A Deep Dive into the Selective Coverage and Underlying Agendas of Beijing and Moscow’s Media Outlets
In the recent presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, a curious pattern emerged: while the debate generated significant buzz across the United States and Europe, it barely registered on the radar of Beijing and Moscow’s state-run media. This quiet response stands in stark contrast to the extensive coverage of the previous debate between Joe Biden and Trump, which was a focal point for Chinese and Russian outlets alike.
Chinese media’s subdued coverage of the Harris-Trump debate is telling. The extensive, albeit critical, coverage of Biden’s debate performance in June showcased the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) strategy of amplifying perceived democratic failures. Biden’s stumble was leveraged to cast doubt on the efficacy of democratic governance, a recurring theme in Chinese state media. Yet, with Harris and Trump, the coverage was conspicuously muted.
China media analysts suggest that this shift may be due to the CCP’s cautious approach to evolving foreign policy narratives. “China is likely still calibrating its stance following Biden’s abrupt policy shifts,” says Kenton Thibaut, a senior resident China fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab. Thibaut points out that the reduced coverage reflects a cautious, fact-based reporting style until the CCP can formulate a coherent narrative.
Another dimension of this media strategy involves China’s discomfort with democratic successes. Anne-Marie Brady, a professor of Chinese politics, and Jonathan Hassid, an Iowa State University professor, both highlight how Chinese media tend to spotlight democratic failures while downplaying successes. In contrast, a more positive portrayal of democratic processes might not align with the CCP’s narrative, which often focuses on criticizing the flaws of Western democracies.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning’s dismissal of the debate as “the United States’ own affairs” further underscores this hands-off approach, revealing Beijing’s preference to sidestep direct engagement with U.S. election matters.
Similarly, Russian state media has adopted a subtle but strategic approach. According to Darren Linvill, co-director of Clemson University’s Media Forensics Hub, Russian outlets like RT and Sputnik have been cautious with their coverage. While avoiding overt criticism, these outlets subtly downplay Harris and highlight Trump. For instance, some articles downplayed Harris’s performance, while others indulged in less direct commentary, such as suggestions about her “imposter syndrome.”
This restrained yet pointed coverage aligns with Moscow’s known preference for Trump, reflecting Russia’s strategic interests in fostering divisive narratives within the U.S. Recent accusations from the U.S. Justice Department about Russian operatives attempting to influence American media further emphasize the ongoing manipulation of narratives by Moscow.
The under-the-radar coverage by both Chinese and Russian media illustrates a broader strategy: avoiding direct engagement while subtly shaping global perceptions. The post-debate period is crucial for monitoring how these narratives evolve, particularly as information and disinformation campaigns ramp up.
As the election cycle continues, the strategic omissions and selective portrayals by Beijing and Moscow underscore the complexities of international media influence. This selective coverage not only highlights their biases but also serves as a reminder of the broader geopolitical chess game being played on the global stage.
