedom, by freedom of expression, how unified their standard really is. are you know, the problem. they are always right. when it comes, you know, they can never be wrong. so like, so long as they are on the right side of history. if they have western liberal style democracy, you know, it seems like they can justify everything they do, even if they are wrong. they do it and they still say they are right. and that is that kind of exceptionalism. that kind of double standard i think is really a huge problem. it's really exceptionalism or is it supremacy? i mean, i don't know how you approach, but i think you are one of the most eloquent english speaking courage. i'm not trying to be psychographic here with you. true. have very good come out of the language. you not only to read off news, news, all, all the queue, but also in live debate in analysis. and that's a huge effort. i mean, if somebody call to speak english has no native language, i understand how much word goes into that. and yes, in interview after interview, i can see you not being discounted but sort of kept as, as somewhat not on par with all the people who speak english fluently, a job by the nature of being born in that country. i mean, do you think our colleagues, our western colleagues, understand how much human effort goes into what we do not just state farm, but basic human effort into even being able to deliver what we are trying to deliver in that language. and also within the framework, there will be busy on not only learning the language, you're also learning the culture the will be set for. i think one indian would be good here. it's their house. so we have to follow their rules. and if you want to speak to an international audience, which is, you know, prevalent in english, which is english speaking primarily, you have to learn their language, hampton, and their culture. and i've been doing, i was an english language major when i was in university that was in, in last century. and i've been using english all these years i've, i've had so much discussion sometimes in my spare time i, i talked to myself, i asked myself questions. there's so much thinking that's going on. so much discussion so much reading. why not? because i like it or mad or something because these are the questions that, that we want to. i'm so how can we talk to people in other parts of the world who don't speak chinese? i have to reach out to them and i cannot wait for everybody to, to, to be able to speak chinese because been, we will never understand each other. so i want to, i want to reach out. i want to go over, but it's very, very difficult. 25 years that i've been, i've been working in this profession. i love it. i'm enjoying it and i'm ever more energized and empowered, but it's not been an easy path. that's why that's why i'm angry. i'm angry when people say, oh, you come from the state media you doing? i'd say excuse me. there are thousands of people more than thousands of tens of thousands of people working stream. the hard to bring information from one language from our native language, which is chinese, to you. and you say one word propaganda. you discredit everything. that's why i'm, i'm extremely angry. don't, don't, don't mess with what i say, because i won't take that. i remember the records about the 19 you had a bit of an argument with the fox news hoss. you described her as being all emotion, little substance. and i think that was a criticism, but i want to ask you, why do you think emotionality, rather than critical thinking, have become such a dominant feature of western broadcasting because arguably, is easy for them to not only talk but being in english, but for some reason there's a very, very determined push and pull toys, emotionality. the 1st i have to say with all due respect to, to trish reagan, my kind of part in that debate. when i wrote that opinion piece which triggered the debate, i didn't mean to say that she was all emotions and no substance, but you see that's the problem. because i was thinking in chinese and i wrote the piece, i was actually saying her research was not well done, but i read it in the she's had a been, you know, or emotions a no brainer. but i guess you know, that, that made her feel offended and about her, her personality or even her. so my question is more about the approach to or when talking about emotion, emotionality. we mentioned that just now i think we are all emotional animals. that's why life is so beautiful. that's why life is so easily manipulated. that's why we're so credulous as well. that's why we as journalists, who, who are people who shape who can shape people's minds, have such a huge responsibility that we do not use in motion in excessive in a manipulative way. sometimes there are true emotions which have to come out and it can be extremely powerful, no shunning away from the motion. but when you are you making a motion to push your political agenda, i think that is a very dangerous thing. so both as a reader, both as a consumer information and as a producer of the information, i'm extremely aware when it comes to emotion, i rather keep my tears in my eyes when i see something because i don't want myself to be manipulated by my emotions and according to western philosophy, actually what is freedom? freedom is when you are able to restrain your animal instinct and make the right choice. and despite your emotions, that is when you achieve true freedom and i want to have that kind of freedom and i want to give audience the choice to have that freedom as well. sure, we have to take a very short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments. ah. a, a with this with you or is with you? i'm with . mm. welcome back to world apartment, dtn and current lucian sheen. i. what did you ask you about the coverage of russian military action in ukraine from the chinese perspective. but before we go there, this is not the 1st conflict which russia and the west find themselves on the opposite side. we've been there in libya, in syria, on many other issues. and i wonder how is it perceived from so far away in the east? do you see that as a struggles within your best charles within the west, or do you see russia as a separate? neither when there was no with the for half bulls here and there. i think it's really, it's really a very good question because the russia straddle straddle europe and asia. part of you is where the west part of you is in the east. so russia is really in a very unique situation, and i think that kind of explains the kind of complex situation you are in. these are the, the west, or these are the europe. sometimes i, i make mistakes. i say, look, i told my german interviewer, for instance, i said, no. russia is not going away. russia is right at your a. but after i say that as russia is also part of europe. so this relationship love and hate, if you like it, between russia and europe, will very much determine how you get along with each other. but at the end of the day, you are not drifting away from, from each other. russia were all be there, geographically, europe will always be the germ. graphically, you have to find a way to co exist and people are feeling the pain we use when you start have to we are not able to do that. we open here pro western commentators that are in a final analysis, china with always with material or even monetary considerations. first about everything else. and i think that's one of the reasons why many western analysts were surprised by the russian rushes. but the chinese reaction to russia's actions, it wasn't pro russian by any means. it wasn't also pro western, it was firm, but also very much aware of the context. and i wonder if you personally have noticed a change in beijing position in how they present itself on the international stage during this crisis. perhaps even before that, i wouldn't say i perceive to changing position because china, i actually wrote a an opinion piece on this since the start of the war. and i wanted to look at china's traditional foreign policy and to find out if there is any legacy that has been inherited. and i think it is very clear that china has the 5 principles of peaceful coexistence. for instance, none interference in each other's internal affairs, respect of sovereignty, and territory and integrity. mutual respect, mutual benefit and peaceful coexistence, peaceful coexistence, basically is what russia and europe wants from each other. and i think in that we got chinese position has always been persistent, has always been the same thing. trying to have become perhaps a little bit more forthcoming and stating its position a little bit. a little more blond if i may say so, because if i haven't noticed, i haven't noticed the change. let me, let me, let me repeat that. i haven't noticed the change just recently. the chinese state council and foreign minister said china want peace in ukraine, and i think from the very beginning that message is very clear. so i haven't noticed a considerable shift because john is also a friendly country with the ukraine. also friendly in terms with the west, also wants to be in good terms with the united states. and of course, russia is all things truly important for china. we have a very strong relationship back to back. so this piece and of course war is no good for anybody. so piece is the message has always been the message. i think this, this is consistent. i also want to highlight for our audience how china reacted to be un drop resolution on russia. the actions and the chinese side specifically pointed out that the drug doesn't take into consideration the history complexity of the current crisis. these up the cation of the context of the chinese side, clearly points to is that a matter of ignorance on the part of the west, or do you think it's a deliberate tactic? well, i think nothing comes out of the blue. there is when there is a result. there's always of course, and i interviewed ordinary chinese people on the tree that well aware of the history, you know, the 5 rounds and nato expansion, for instance, towards russia. the very complex relationship between the people of ukraine and the people of russia and what has happened in eastern ukraine since 2014. so there's not a clear cut right or wrong, or who did, who started the 1st job or, you know, so to try to do that would be, or try to make things look like that would be counterproductive, because if you have a military conflict, the most important thing is to find ways to stop it as soon as possible. so anything that is considered conducive to finding a peaceful and quick solution to the conflict is considered not in the interest of china and china. lee, i understand trying to believe that is not in the interest world piece either. so that's why china abstain and that position is actually shared. and i think this piece of information does not understood widely by people in the west, adequately that, that position is actually shared by the great majority of countries in the world. you have 141 country voting in favor of that resolution of the new and general assembly resolution. but you have $35.00 countries abstaining and 5 countries, including russia, voting against. if you take out the population of russia, the population of those who are against the resolution actually are the majority of people in the world. so i think that is a lot and the west didn't get the word they wanted. they didn't get people to agree to condemn russia on. ringback that specific way because i found fascinating if you know that you're saying that they didn't didn't get the words that it wanted. because in your analysis of that resolution, you make a clear distinction between the words can dump merican media, put them the headlines and the words deplore which was the features in the chair of the resolution. and you say that the choice of words was critical. therefore, you know, would be out in that account. i mean, the, the choice of course would have been different account would also have been different. how come a chinese journalists like yourself is more attentive, more sensitive to the variations of meaning in english them? are a native speaking colleagues, isn't that ironic? i don't know. i asked the question, do sometimes. that's why sometimes i cannot tell whether it was an honest mistake or just information that that's the distinguished distinction between missing nation and distance. this information, i think as native speakers they must know the difference between contamination and deploy. by the way, it's to deploy in the strongest terms. so there's a slight difference there, but still to deploy and to condemn a different words to condemn is much stronger and it has a moral aspect to it, right? you condemn some something that is almost considered evil. so the, the one us, mainstream media television actually said the un passes resolution to condemn russia. and if you look at the original text, it doesn't actually say it condensed the announcement of russia's military operation in ukraine. but it doesn't condemn russia's military operation in ukraine, per se applause in the strongest terms. so these are the details that often gets lost and that's why sometimes it is very different. it's very easy, but this information missed information to travel because people are lazy. how many of our viewers will go to the original source to, to, to look through all of the piles of documents that are hidden somewhere and to read, to go through the legal language. some of it is really not very human friendly and to find the differences between condemn and diploma. they would just say, oh, this particular this, well we got a television says so, so it must be the case. and my question, my job is to ask exactly what happened and why it happened. is that an honest mistake or was it something more than that? sometimes i can tell. i hope it's not just information. i hope it's just an honest mistake. i want to ask you something about that. would you just mentioned that the international audience or are you or can sometimes be well, i don't want to call them lazy, but i think people have been indulged in into attainment for way too long and their attention are rather short. they are not always want to get into the sort of so the issue is how do you personally decide how you can afford to be with you analysis without making your audience. but this is also a very interesting issue for me as well because i like thinking and analyzing, but i understand that some people don't take it easily. yeah. no, you know, i am kind of person that doesn't take no as an answer. and i just bought a motto of the human brain from cow, the chinese shopping platform. i say, i am going to put the model of the human brain is half out of the box i. i want to put it on the ball on the tables of all my colleagues and make them out of the box all the time because that's what we have to do. how we do our job in, in entertaining, easy to follow way that's, that's still extremely professional. and that is honest and fair and easy to follow . when i write by script i, sometimes i joke about it, i say no to my audience. let's imagine they have primary school literacy level. let's not use huge words because they're not, they're going to scratch their heads. and then if they scratch one price, they're going to say ok, she looks nice, but i'm going to switch channels. i don't want them to. i don't want that to happen . so i try to make it interesting and i try to, i tried to make, i tried to illustrate what i say because the human, the human brain works in a way that when they see something, they tend to believe it. that's why more and more, if you go on social media, for instance, you see messages being being put into graphics instead of mere language typed words, because that is more effective when you want to send certain messages. and i noticed the us state department is doing more and more that i noticed more and more social influences trying to do that. sometimes i do that, but i try not to do because when you have to that, i'm like the where they want to say something that is there they, they, they want you to, to, to, to see. but yeah, it's a fascinating thing, but i think there is a way to do it without going low, without sacrificing the quality of the discussion and still bringing out the best discussion you can have. and so make it fun that's, that's my aim, my opinion. i really thank you very much with been great pleasure for me. thank you so much. oksana the for the invitation and the best luck way a job. keep it up. thank you for watching hope to see you again next week with a with ah ah, ah, moscow's deadline for the withdrawal of key ebs forces from a bits seed steel plant in modern you bowl passes with explosions now reported in the industrial area. the russian defense ministry is almost all of the port city has been reclaimed. also these are all vehicles of the ukrainian military and nationalist battalion is one truck that was over tough. this huge glove ortiz or if it's another method works in motor, you pull more forces. i've been hiding. i'd reportedly using civilians as human. she'd like support for the i said pakistani prime minister continues with.

Related Keywords

Germany , Moscow , Moskva , Russia , United States , Beijing , China , Libya , Syria , Pakistan , Ukraine , Russian , Chinese , American , Pakistani , German , Trish Reagan , Ronald Reagan ,