Liu Xins argument: Chinas new model of ＂shouting＂?

Liu Juti: The symbolic significance of appearing in the mainstream media in the United States even exceeds the essential content of the interview.Fluent English and friendly Chinese anchors can offset the stereotypes of Chinese demonization and silence to a certain extent.

For the audiences who have given up all the dating and stayed in front of the TV on Wednesday at 8 pm Eastern Time, China International TV (CGTN) anchor Liu Xin and Fox news anchor Cui Xi Bull; Reagan's debate is really like oneAgainst orgasm.In a 16 -minute and 36 -second interview, in addition to the two parties spoke for nearly half a minute due to the delay of satellite transmission, after#在 在 在 在 在 在 在 在 在 在 在 在 在 在 在 在 在 在 在 在 在 在 在 在 在 在 在 在 (It reached 470 million clicks and 49,000 comments within 24 hours after the show).

Reagan will make this interview with a framework at the beginning of the show. She first pointed out that China International Television was controlled by the Communist Party of China, and Liu Xin was a member of the Communist Party.Liu Xin said that she is not a member of the Communist Party. The views she expressed in the show is purely individual and does not represent the government.

Just as many Westerners think of Chinese official media, they are just the government's spokesperson. Fox TV is the very right media in the United States. Fox News in the US public opinion industry does not represent a complete neutral position, especially in TrumpSince taking office, it has almost become the mouthpiece of the Trump administration.Under such circumstances, it is conceivable that both parties will perform their own interpretations of such talks.

Liu Xin once said on Twitter that she appeared in Reagan's show for honest trade debate, not throwing mud games.The original source of this honest debate was that Liu Xin expressed his views on Reagan's comment on the trade war on his show. At that time, Liu said: Reagan is very sure that we (China) will be hurt, very angry, so that her eyes are almost almost almost almost her eyes.They are all furious.Liu Xinjin pointed out that if he carefully analyzes the words, there is almost no substantial support, only venting emotions and accusations.Liu Xin also called Reagan's spokesperson for Trump.

Reagan responded that she had become the latest goal of China on the US information war: you chose the wrong battle!

The fuse of the air -across interval is a core data quoted by Reagan, claiming that intellectual property theft from China has led to a loss of US $ 600 billion each year.This data originated from a report from the American Intellectual Property Stole of the American Intellectual Property Piece issued by the State Asian Research Agency in the United States in 2017.

Liu Xin pointed out that this report is only an unwritten family, and the report is estimated that intellectual property thefts from the world may cause economic losses to the United States for annual economic losses may be as high as US $ 600 billion, and they cannot be directly equated with China.

In my opinion, if these two anchors can focus on the television conversation on the facts of infringing intellectual property rights, this will be a more colorful and effective dialogue.For example, the 2017 US Intellectual Property Commission report pointed out that thousands of Chinese perpetrators' theft of intellectual property rights are still rampant, and the United States has continuously purchased the invention of themselves and other countries from the Chinese infringers.87%of the counterfeit products seized in the United States are from China (including Hong Kong).

According to a questionnaire survey by the US CNBC TV Network on March 1, a 20%of the interviewed North American companies said that China stole their intellectual property rights in the past year. 30%of North American companies said that China has been in the past 10 years.They stole their intellectual property rights.

Conversely, the Xinhua International Review on May 13 stated that it was accusing China of lsquo; theft intellectual property right RSQUO; this article believes that the achievements of Chinese innovation come from the protection of intellectual property, because China has already realized that intellectual property protection is innovation as innovation is innovation.Driven development is the standard for international trade.And the article, for example, said that the amount of intellectual property rights applications in the non -country residents is a vane and barometer and barometer that reflects the level of intellectual property protection and the business environment.In 2017, the number of registered applications for the trademark of the non -country residents, and the number of applications for the invention of non -national residents ranked first and second in the world, respectively.In 2018, the number of applications for invention in China in China reached 148,000, an increase of 9.1%year -on -year, achieving lsquo; 135 RSquo; the fastest growth rate in HELLIP; hellip;

The People's Daily published nine articles signed by the bell (medium) between May 14th and 22nd.mdash; lsquo; Chinese theory of intellectual property rights theory of intellectual property rights can be rest, quoting articles from British economists to prove: China is not a theft of intellectual property rights, but a protector.

These two completely opposite views reflect the continuous controversy in China and the United States on issues such as intellectual property protection, cyber invasion, and cyber theft, and have misunderstandings about each other's positions.For example, during December 1 last year at the G20 summit in Argentina, the White House spokesman issued a statement on the work meal of the Special Meeting:

President Trump and President Xi agreed to start negotiations on the structural changes in technological transfer, intellectual property protection, non -tariff barriers, network invasion and network theft, services and agriculture.The two parties agreed to work hard to complete the agreement within the next 90 days.If the two parties cannot reach an agreement at the end of this period, the 10%tariff will increase to 25%.

This shows that from the perspective of the United States, China and the United States have a basic consensus on the problem of intellectual property theft after the Argentine Xi conference.

The Second Session of the Thirteenth National People's Congress voted and approved the Foreign Investment Law of the People's Republic of China on March 15 this year, which will be implemented from January 1, 2020.In accordance with the Foreign Investment Law, the state protects the intellectual property rights of foreign investors and foreign -invested enterprises in accordance with the law, and encourages technical cooperation based on the principles of voluntary and business rules. The conditions for technical cooperation shall be determined by the investment parties and shall not use administrative means to force transfer technology.

However, Liu He said on May 10th in Washington's 11th round of Sino -US trade negotiations to be interviewed by domestic media that China believes that it is important to solve the problem of unbalance between trade between the two parties and are willing to solve it.It is necessary to analyze scientific and seriously.

Liu He said that the problem of technology transfer is constantly voluntary in technology transfer in the early stage of cooperation. It is difficult to say that it is forced technology transfer. This problem competes. We think the truth is very clear.For another example, the so -called intellectual property theft problem is a trustworthy country. One country accuses another country theft. We must not accept it. There may be individual cases, but individual cases need to analyze.

This implies that due to the negotiations, the propositions of the two parties have returned to the original point for intellectual property issues.

In the visit of Fox TV, Reagan asked Liu Xin's view of infringement of intellectual property rights and showed her a large number of famous Chinese intellectual property theft cases on the screen.Liu Xin has a straightforward response: I do not deny that there are infringement of intellectual property, copyright issues, piracy, and even stealing commercial secrets.This is something that must be handled hellip; hellip;

Reagan believes that this means that Liu Xin admits that China's infringement of intellectual property rights.In fact, Liu Xin's next answer is a refutation to the interpretation of Reagan: I think this may be a common approach around the world. In the United States, some companies have always sued each other because of infringing intellectual property rights.Said that because of these cases, the United States is stealing or China is stealing things, or the Chinese are stealing the East and West.

From a certain perspective, Liu Xin and Fox anchor had almost no risk because daring to make a brighter sword in the West would make her work in China.Liu XindangIt is not the first Chinese journalist with Western experts on Chinese issues.In November 2015, CGTN chief reporter Wang Guan, on the interview program of the Russian National Television (RT), was in the South China Sea issue with Richard Bull, the director of the Hudson Institute's Political and Military Analysis Center of the United States;Debate, it became a national hero in China overnight.

David Bull, Director of the Chinese Media Project of the University of Hong Kong Journalism and Media Research Center; in an interview with VOA in Banstus, even if the bridge section of the interview is almost no substantial content, it is indeed inciting nationalist emotions.The weapon allows Liu Xin to be portrayed as the national team championship in domestic social media.

In any case, I think the way of this civilized dialogue still exceeds Sino -US officials and civilian consecutive saliva warfare.Monthly CCTV female reporter Kong Linlin Conference on the Hong Kong Convention on the Conservative Party Human Rights Committee of the UK. After the hustle and bustle protested by people who supported Hong Kong's independence, they were rejected. They had the staff of the staff after they touched the limbs with the staff.crime.I think the argument is always better than the martial arts.

After the interview between Reagan and Liu Xin, Bai Bangrui, director of the China Strategy Center of the Hudson Institute of the American Think Tank, pointed out that he believes that Liu Xin is stable, very cautious, and adheres to the route of the Chinese government. More importantly, Liu XinAgree with the ultimate goal is zero tariffs.

Overall, I think that in the mainstream media in the United States, especially the channels with strong prejudice against China, have a high degree of symbolic significance, and even exceed the substantial content of the interview.When a fluent English and friendly Chinese anchor is now in the golden period, it can resist the stereotypes of Chinese demonization and silence on the baseline.

But then, we can hardly look forward to what substantial impact this interview will have on the US public opinion.This is because the Western media has basic rejection of the Chinese government's media control. They will not believe that any personal will under national machines will habitually discount any remarks from official media.

Therefore, I think that China and the United States should have more mechanisms to openly open non -official debates and dialogues, but the conversation of news anchors cannot be regarded as a plan for propaganda warfare, nor can they deliberately pick up things, otherwise it is easy to cause anti -effects.

On May 9th, the well -known Canadian Mango Times Political Debate Platform held a debate in Toronto whether China threatened the theme of liberal international order.In early April, the Chinese Elite Organization of the United States will be a simulation debate with whether China will inevitably become the first economy during its 50th anniversary celebration.

The results of these two debates show that regardless of the performance of the debate team, the arguments presented by the debate can change the extent that the audience is present is extremely limited. ThereforeThere will be no specific substantial effects, and the same conclusion can be pushed in China.In other words, when talking about Sino -US relations, whether in the United States or in China, most people have deeply trapped their preconceived views and are verifying a saying: people always believe in things they are willing to believe.

To change these preconceived prejudices, the national team that just dispatched a shouting is no effect.The question we need to think more is: Can such discussions be broadcast live in China?Even in China?Can official media anchors different from official opinions?These are key factor affecting international views.