ANALYSIS: Chinese Propaganda Mouthpiece Struggling Amid Shrinking Global Market Share

A newspaper consumer reads a copy of China's Africa edition of its daily newspaper infront of a news stand in the Kenyan capital in this Dec. 14, 2012, file photo. (Tony Karumba/AFP via Getty Images)

News analysis

For years, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has employed its official media to bring China and “the Party’s voice” into the American market. One of its overseas propaganda arms, China Daily, may appear to be a legitimate and successful news organization, but financial records indicate that it is mostly funded by the CCP and lacks genuine subscribers and revenue. Moreover, the newspaper’s circulation in the United States and other countries is shrinking due to increasing skepticism toward China and its manipulated news content.

Founded in 1981, China Daily is an English-language daily newspaper headquartered in Beijing and owned by the Central Propaganda Department of the CCP and supervised by the State Council Information Office. The paper operates branch offices in most major cities around the world, but unlike other global news outlets, the largest portion of its operating income is not from subscriptions or advertising. The paper’s operating costs are largely funded by the CCP as an investment and the expected return is not profit but the spread of communist propaganda.

China Daily boasts on its official website that it “collaborates with major media organizations in more than 20 countries around the world to publish its ‘China Watch’“ insert. The insert is identified as a paid advertisement and embedded into publications reaching more than five million ”opinion leaders and high-end readers, including politicians, businessmen, and scholars.“ China Daily describes these foreign media outlets as ”strong partners.”

China Watch inserts are created to appear neutral and interesting. But after the reader’s attention has been captured, the insert subtly switches to unload the CCP’s propaganda.

For example, in November of 2021, A China Watch insert in Time Magazine included four pages of flattering reports about China’s image and CCP policies. It said, “Fanjing Mountain attracts tourists with its charming scenery.“ Then later, ”Foreign Firms Put Trust in Resilience” and expect to gain greater development dividends in China. An insert in USA Today in June last year claimed when Chinese leader Xi Jinping visited a U.S. school in 2015, “he left an indelible mark on its students.”

Real News or Expensive PR?

Considering how China Watch is slanted in support of the Chinese regime, the question arises as to whether China Daily is a true news organization or simply the CCP’s public relations department. This seems to be the case since the paper’s weak financial position has not deterred the CCP from continuing to pay its bills.

China Daily’s 2022 financial reports to the U.S. Justice Department confirmed the media outlet was not profitable. Nevertheless, it continues to operate despite high costs and low revenue.

The two half-year reports (from Nov. 1, 2021, to Apr. 30, 2022, and from May 1 to Oct. 31, 2022) show the paper’s earnings last year totaled $10.69 million, of which 97 percent came from its owners in Beijing. Advertising accounted for only $248,000 in revenue while subscriptions brought in a mere $41,000. Based on the paper’s annual subscription rate of $120, this suggests there were only 341 subscribers in 2022.

In reviewing the report for just the U.S. edition of China Daily, only 0.4 percent of its revenue came from subscriptions and only 2.3 percent came from advertising. By comparison, The New York Times 2022 annual report shows 67 percent of its revenue came from subscriptions and 23 percent came from advertising.

Without the CCP’s continued funding, China Daily could not possibly exist or cover its expenses. From May through October last year, China Daily spent $1.24 million on advertising, $1.16 million for printing, $1.11 million for shipping and distribution, and $287,000 for marketing. Less than $72,000 was spent on management expenses, and less than $605,000 was used to pay its U.S. employees.

Partners Spreading Propaganda

According to documents from the Foreign Agents Registration Act office (FARA), China Daily prints and distributes its China Watch using multiple media and printing companies around the world. Included among the companies involved in spreading the paper’s propaganda are The Los Angeles Times, SF Bay Area Printing Services, Miami’s Sun Sentinel, Toronto’s Metroland Media, Hawaii Hochi, The Boston Globe, Houston Chronicle, The Chicago Tribune, The Seattle Times, Brazil’s Sao Paulo Jornal da Tarde, and Atlanta’s Walton Press.

FARA’s records also indicate that China Daily’s spending in the United States has skyrocketed, going from half a million dollars in the first half of 2009 to over $5 million every six months since the second half of 2019. But despite this spending, it may no longer be producing the results the CCP is hoping for.

Shrinking Distribution

China Daily is apparently struggling with distribution problems and has lost high-profile partners like The New York Times and The Washington Post. The paper’s official website no longer claims to have “diverse partnerships with over 40 global media organizations.”

In a publication titled “Notice on Further Improving the Distribution of China Daily,” China’s State Council Information Office clearly states, “China Daily is one of our important tools for conducting overseas propaganda.” But the paper’s shrinking distribution is just one of the many concerns the CCP is now facing.

Over the past few years, the CCP wreaked havoc on the world with the COVID-19 pandemic, supported Russia in its invasion of Ukraine, and now is suspected of launching spy balloons around the world. A Gallup poll released on March 7 found the CCP has surpassed Russia in becoming the “number one enemy” in the eyes of Americans, making it increasingly difficult for the CCP to influence the West through its expensive overseas propaganda efforts.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.