When China’s embassy in Manila responds to criticism, it occasionally does something remarkable: it tells the truth. 

Recently the embassy has been remarkably forthcoming about how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) views the job of overseas Chinese-language media. These revelations were not intentional, I’m sure, but in defending its tight coordination with these Manila-based outlets, the embassy has given us all an education in how authoritarian states exploit free societies.

Over the past month, the embassy’s deputy spokesperson Guo Wei has issued four social media statements attacking the SeaLight Foundation’s recent reporting on Chinese state influence through these Chinese-language outlets. Rather than refuting the facts we documented, however, Mr. Guo’s responses confirm our thesis.

Let’s walk through what the embassy’s own words reveal.

Start with what Mr. Guo explicitly states. In his February 7 response, he identifies “the core mission” of Chinese-language media in the Philippines: “to promote good China-Philippines relations.”

That is to say that in Beijing’s view, the purpose of Chinese-language journalists in Manila is not to objectively inform the public or to hold those in power accountable, but to advance bilateral relations as Beijing defines them.

So why is that a problem?

Let’s try a thought experiment. Imagine if the US embassy imperiously declared that English-language media in Manila had the “core mission” to promote the US-Philippine alliance. One would hope the response from honest political leaders, civil society organizations, principled journalists and the general public would be one of scorn and indignation.

Yet when the Chinese embassy makes this very claim about Mandarin-language journalism, it presents it as entirely normal.

When I documented new Ambassador Jing Quan’s January 8 meeting — in which executives from eight local Chinese-language media outlets pledged to “cooperate closely with the Embassy” and “carry forward the tradition of patriotism and love for the homeland” — the embassy didn’t even try to dispute the facts. Instead, it sought to normalize the practice.

That’s because in Beijing’s framework, journalistic “independence” means the unchallenged “freedom” to serve China’s state interests under its guidance. Of course, the embassy sees no contradiction here, because in China’s system there isn’t one. 

Here’s where CCP rhetoric passes from the ironic into the absurd. Mr. Guo goes on to accuse SeaLight of using “threats and intimidation to try to silence Chinese-language media,” calling this a violation of free speech and “outright bullying.”

Think about that for a moment.

SeaLight is a small, US-based nonprofit organization staffed entirely by volunteers. We have limited funds, no enforcement powers, no government backing and no ability to sanction anyone. We come armed only with publicly available evidence and a commitment to transparency. With that we’ve documented coordination between the embassy and local Chinese-language outlets; how their editors received embassy awards for advancing Beijing’s interests; and how they uncritically amplify Chinese government talking points.

Open-source research

Normal people — those not steeped in CCP propaganda — know that’s nothing like “threats” or “bullying.” It’s open-source research combined with free expression, a core democratic value. In fact, if SeaLight was a news organization someone might even dare to call that journalism.

Now consider the embassy’s response. Mr. Guo, an official spokesperson of one of the world’s economic and military superpowers, warned that “any slander, attacks, or deliberate attempts to undermine China–Philippines relations, no matter who does it or where, will be met with a firm response from China, without hesitation.” He further promised that “China will take necessary measures to firmly defend its national interests and dignity.”

In the embassy’s upside-down narrative, a small research organization that documents evidence of sophisticated foreign influence operations is the “bully,” while a superpower’s threats of state retaliation is just standard diplomacy at work. 

If that sounds familiar, it should. In fact, I wrote about such tactics recently in reference to China’s maritime aggressions in the West Philippine Sea, where they are a key element in its gray-zone tactics playbook:

This is gaslighting at an industrial scale. The PRC doesn’t merely deny its aggressive actions — it inverts them completely, presenting itself as the aggrieved party responding to aggressions and provocations. It does this often in defiance of all reason and, increasingly, of overwhelming visual evidence to the contrary. 

This inversion of reality reveals the heart of the matter. In China’s view, exposing state influence operations becomes “silencing” the media. Documenting embassy-sponsored events becomes “intimidation.” Advocating for transparency becomes “attacking free speech”. 

Meanwhile, actual threats from a powerful government against a volunteer researcher are framed as self-defense.

Mr. Guo helpfully explains the embassy’s view of what constitutes proper journalism: “Recent positive developments like the resumption of political dialogue, progress in law-enforcement cooperation, and assistance to Filipino fishermen have all been widely reported by Chinese-language media. This is how media do their job.”

In other words, good Chinese-language journalists report good news for China. Such glad tidings ought not be burdened by inconvenient facts or additional context — such as what Beijing’s version of “law enforcement” looks like; or why China’s helpful coast guard was patrolling Philippine waters in the first place; or what may have caused political dialogue with China to be suspended in the first place.

Indeed, Mr. Guo’s assertion that “this is how media do their job” tells you everything you need to know. CCP-approved “journalism” does not exist to pursue and present the unvarnished truth to a discerning public, but rather to disseminate state propaganda and achieve Beijing’s foreign policy objectives.

The embassy is equally clear that “journalists” who meet such objectives should expect to be rewarded: “When the Chinese Embassy recognizes people who have contributed to China–Philippines friendship, that is entirely reasonable. Public recognition and celebrations help encourage those efforts.”

Controlling the press

Here we see both the velvet glove reserved for the embassy’s chosen friends as well as the iron fist it holds over its critics. The former are celebrated as integral to China’s national interests and lavished with awards for good behavior. The latter are inimical to Beijing’s aims and must be vilified and opposed with unveiled threats.

The Chinese government seeks to control the local Chinese-language press not out of any commitment to “free speech”, but to shape Philippine public discourse on critical issues like the West Philippine Sea, security relations, military alliances and economic policies. It uses the laws and language built around Philippine press freedoms as cover, even as it ruthlessly denies those same freedoms in China. It claims to defend free expression while threatening public officials and independent researchers who exercise it.

Of course it’s fair to ask: “Ray, aren’t you also a foreign influence?” I absolutely am, but with a crucial difference. As the volunteer director of a privately run nonprofit organization, I make no secret of my background or my beliefs. I don’t organize Philippine rallies, vet leaders of Philippine civic organizations or demand fealty from Philippine citizens on behalf of any government. 

What I do is present facts as I find them, together with my personal opinion where appropriate. What I don’t do is engage in state-sponsored political mobilization amplified through professional propaganda channels. 

I once again therefore present these facts and opinions, and will leave it to my Filipino friends to draw their own conclusions on this crucial question:

Do media outlets that pledge close cooperation with a foreign embassy, define their core mission as promoting that government’s interests, and uncritically echo its talking points truly represent the free press necessary to a free society?

Or are these so-called “news” organizations something else entirely — the state-sponsored propaganda activities of a sophisticated foreign influence campaign operating in the heart of Manila? And if so, shouldn’t they be required to register transparently as foreign agents? – Rappler.com

Ray Powell is founder and executive director of the SeaLight Foundation and co-host of the podcast “Why Should We Care About the Indo-Pacific?”