Header graphic for print
China Law Blog China Law for Business

What If China Had Bought Newsweek?

By Dan Harris on Posted in Recommended Reading

Not sure how to relate this Evan Osnos post, entitled, “What if China had bought Newsweek,“ to doing business in or with China, beyond just tossing out the old adage on how different we are and of how we need to try to resolve our differences.  So I won’t even try.

At the same time, I just know this article is so thoughtful and its topic so important that at some point (if not now) some aspect of the article/topic will have major ramifications somewhere somehow.

Is it a precursor of something? If so, what? 

No matter what, I recommend you read it as it certainly does have insight into how we (Americans) view them (Chinese) and how they view us and of the disconnect that is and likely always will be inherent in that.    

  • outcast

    Didn’t The Onion do a parody about this last year?
    The reason why the chinese bid failed is simple: the chinese government’s control over the chinese media. To quote from the article:
    “The Southern Newspaper Group was an oasis of open-minded thinking in the state’s hidebound media empire, and it was known for pushing the limits within the propaganda apparatus.”
    While this is true, it also explains the problem in the same sentence: it still is part of the propaganda apparatus. With such pervasive censorship, no self respecting american journalist would ever work for a chinese media company.

  • Claire E.

    That is a very good article. Thanks for running this.

  • pug_ster

    You know, why is this China this and China that? Are we saying that in some dark corner within China, some CCP politician decided that we should buy Newsweek? It is some Chinese company who wants to buy an American Media company. Joseph McCarthy died, but McCarthism still lives on.

  • http://joyceyland.blogspot.com Joyce Lau

    Media (including the related fields of journalism, public relations, etc.) is the one area where China is really behind, because it requires a big cultural jump (unlike, say, manufacturing).
    The article describes Southern as being relatively liberal — that’s true only within a censorious Chinese context. So they try to not print lies (which, really, should be the unspoken minimum), but they still would never print open critical coverage of government leadership, Taiwan, Tibet, Tiananamen, dissidents and many other issues.
    What would happen to Newsweek’s China coverage? Or even non-China coverage? Would there be an investigative report on environmental issues in Africa (where China is hungry for minerals)? Asian politics? A censorship case in Singapore? North Korea?
    I’m not saying all media have to hew to a particular Western / Asian / US / Chinese line.
    I’m just saying that it’s a quantum leap for even reasonably open-minded Chinese media owners and editors to understand how a free media runs with no state interference. How would they deal with often controversial, conflicting, boisterous staff of international journalists?
    This is not a simple matter of economic protectionism. Media is not just about making money or products – it has a message and a code by which it is run (at least the high-quality stuff).
    If a Chinese company did buy Newsweek — as soon as the censorship kicked in, the editorial staff would leave. Then it would only be “Newsweek” in name.
    Disclosure: I do work for a big Western media company, though I am obviously commenting personally.

  • http://www.aimeebarnes.com Aimee

    Very interesting topic, and I think there are a few other related factors to be explored. First, beyond the two quotes from Xiang Xi that have been included in US coverage on the failed Newsweek bid, we really have no idea what China intended to do with the publication in terms of its readership target. Would this have been another experiment, like the US version of China Daily, which does not seem to follow the same constraints of publications readily available in China? It seems to me that China was intent on attracting a US readership and providing more balanced coverage on China to a US audience, which would (possibly) mean that the censorship issues everyone seems to be so focused on would not have much relevance in this case.
    I agree, an acquisition like this is probably not going to happen anytime soon, but it WILL happen in some form at some point in the future. China is intent establishing its presence and voice in the western media landscape; traditional US media is a sinking ship that desperately needs a life raft. I’m thinking (hoping) that a media joint venture between the US and China will eventually be the solution that both parties settle upon. If not… and if China does acquire a major US media brand like Newsweek outright… who’s going to read it? Would you? What China may not realize at this point is, that as an investment, acquiring a US weekly and figuratively planting a Chinese flag on its masthead will not net revenue. Americans generally dislike the Chinese, they distrust the Chinese, and they aren’t going to read a magazine written by the Chinese. It’s too bad our own traditional media has made them such an enemy… Maybe a JV, or a buyout, will eventually change that perception. One can only hope.

  • Inst

    Southern Weekly is one of China’s liberal bastions in print media, and they have been forced by the government, in the past, to fire editors. I don’t agree that Southern Weekly is organizationally incapable of operating in an uncensored environment, but I share your concerns about the government pressuring the company to constrain its coverage of “sensitive” areas.

  • http://joyceyland.blogspot.com Joyce Lau

    Pugster — I don’t think this article is saying that it’s a vast government move. I think the New Yorker column gave space to both sides.
    Even if it’s a private company move, the ties between the Chinese government and the domestic media are both strong and clear. A buyout would have an affect on coverage, which is what people were worried about.
    To clarify above — I don’t mean to imply that individual Chinese journalists are somehow not intellectually capable of understanding a free press. There are many admirable journalists in China, and Southern Weekly is well regarded.
    I mean that even liberal-minded editors would be incapable of transplanting an outspoken international media source — and its culture — into a Chinese context.

  • http://dnevnikmelochej.livejournal.com Money is Power

    Just because China has the money doesn’t mean it can buy power… oh wait, scratch that. Updating the military? Check. Buying out Africa? Check. Bribing its way past G-20? Check. When China buys Newsweek, I know that’s the official end of human civilization. “To be rich is glorious… but only if it has Chinese characteristics!” Check.

  • D.Parker

    “it certainly does have insight into how we (Americans) view them (Chinese) and how they view us and of the disconnect that is and likely always will be inherent in that.”

  • Adam

    Given that it was Southern Media Group making the bid, I think the “Chinese government controls the media” rationale shouldn’t have prevented the acquisition, if that’s indeed what happened. My guess is that the acquisition would have led to some very good reporting on China that cannot be easily published there, and we all would have found that the true extent of the Chinese government’s control over privately held Chinese assets (yes, even media assets) in the US is much less we (or the Chinese government) might think. The notion that Newsweek would have turned into China Daily or Global Times is absurd, and even those government-controlled English language sites run some surprisingly open-minded stories at times. I think it’s a shame that we have yet another overly-politicized incident to feed the misperception that the US in general doesn’t welcome private Chinese investment.

  • Chris

    It, of course, should be noted that direct investments into Chinese media by foreign enterprises are prohibited in China. As such, why should Chinese media enterprises be permitted to invest and operate overseas?
    I’m a huge fan of the Southern Media Group with the Southern Metropolitan Daily and Southern Weekend being among the few well-resourced, ethical and critical media outlets in China and the only outlet I read regularly with genuine interest.
    Nonetheless, until the investment environment for media in the PRC liberalises, there is a huge question on why Chinese enterprises should be permitted to invest overseas. What goes around, comes around…

  • http://econobserver.wordpress.com Zjin

    Well, I would advance a guess on Southern Media Group’s mindset behind its bid for Newsweek. If Southern Media Group successfully bought Newsweek, it would be such an achievement for Southern Media Group. It would give Southern Media Group so much leverage inside China that it could push its liberal agenda and had a much louder voice in China politics. I would assume that Southern Media Group clearly knew that it is still not able to compete with US media in U.S. This is more about China domestic competition than U.S. Having a prestigious U.S. brand in their pocket surely give Southern Media Group much more power and impact in Chinese elites.
    I would say that they are probably surprised that they are out in the first round. Even the chance to make a successful acquisition is small (Southern Media Group should know this), they might think that they can generate some attention by entering the 2nd round or proceeding further with the talk. Naive.

  • Rob

    Yes, this is an important topic, and one which will continue to expand. But looking past all this idealism and a-free-press-is-sacred stuff, let’s not forget that there are many other US media interests that would sell out their grandmothers… Cheers.

  • http://joyceyland.blogspot.com Joyce Lau

    Hi Chris, International media have been dying to get into the Chinese market, and have largely been prevented from doing so. There are a few ins (like the Chinese-language website from the FT) but not many. Heck, even the South China Morning Post, which has great hard-hitting China coverage, often can’t get over the border from Hong Kong — so it’s not exactly a Western problem.
    The company I work for can’t print anything in China. We have to print the China copies in Hong Kong, fly them up every morning (presumably at some expense) and they eventually (sometimes) make it to a limited number of outlets — I’m going to guess private subscribers and foreign hotels. (Don’t quote me on that — I don’t work in circulation or on the business side!)
    So there has to be give-and-take both ways.
    Rob – You’re right. Nobody’s saying that Western media is some sort of sacred cow. Much of it is flawed and greedy. And, particularly in the tabloid press, the quality can be appalling. That said, it’s still far more truthful and outspoken than the CCP-censored stuff. And two wrongs don’t make a right.

  • http://joyceyland.blogspot.com/ Joyce Lau

    The New York Times reported yesterday that Newsweek has also rejected bids by Newsmax (a conservative US magazine) and Thane Richie (a U.S. hedge fund manager).

  • Chalmers B. Wood

    Four years ago, for a week, an American English teacher here in China taught a full load of courses at a prestigious university without his upper dentures. Though dressed well, including a jacket and regimental tie, his mouth looked like that of a toothless depression-era West Virginia hill billy, wrinkles, gums, abbreviated chin, and all. In short, his toothless mouth would have made most Americans students cringe violently, burst out in uproarious laughter, perhaps, under certain condition start a riot, and certainly gotten him immediately dismissed from some American educational establishments. His students here in China though, totaling at that time over two hundred, didn’t even blink. Not one of them. They just kept on doing the lessons, and learning English. Newsweek? What’s the problem? Confucius is just common sense with the bar set very, almost impossibly high, and Marx studied China MUCH more than most folks realize. Jefferson also had some books about China. “All men are creates equal”? Confucius. Check it out. Wanna a diagram? Five dollars, toofer nine, coupons accepted, children free.
    Catch my drift, good reader? Evan Osnos is a great writer, but not such a good learner about China. Has he ever tried to look into the future of Sino Yankee relations? Nope. Personally, I think most of his stuff is the same old same old written well. He even LOOKS tired. His column “Dispatches” should be renamed “Whines, Grumbles, & Puffery”.
    China thinks long term. “One World, One Dream” is not just a marketing gimmick, it a plan that’s more like a cultural cloud than a tangible Harvard Business School printing. My humble guess is that the Chinese cloud thinks it can be realized with patience and steady progress in about two or three thousand years, but maybe quicker. Got that?
    I figure America’s learning curve re China is pretty flat right now, but will pick up in the next generation, perhaps with a big swoop. We CAN be quick and clever. And remember, their opinion of us is high. Within a hundred years we should have some pretty good kissey face huggey bod trade wise, especially if we can learn to wean ourselves from fighting World War Two forever. After all, We are Americans, not ancient Romans, so a gentle slide into the number two slot DOES NOT necessarily mean a repeat of the Dark Ages, does it? ;-)