In spring 2020, China’s government expelled 19 foreign journalists at the New York Times, Wall  Street Journal, and Washington Post, marking one  of the largest expulsions of foreign correspondents in decades. The expelled journalists represented about half of the reporting corps of these three newspapers stationed in China. The expulsions occurred in part as a response to the U.S. government’s decision to designate Chinese media organizations in the U.S. as foreign government entities. How has expelling foreign journalists  affected coverage of China by English-language news media?  

The data. The study uses a dataset of over 32,000 news stories about China from January 2019 to November 2021, gathered from English-language news outlets that had reporters in China. This includes newspapers that were affected by the 2020 journalist expulsions as well as other outlets that weren’t affected, for comparison. The researchers looked at three main criteria to gauge changes in news coverage: 1) information origin, i.e., whether a story was triggered by a government or CCP institution (e.g., government data releases, arrests, or official statements); 2) information composition, i.e., positive or negative tone and diversity of information sources, both measured by machine learning algorithms); and 3) information reach, i.e., the raw count of articles about China published each month, the percentage of an outlet’s total articles that focus on China, and online social media engagement via reactions, shares, and comments, as measured by Crowd Tangle API, a tool for analyzing content trends and engagement on social media. 

Foreign journalists in China. China’s government navigates a tension between leveraging foreign media to burnish international legitimacy and suppressing it to prevent unfiltered reporting that could challenge state narratives. China’s Foreign Ministry declined the researchers’ request to provide a current count of foreign journalists in China. The most recent public accreditation records date back to 1997 and show 15 countries with three or more foreign correspondents located in China, led by the U.S. (72), Japan (53), the U.K. (24), and South Korea (22), though there are likely fewer now. Media organizations require approval from the Chinese Foreign Ministry to establish permanent offices in country. Approval is not always granted. If it is, each news organization journalist must receive additional individual approval for a special “J-visa” (journalist visa) to report from within China’s borders. Permanent offices can hire local Chinese staff to conduct “auxiliary work,” but these local staff are legally forbidden from reporting stories. In practice, however, local staff operate in a regulatory gray area. 

Changes in China coverage before and  after journalist expulsions

After expulsion: limited change in information origination. The study found no significant change in the percentage of news articles originating from government or institutional sources following the expulsion of journalists. While there was a slight decline in institutionally originated stories from the expelled news organizations (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post), this change was not statistically significant, suggesting that the ability and willingness of media outlets to access government-related news was not heavily disrupted. 

No change in information composition. The tone and diversity of sources used in news stories also remained largely unchanged after the expulsion. Sentiment analysis revealed that news outlets continued to report on China in a similar negative-to-neutral tone as before. While there was a slight convergence toward more negative sentiment, this was attributed to broader global events like the COVID-19 pandemic rather than the journalist expulsions. 

Changes in China coverage before and  after journalist expulsions

No significant impact on information reach. Finally, the overall quantity and engagement of news stories about China remained stable. While there was an apparent decline in the raw number of China-related stories published by expelled outlets, this mirrored a general decline in overall news output, meaning that China coverage as a percentage of total coverage remained steady. Similarly, social media engagement levels did not change significantly, indicating that audience interest in China-related news was unaffected by the expulsions. 

Adaptation through collaborative reporting, shifting resources. News organizations adapted to the loss of in-country reporters by increasing collaboration. The percentage of stories written by multiple authors or with additional contributions from assistants increased after the expulsions. This shift suggests that organizations reallocated resources and used alternative reporting strategies to maintain coverage quality and depth. The researchers suggest that news outlets may use additional researchers  or online data to compensate for the information that can  no longer be gathered by foreign correspondents and may empower local auxiliary employees to take on greater reporting responsibilities.

Resiliency in foreign news coverage of China. This  study indicates that the information produced by media organizations about China is not detectably different in  terms of institutional or regime origination, sentiment,  entities referenced as sources, article quantity, or audience engagement to stories produced prior to expulsion, as would be expected if media outlets had changed — or been forced  to change — their reporting in response to being expelled.  If anything, media organizations may have changed their production processes to account for expulsion. Together, these findings suggest that outlets successfully  adapted to the challenges introduced by expulsion. However, the researchers caution that their results should not  be interpreted to mean that the same resiliency will apply indefinitely, or apply to other direct threats to media organizations and journalists.