China Applauds Disbandment of Voice of America as U.S. Media Faces Cuts
Chinese state media celebrate President Trump’s action to disband Voice of America, labeled a “lie factory” by the Global Times. The cuts align with the administration’s budget reductions, which concern many U.S. lawmakers and media advocates who fear loss of press freedom and America’s global influence. Kari Lake, the newly appointed adviser over USAGM, supports Trump’s initiative but faces backlash against the implications of these changes.
Chinese state media have expressed approval regarding President Donald Trump’s decision to disband the Voice of America (VOA) alongside other government-funded news organizations. An editorial from the state-controlled Global Times referred to VOA as a “lie factory” and criticized its coverage of various issues related to China, including military actions and alleged human rights violations.
The editorial labeled VOA as a “frontline propaganda tool,” particularly condemning its portrayal of Chinese military disputes in the South China Sea and the country’s economy. The Chinese Communist Party, which oversees media narratives in China, has historically criticized such U.S.-funded outlets for their reporting on China.
The Chinese Embassy in Washington declined to comment on the matter, designating it an “internal affair of the U.S.” A spokesperson emphasized the hope that media outlets would represent China and U.S.-China relations faithfully to foster mutual understanding between the two nations.
In a move towards budget cuts, the Trump administration issued an executive order aimed at reducing operations at the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which administers VOA and similar organizations. This order specifies that such entities should minimize personnel and their functions to the least required by law.
Elon Musk’s leadership has led to significant job cuts across the federal workforce, including the placement of VOA employees on administrative leave. Critics, particularly Republicans, have long accused VOA of having a liberal bias, with Trump previously alleging that the outlet represents adversaries instead of American interests.
Musk had called for VOA’s closure, stating in a social media post, “Nobody listens to them anymore.” Richard Grenell, a former envoy under Trump, echoed these sentiments, labeling the organization as a relic. Kari Lake, appointed by Trump as the senior adviser over USAGM, expressed both a vision for revitalizing VOA and support for the initiative to downsize federal operations.
Lake had optimistically described her role, asserting that VOA could be a vital information tool. She declared the existing structure of the agency as flawed and a financial burden on taxpayers. Despite this, supporters of U.S. international broadcasting warn that such drastic cuts could harm America’s global influence and diminish press freedoms.
Steve Capus from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty cautioned that silencing these networks would bolster adversaries like Iran, China, and Russia. Emily Bloch, president of the Society of Professional Journalists, observed that this marked a troubling moment in the history of press freedom, given that it is the first time in over 80 years that VOA ceased its operations.
Support from various lawmakers also highlighted the importance of VOA in broadcasting the U.S. narrative globally, with some pushing for reform rather than termination. Representative Michael McCaul specifically advocated for the U.S. information programs targeting China, outlining their role in counteracting propaganda in authoritarian regimes. Trump has appointed Brent Bozell III to lead the USAGM, pending Senate confirmation.
In summary, the disbandment of the Voice of America and similar entities has garnered approval from Chinese state media, further raising concerns about freedom of the press and the U.S.’ global standing. The cuts are framed as an internal matter by the Chinese Embassy while being criticized by various American lawmakers and journalism advocates. As the situation develops, the balance between budgetary restraint and informational integrity remains a point of contention.
Original Source: www.washingtonexaminer.com
