Home 传播学 Decoding China Beyond Headlines
传播学

Decoding China Beyond Headlines

Share

By Bi Yantao

Published on June 19, 2026

For four decades, my academic and professional journey has been closely connected with international communication and cross-cultural understanding.

Over time, I have come to see myself, and many others engaged in China-related work, as boundary spanners—people who move between different worlds and try to build understanding across them. This includes China scholars, China watchers, international professionals based in China, journalists, business leaders, and diplomats.

Such a role is both meaningful and challenging. Those who try to explain one side to the other are sometimes misunderstood by both sides. In China, some people have viewed my perspectives as too close to Western ideas. Outside China, people may assume that I inevitably represent official viewpoints. Neither assumption reflects the complexity of reality.

Over the years, I have learned that genuine understanding requires intellectual independence, patience, and a willingness to tolerate ambiguity.

I: Why China Is Difficult to Understand

China is one of the most studied countries in the world, yet it remains one of the most misunderstood.

The problem is not a lack of information. News reports, policy documents, social media posts, academic papers, think tank analyses, and intelligence assessments are produced every day.

The challenge is that information and understanding are not the same thing.

Many observers rely heavily on headlines, expert commentary, polling data, or institutional reports. These sources are valuable, but they are not infallible. History offers many examples of experienced China scholars, respected research institutions, and government agencies misjudging developments in China.

At the same time, publicly available information within China does not always fully reflect social reality. Public communication often serves multiple purposes simultaneously: informing, explaining, promoting, persuading, and shaping perceptions.

No single source can explain China.

II: There Is More Than One China

International discussions often refer to China as if it were a unified actor with a single voice and a single perspective.

Reality is far more complex.

Different regions, generations, professions, and social groups frequently see the country through very different lenses. Intelligent and well-informed people can observe the same China and reach very different conclusions.

This is not always because one side is right and the other is wrong.

Often, they are looking at different parts of the same reality.

Perhaps the most important lesson I have learned is that there is no single China that everyone experiences.

III: Understanding China Through People

If information alone is insufficient, how can one better understand China?

My answer is simple: through people.

Some of the most valuable insights I have gained about China did not come from books, reports, conferences, or databases. They emerged from long conversations with friends, colleagues, students, and professionals from different backgrounds.

Many educated Chinese possess highly nuanced perspectives on their society. Yet such perspectives do not always appear in public discussions.

Meaningful understanding often develops through trust rather than observation alone.

Relationships do not replace information. They provide the context necessary to interpret it.

IV: A Final Reflection

After four decades in international communication, I have become increasingly cautious of simple explanations about China.

China cannot be understood solely through official narratives. Nor can it be understood solely through foreign interpretations. Headlines, expert analysis, and social media all offer valuable insights, but each provides only a partial view.

The greatest obstacle to understanding China is not the lack of information. It is the temptation to mistake a fragment for the whole.

For those who seek to understand China, I would offer a modest suggestion:

Remain curious. Remain skeptical. Remain open to complexity.

Most importantly, resist the urge to outsource your judgment to any single narrative.

China cannot be decoded through headlines alone. It must also be understood through experience, relationships, and the humility to recognize how much remains unseen.

The full version of this essay is coming later.
Bi Yantao is a professor at the School of International Communication and Art, Hainan University, and Editor-in-Chief of Communication Without Borders (CWB).

Related Articles

传播即外交:特朗普正在改变国际传播逻辑

过去,传播是外交行动的“说明书”;如今,传播正在成为外交行动本身,特朗普的实践让这一变化变得前所未有地清晰。 作者:毕研韬   发表时间:2026年9月19日 过去讨论特朗普的国际传播,人们往往首先想到三个关键词:美国优先、交易主义、社交媒体。尤其是第一任期内,特朗普频繁使用Twitter,直接向全球公众和外国政府发声,“推特外交”(Twiplomacy)成为国际传播研究的热门议题。 但如果只把特朗普视为“更会使用社交媒体的总统”,那就低估了正在发生的变化。真正值得关注的,是传播在外交中的位置发生了变化。 一、社交媒体不只是“说话的地方” 2025年1月,特朗普与习近平通电话。中国方面发布了正式通报,特朗普则很快在其社交媒体Truth Social上发表自己的版本。两份信息都将通话描述为积极,但关注重点并不完全相同。特朗普的帖子特别提到贸易平衡、芬太尼和TikTok等议题。 这件事说明:总统的社交媒体已经成为外交信息生产的一部分,而不是外交活动结束后的宣传渠道。 第二任期以后,这一趋势更加明显。 2025年,特朗普多次通过Truth Social直接宣布或预告重要外交政策。“英国皇家国际事务研究所”(RUSI)在总结特朗普第二任期第一年外交政策时指出,一些外交政策变化甚至首先通过Truth...

全球最新民调出炉:这些数据,中国国际传播界必须正视

今天,国家形象越来越取决于“你让人感觉是否安全、是否可预期、是否愿意真正合作”,而非仅仅取决于你物理上多强大。 作者:毕研韬  发布时间:2026年9月18日 近日,洛克菲勒基金会委托Focaldata开展的34国全球民调结果发布。这份覆盖3.5万余人的调查,给当前国际舆论场投下了一枚不小的石子:在“谁适合领导国际事务”问题上,加拿大以60%的舒适度位居第一,日本58%、澳大利亚55%,而美国和中国仅为39%、37%。更引人注目的是,61%的受访者相信:各国在没有美国或中国参与的情况下也能合作应对全球问题。 对中国国际传播者来说,这些数据不应被简单归为“又一份民调”,而需要严肃对待。 一、最刺眼的数字:领导力信任的落差 调查中,人们对“哪个国家发挥领导作用更让人安心”这个问题,清晰地排出了一个顺序:加拿大、日本、澳大利亚、欧盟、英国、联合国,然后才是美国和中国,俄罗斯垫底。 值得注意的是,发展中国家与发达国家对中国的态度存在明显分裂——发展中国家受访者中53%对中国发挥领导作用感到安心,而在富裕国家,这一比例仅为23%。 对中国国际传播而言,这是一个提醒:硬实力和经济体量的增长,并不能自动转化为“让人安心”的领导力形象。在相当一部分国际公众眼中,可信度、可预测性和低冲突感,正在成为比“强大”更被看重的品质。 二、61%的“去超级大国”倾向 另一个具有启发意义的数据是:61%的受访者支持“没有美中参与的国际合作”。这并非简单的反美或反中情绪,而是对当前超级大国主导模式信任度下降的反映。 过去多年,国际传播常围绕“中美博弈”“两极格局”展开叙事。这份调查显示,全球公众中已有相当比例的人,开始设想甚至期待一种“中等强国协调”的合作方式。加拿大总理卡尼所倡导的“中等强国”路线,在调查中获得基金会方面的公开肯定,这并非偶然。...

新加坡防长:国际传播的终点是什么?

国际传播的最高价值不是消除分歧,而是在分歧无法消除时,仍能保持相互理解、稳定彼此预期、维持基本信任。 作者:毕研韬  时间:2026年9月17日 国际传播的终点是什么?是让世界听见自己的声音,是争取国际舆论,还是塑造国家形象? 新加坡国防部长陈振声近期连续谈到“战略互信”,提供了一个值得国际传播界思考的命题:传播更深层的价值,是让彼此建立并保持战略信任。 9月11日,陈振声接受《联合早报》专访时谈到当前国际安全环境。他用一句非常直白的话概括今天的“安全困境”:“你的安全,是我的不安全;那我的安全,是你的不安全。”一个国家为了增强自身安全而增加军事能力,可能反过来使其他国家产生不安全感,进而形成恶性循环。 在他看来,突破这种安全困境的关键,是建立“深度互信”。 这个判断值得国际传播学界关注。 一、实力可以观察,但意图必须沟通 陈振声在专访中作了一个很有意思的区分:军事实力是判断一个国家是否构成威胁的重要指标,但比实力更重要的是实力背后的意图。 实力相对容易观察和评估,意图却不同。一个国家拥有多少军舰、飞机和导弹,可以通过公开信息、卫星图像等方式进行判断;但是,它为什么要拥有这些能力、准备在什么情况下使用这些能力,以及它如何看待其他国家,却无法单纯通过观察实力得出结论。 意图需要沟通。因此,陈振声说,各国应该“多交流、多接触”,以减少误判和误解,巩固互信基础。...

中国传统国际传播学亟需弥补一个短板

国际传播既需要传播学的沟通智慧,也离不开国际政治的战略视野;中国传统国际传播研究需要补上国际政治课。 作者:毕研韬  发表时间:2026年9月16日 从知识来源和基本逻辑观察,当前我国国际传播研究存在两种取向:一种以传播学为主要知识基础,以沟通、理解和交流为基本逻辑;另一种更多建立在国际关系(尤其是国际政治)知识之上,以竞争、利益和战略博弈为基本逻辑。 严格地说,这并不是两个边界清晰的学派,而是两种逐渐形成的研究取向。二者关注国际传播的不同侧面,也因此各自形成了明显的优势和不足。 一、以沟通为主要逻辑的传统国际传播研究 中国传统国际传播研究主要建立在新闻传播学和跨文化传播的知识传统之上。其核心问题通常是:如何有效传播信息,如何减少文化误读,如何增进国际社会对中国的理解,如何改善国家形象,以及如何提高国际传播能力。 这种研究取向有其合理性。国际传播首先是一种传播活动,必须遵循传播规律。无论是媒体传播、公共外交、国际舆论还是跨文化交流,都离不开信息、媒介、受众、意义建构和传播效果等基本问题。 问题也恰恰在这里。 国际传播并不是发生在真空中的沟通活动。传播对象不是抽象的外国受众,而是生活在具体国家、社会和国际关系中的人。受众如何理解一个国家的信息,不仅取决于信息本身,也取决于国家之间的利益关系、权力结构、历史记忆、地缘政治以及国际事件。 如果缺乏国际关系特别是国际政治的基本训练,传播研究就容易把国际政治环境当成传播活动的背景,而不是把它视为影响传播意义和传播效果的重要变量。 换句话说,传统国际传播研究比较擅长回答“如何传播”,却有时不够擅长回答“为什么在这样的国际环境中传播”。...