cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/44879690
Media expert and newspaper editor Mbugua N’gang’a has highlighted the double-edged nature of African media partnerships with China, noting that while they provide resources to strengthen operations, they often come at the cost of partial editorial independence to advance the interests of the Chinese Communist Party.
In an essay titled “China is Using African Media to Serve Its Interests. Will the African Press Survive?”, N’gang’a pointed to Chinese state outlets such as Xinhua and CGTN, arguing that they fail to provide balanced coverage. He contended that these outlets are flooding the rapidly expanding African media ecosystem with one-sided narratives that distort and ultimately unbalance it.
…
N’gang’a contrasted Xinhua and CGTN with Western state-funded news organisations like the BBC and Voice of America (VOA), which, despite being government-backed, do not typically serve as direct mouthpieces for their governments’ policies.
He wrote:
"News organisations from Western allies of Kenya and other East African nations once held sway over the information flows in and out of East Africa. Now it is China who occupies that role in the region, and more broadly across Africa. Xinhua, China’s largest and state-run Chinese media and broadcasting organisation, currently boasts 37 Africa-based news bureaus across the continent. The BBC and The Washington Post have only two apiece, with a range of smaller offices. Can organisations such as the China Global Television Network (CGTN), or Xinhua, which are so overtly coupled to the foreign policy of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), be taken at face value?
“Of course, there are several other state-affiliated media organisations, such as Voice of America and the BBC, which have been active in Africa for decades. In some regions within Africa, they are so familiar that they are part of the furniture. Their presence is not a common cause of controversy, even though they are state-managed, and over the last decade, their management has been increasingly led by African voices from within Africa. Whilst they are state-owned, they are not perceived as mouthpieces or policy tools. Why, then, is Chinese media activity in Africa a cause of concern for some observers?
“Some Chinese media organisations, such as CGTN, which sits directly under the Central Propaganda Department of the CCP, are an extension of the CCP’s foreign policy. This is a critical difference between organisations like CGTN and the BBC."
…
“The BBC, although government-owned, is independent of government management and is regulated by an independent board of ethics and standards. Whereas some Chinese outlets are explicitly designed to serve party needs. President Xi Jinping himself described CGTN’s mission at the launch of the channel after it rebranded as to “tell China stories well, spread China stories well, spread China’s voice well, let the world know a three-dimensional colourful China and showcase China’s role as a builder of world peace”.
This quote neatly sums up the function of media outlets such as CGTN; they exist as platforms that ultimately serve the interests of Beijing by transmitting narratives to achieve those ends.
…
“So why do African nations, and indeed newspaper editors, put up with such an overt display of propaganda from a foreign actor on their soil? Partly for practical reasons. With the vast resources and reach of Chinese state-run media, some African media houses see partnering with these organisations as a way to obtain much-needed resources to tell their stories effectively. Even if those resources come coupled with an understanding of restricted topics and watered-down control (or no control at all) of the editorial position.
…
“China also offers journalists a huge range of professional opportunities, from courses and qualifications to work experience trips. These opportunities are ostensibly an excellent method for African media organisations struggling with limited resources and underfunding to upskill their ambitious staff. But the other side of this coin is that training African journalists in China provides China with an excellent conduit to project its perspectives into the continent. There is an expectation that, in return for the free training courses and qualifications, China-positive stories will be frequently published. Joseph Odindo commented that he had erected a whiteboard to track which of his journalists were in China, and which were available to report the news; such was the scale of China’s training programmes for African journalists."
…
But I thought Belt and Road was just about helping them build up their infrastructure?!?!?
China brainwashing someone? Nooooooooo
Gaza genocide tells me that the BBC is as much a propaganda rag as any other and will drop any impartiality when it needs to align with the state interests.
Independent journalists who actually back what their saying with reputable citations are where it’s at.
The BBC reports facts not opinions, they try not to editorialise, it’s up to the viewer to make up their own opinion. On multiple occasions the BBC has reported on multitudes of notable people/bodies calling it genocide. Untill it is officially designated genocide by the UK government the BBC will not call it genocide and that’s just not happening because were compicit much like the US.
Gaza isn’t relevant to this article. The article mentions multiple times that the BBC is trusted and has been doing working in Africa for decades without much issue unlike China
https://institute.aljazeera.net/en/ajr/article/3250 https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2026/01/05/bbc-maduro-venezuela/
“But they just tell facts, excuse the whitewashing of fascism and genocide.”
Quotation marks are supposed to be used for quotes. My pont is that your attacking the BBC ad hominem, rather than what’s relevant in this article. The BBC is far from perfect but putting it in the same category as Chinese state media says a lot about your ability to argue in good faith.
Western and Chinese public media are two fundamentally different systems. You can’t explain this by just one simple buzz word like ‘Gaza.’ Mbugua N’gang is absolutely right.
I’m sure America would drop bombs to help the African people tho
They literally did, for anyone who doesn’t get the reference.
This current administration? I certainly wouldn’t put it past them.Though previously, there was USAID. And while it never accomplished enough to outweigh the bad things our country does, it certainly wasn’t bombing. But it was always good for a chuckle watching those that foamed at the mouth about to be US doing that. Now all suddenly be like “well, actually, it’s okay when we do it”.
It would be better if aid could just be for the sake of aid and not come with influence or strings. But still better than open oppression and bombing as the U.S. China and Russia do.
Also, it’s not just the current administration. Obama bombed 8 countries in a year in 2016. Dropping over 26,000 bombs. Something Osama bin Laden could only dream of in his wildest dreams.
Oh hold on now the US has been fucking with African long before this Administration don’t kid yourself on that. From bombings to sanctions to assassinating their leaders we’ve been doing it for a while.
I don’t dispute that. We absolutely have, far too often. It’s legitimately the reason I said that good does not outweigh the bad we’ve done. Things just aren’t cynically that one note.
China hasn’t bombed any African country in at least a century. China likes to focus on its own development.



