The Washington Post article, which accused Lianhe Zaobao of routinely echoing some of the Chinese government's "most strident falsehoods", had made biased comments and unfair statements about the Chinese paper based on the former's journalistic perspective and approach to pre-established perspectives and agendas, said Lianhe Zaobao (Zaobao) in a Jul. 26 statement.

The article, titled "In Singapore, loud echoes of Beijing's positions generate anxiety", also accused Zaobao of prioritising access to the Chinese market over critical coverage of the Chinese government, citing interviews with 10 former and current anonymous reporters.

In addition to deferring to Beijing's narrative on sensitive topics, such as the blank paper protests in 2022, in its reporting, Zaobao furthered cemented its pro-Beijing image by partnering with SenseTime, a Chinese company that was sanctioned by the U.S. government because of its alleged complicity in human rights abuses against the Uyghur minority, contended The Washington Post article.

Response from Zaobao

In response to the accusations, Zaobao denied that its decision to report or not report on matters depends on whether the newspaper would be blocked in China.

It also shared that its one-year, non-binding agreement with SenseTime is designed to explore ways of using Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to improve visual content presentation and user experience. 

Most importantly, Zaobao said that it had earlier provided comprehensive responses to the questions raised by The Washington Post, but they were not adequately reflected in the latter's reporting.

"The Washington Post has selectively left out some facts while intentionally highlighting and putting together some information and citing anonymous former and current journalists to paint a negative image of Lianhe Zaobao, which is regrettable but not surprising to us."

Zaobao said that it was not surprised because the idea that 'if you are not with us, you are against us' is spreading amid the current international geopolitical situation.

Under such circumstances, Zaobao said it believes that it should not be pressured by anyone into changing its editorial direction, now more than ever:

"We remain committed to staying objective; we will not be pressured by any party, and do not wish to be embroiled in China-U.S. rivalry."

Zaobao preserves 'unique stance & independence'

In the statement, Zaobao also emphasised that it is able to preserve its "unique stance and independence" while taking in Chinese and Western viewpoints.

To ensure it provides fair and balanced reporting, the Chinese paper said it draws extensively from international news sources and the first-hand reports of its correspondents and writers based all over Asia, including Beijing, Shanghai, Taipei, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Seoul, and Kuala Lumpur, amongst others.

Additionally, Zaobao's publication also features broad, diverse, and sometimes even opposing perspectives and information so as to fulfil its mission of delivering information and commitment to neutrality:

"The narrative we are after is not the Western narrative or Beijing’s narrative, but a Singapore media’s narrative. And for that, we have also been strongly criticised by pro-China or anti-China readers. But this will not deter us from our fundamental intentions."

The complete set of questions raised by The Washington Post and Zaobao's full response can be found below:

Q1: How does Zaobao select opinion columnists for the newspaper? Can you confirm that regular columnists are paid?

Q2: The Washington Post has found that two regular columnists, Ding Song Quan (e.g., of op-ed here) and Deng Qingbo (e.g. of op-ed here), are both Communist Party officials.

Ding is part of Zhejiang province's Department of Education, where he was the deputy editor-in-chief of their official newspapers and periodicals. He doesn't just teach at Huzhou College but is also part of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) committee of that school.

Deng Qingbo, meanwhile, is the director of the online propaganda and comment division of the Hunan Provincial Party Committee's Cyberspace Administration Office.

Why have both these writers been described as China affairs commentators, without their Communist Party affiliation? Were their full positions not known by Zaobao's editorial leadership? Have the two been paid by Zaobao for their opinion contributions?

Zaobao: Lianhe Zaobao's official position is only carried in its editorials. Lianhe Zaobao aims to feature a broad spectrum of views in the Forum Opinion section, including those approving of the Chinese approach and articles criticising it.

The contributors of these articles include academics and experts from the U.S. and Japan, as well as those from China; we do not want to discard certain views out of hand solely based on the columnist's background. These pieces do not represent Zaobao's views.

Given that China is the largest trading partner of most countries in this region, understanding the thinking of the authorities in Beijing has its value. In the CCP's "whole nation" system, so-called private agencies or individuals may often have an official background — this is well known among observers of modern China.

The Washington Post has also published interviews of academics reflecting the official position, also without indicating their partisanship.

As far as possible, Zaobao verifies the background of all writers, while respecting how they wish to describe themselves.

Zaobao also publishes writers from China who prefer to publish anonymously or under a pseudonym due to their contradictory positions on sensitive issues from the Chinese government.

There is a modest fee for published articles, which is the practice for Chinese-language newspapers in Singapore.

Q3: The Washington Post did a data analysis of Zaobao's article on topics like Taiwan, protests in China and Hong Kong, Xinjiang and other topics, covering all articles published in 2022 on those specific topics.

We noted that overall, Zaobao references, cites, and publishes pro-CCP or state sources more than any other sources, including independent media.

For example, Zaobao most often on these topics republished stories from China Times and United Daily News, both pro-CCP Taiwanese newspapers.

Further, we analysed the coverage of the recent 'blank paper' protests in China and found the first articles all referencing Chinese state sources, without further context, including repeating the state narrative of the cause of the Urumqi fire. At least nine stories mentioned "foreign interference" accusations in the protests, without providing a contrasting view.

Interviews with reporters and former reporters for Zaobao have indicated that Zaobao isn't incentivised to provide a more balanced view as to not offend the reader base. Others have said that there is a practice for standing up or having more neutral/balanced reports on issues core to Singapore, but then letting Beijing's narrative run on topics that are not considered as core to Singapore.

It would be good to have a response to these questions as well.

Zaobao: All our journalists and editors working on China reporting are proficient in both English and Chinese languages and we obtain our information from a great variety of sources.

As a result, besides Chinese sources, we also cite or quote a lot from international news agencies and Western mainstream media reports on mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. 

When we report on China or any location, official local data and information is the primary source.

Reports on Taiwan are usually filed by our correspondents based there; when quoting from other media, we do not intentionally select the sources according to their political leanings.

When we report on China, the principle is to concurrently report what China and other countries are saying, on the premise that the information sources are reliable, or that we have first-hand interviews.

The narrative we are after is not the Western narrative or Beijing's narrative, but a Singapore media's narrative. And for that, we have also been strongly criticised by pro-China or anti-China readers. But this will not deter us from our fundamental intentions.

Q4: Reporters have suggested that the new Chinese ambassador, Sun Haiyan, has been quite strong and vocal in asking media across Singapore to help tell positive stories of China.

Has Zaobao pushed back against this? Have there been instances where Zaobao has declined to run op-ed pieces or letters from her?

Zaobao: Quite a number of ambassadors have been engaging us, including China's ambassador. We interviewed them and published articles contributed by them. The latest was from the Japanese ambassador.

Last November, Ambassador Sun sent one in response to our editor-in-chief's column. We published that by our guiding principle of giving the right of reply.

Q5: Does Zaobao factor its access in China in its editorial decisions in Singapore?

Zaobao: Based on definitions of some Western media platforms, if you're not anti-China, you must be pro-China. And in their eyes, you're not only pro-China, but pro-CCP.

Such perceptions and definitions are too simplistic and even malicious. We cover China news as we would other news — being objective, natural, fact-based, and without critique or preconceived notions.

Indeed, we may not be dancing to the West's tune when we report on certain topics. But to categorise us as a pro-CCP seems to be overly rash and arbitrary.

We have millions of readers in China who visit our digital platforms because the perspective and interpretation of our reports are different from that of the local Chinese outlets.

We cherish these readers because to them, we are an important window for them to connect to the outside world. And we have never taken the fact that they are able to access our platform for granted.

The reason why Zaobao reports or does not report news is not dependent on whether we will be blocked in China. We also do not exist to oppose or support China, nor to oppose or support any country.

Our mission is to bring informative and quality information to our readers, and to provide a broad spectrum of views.

The objective fact is that there are instances where our users in mainland China cannot access particular reports, or any report for that matter, but we maintain our usual stance. Amid intensifying China-U.S. rivalry, we stick to the principle of not taking sides and refuse to be forced into taking sides under pressure.

Q6: I would like to have your comment on your partnership with SenseTime, which has been sanctioned by the U.S. government because of alleged complicity in human rights abuses against the Uyghur minority.

Zaobao: The one-year non-binding arrangement between Zaobao and SenseTime International is designed to explore ways of using AI technology to improve visual content presentation and user experience. This is part of our digitisation journey, where we develop digital innovations with a broad range of content, media, and technology partners.

Zaobao has no wish to be embroiled in U.S.-China contests.

Top image via Vivian Chen/Unsplash