seed in trade, yours too, and his position above russia about the tension bush and so on. it looks like that . china has not, conceded you in the last few talks and the u. s. we have the 2 options, but to escalate the matter further. just align with the regional edge taiwanda presidential office website was reportedly hit by a cyber attack on choose the although it was shortly back on line. ok. all the dates of elements at the top. there's picking quite a few hope you can join me then for them. this is art internet ah, ah.

with the wealth engine, oil, the parts, the american approach to the world could be reduced to one bumper sticker. it well could be this perception is reality. going in the early ninety's by the come, the republican strategist lee asked what i mean, i'm gonna use a full codes and did a trick, but nonetheless, through very effective in securing the presidential victories of ronald reagan and george h. w. bush. 40 years on how big is the gap between american perception and we'll reality. well to discuss that i'm now joined by lou sheen. an anchor with china state run see on channel. she had a great pleasure for me to talk to you. i'm such

a big fan of your work. thank you very much for making the time for me. thank you for the invitation. yes, i come from c g t n. we call ourselves the international television of china. i mentioned you're working for a state run channel without any judgement. i myself work for a state funded channel. and in fact, the, a great value in, in a national effort to try to shape global story. but i noticed that when you talked to some of our western colleagues, they, they're always a bit skeptical. it's not condescending. all of your affiliation is this, your affiliation somehow. who influences the quality of your work? you have, have any, anything to say that i the reason why i have to correct people almost all the time, including my colleagues from our team, for instance, is because i believe this is part of the essence to use perception to

shape people's understanding of the world. because in a western context, the word state is almost has very negative connotation to its, it's opposed to the people. it represents power that is not necessarily representing the over interest of the people. it is kind of viewed as the opposite side. whereas in the eastern context, for instance, it is very different. and so i don't, i don't want to be given that label before i open my mouth, which is the case every time. and i don't know about your case on twitter for instance. we are, we are given the label, state affiliated media, which immediately gives people the impression that we are also credible or what we face propaganda. so be very, very careful. whereas, whereas those people who work for money, you know, they're not given the, the, the tag, copper media, for instance. if you look at the state or on media,

we have many state from media by the way, all over the world. you mentioned this distinction perception and reality and you heard mind production this, this mantra is i think very central to how western media operate. and since you catered to an international audience, i'm sure you encounter the facts of it in your work. but do you subscribe to, do you believe that's perception trumps to reality rather than the other way around? i think perception is, unfortunately a way how human beings see the world, whether we like it or not. and that is used sometimes for good cause. sometimes for a bad cause it can be weaponized. everything we are doing in journalism is about perception because you are hearing me talking about china all about myself. and it is your perception that will make up your mind what you see, what you get,

or what you kind of image you can do in your brain. so perception is, is absolutely critical, but how do we make sure that we don't manipulate perception so that people have the wrong or a very, an impression of reality that is very much twisted or very distant from reality. i think that is the challenge because nobody is able to give reality 100 percent as it is. but how close are you able to give it and how to for how genuinely, professionally repaired professionally. you're trying to do a job do a job. i think that is the biggest challenge really i mentioned we. b what are in my introduction, the youth republican strategist, who in my new influenza american political, immediate communications for dig it to, to come. and he also played on this very emotional badge issues and all sorts of unscrupulous mean he truly believe he was very open about it. that any means

justify the goal. it also needs to be added that he and died very young, all of a brain tumor. i wonder if you think that the approach of trying to manipulate the perceptions so that you have the reality that you live. you can actually, you are a little dominant, tend to sort of choke up on its own contents over a pretty short period of time. misperception is very you may, if you're very good at it, for instance, if you work in the media and you know how to do it, you can do a very good job and manipulating public opinion. you can paint white as black. you can, you know, totally twist reality and sometimes not even by lying, sometimes just by picking what you want to pay or putting things in a certain order or putting human emotions into one side of the story. well, while not giving irrational analysis of the whole picture,

and that's where we're moving in on a daily basis. not just what we see in our hands on tv and our phones, but also how we produce constantly as journalists as to the present. and so it is, i have to say it is part of human nature that we're prone to manipulate. it is also the beauty of human life that we are emotional animals. the challenge is whether we're able to cultivate our literacy, our ability to distinguish what is misinformation. what is this? what's, what's perception, what's reality? and how we can arm ourselves with the ability to say ok, this is perceived in this way. but what is the reality that we are in a constant pursuit of truth as closely as close as possible guys? but this conversation i came across your interview with a b, c. i think it was locked here where the journal,

if the sterling journalists tried to really on the state of freedom in china and how supposedly constricted it is in comparison to the west and fast forward one year. and i'm sitting here in moscow with my channel being taken all the air, all social media for explicitly legal reasons. to me, it's not even ironic. i think there's something very to tell the terry and then that that's why i wanted to try to turn the table here and ask you about this. they've all media freedom in the west. as you see, i think at this moment we see it's really clear what they mean by freedom of press, right? when freedom of press is in other country, they're defending it even pay money. the latest us competes act allocates actually $500000000.00 us dollars to you know, false coastal coord independent media in,

in china, basically to malign china. but when it comes to freedom of press in their own countries, i'm not sure whether they will be leading by example, despite their claims. as you said, r t has taken all which is out of the reach by the regulators. i understand it is not done. due to so due process, you know, there are all kinds of bottom lines that have been just totally ripped apart because i guess it's a war on the west. the russia is waging, and for them, it's just totally not possible. and everything russian seemed to have become a target. so where's the freedom of expression bed? so i think it is the lane, it is laid back in front of the rest of the world. what they really mean by freedom, by freedom of expression, how unified their standard really is. well, you know, the problem. they are always right. when it comes, you know,

they can never be wrong. so like, so long as they are on the right side of history. if they have western liberal style democracy, you know, it seems like they can justify everything they do, even if they are wrong. they do it and they still say they are right. and that is that kind of exceptionalism. that kind of double standard i think, is really a huge problem, which is really exceptional, isn't or isn't supremacy. i mean, i don't know how you approach. i think you're one of the most eloquent english speaking anchors. i'm not trying to be psychographic here, but you true. have very good come out of the language. you not only to read off news, news, all, all the queue, but also in live debate in analysis. and that's a huge effort. i mean, if somebody calls and speaks english as that as non native language, i understand how much word goes into that. and yes. in interview after interview, i can see you not being discounted, but sort of kept as,

as somewhat not on par with all the people who speak english fluently, a job by the nature of being born in that country. i mean, do you think our colleagues, our western colleagues understand how much human acrid goes into what we do not just state farm, but basic human effort into even being able to deliver what we are trying to deliver in that language. and also within the framework over there will be busy on not only learning the language, you're also learning the culture the will be set for. i think one idiom would be good here. it's their house. so we have to follow their rules. and if you want to speak to an international audience, which is, you know, prevalent in english, which is english speaking primarily, you have to learn their language, hampton, and their culture. and i've been doing, i was an english language major when i was in university that was in, in last century. and i've been using english all these years i've,

i've had so much discussion sometimes in my spare time i, i talked to myself, i asked myself questions. there's so much thinking that's going on. so much discussion so much reading. why not? because i like it or mad or something because these are the questions that, that we want to. i'm so how can we talk to people in other parts of the world who don't speak chinese? i have to reach out to them and i cannot wait for everybody to, to, to be able to speak chinese because been, we will never understand each other. so i want to, i want to reach out. i want to go over, but it's very, very difficult. 25 years that i've been, i've been working in this profession. i love it. i'm enjoying it. and i'm ever more energized than empowered, but it's not been an easy path. that's why that's why i'm angry. i'm angry when people say, oh, you come from the state media doing. i'd say excuse me. there are thousands of people, more than thousands of tens of thousands of people were working stream. the hard to

bring information from one language from our native language was which is chinese to you. and you say one word propaganda. you discredit everything. that's why i'm, i'm extremely angry. don't, don't, don't mess with that because i won't take that. i remember the back end developer 19. you had a bit of an argument with the fox news hoss. you described her as being all emotion, little substance. and i think that was criticism, but i want to ask you, why do you think emotionality, rather than critical thinking, have become such a dominant feature of western broadcasting because arguably, is easy for them to not only talk but being in english, but for some reason there's a very hearing determine, push and pull towards emotionality. and the 1st i have to say with all due

respect to, to trish reagan, my kind of part in that debate. when i wrote that opinion piece which triggered the debate, i didn't mean to say that she was all emotions and no substance, but you see that's the problem. because i was thinking in chinese and i wrote the piece, i was actually saying her research was not well done, but i read it in the she's had been, you know, oh, emotions, a no brainer. but i guess, you know, that made her feel offended and she about her, her personality or even her. so my question is more about the approach to work when talking about emotion, emotionality, we mentioned that just now i think we are all emotional animals. that's why life is so beautiful. that's why life is so easily manipulated. that's why we're so credulous as well. that's why we as journalists, who,

who are people who shape who can shape people's minds, have such a huge responsibility that we do not use in motion in excessive in a manipulative way. sometimes there are true emotions which have to come out and it can be extremely powerful, no shutting away from the motion. but when you are you making a motion to push your political agenda, i think that is a very dangerous thing. so both as a reader, both as a consumer information and as a producer of the information, i'm extremely aware when it comes to emotion, i rather keep my tears in my eyes when i see something because i don't want myself to be manipulated by my emotions and according to western philosophy, actually what is freedom? freedom is when you are able to restrain your animal instinct and make the right choice. and despite your emotions, that is when you achieve true freedom.