Qin Hui, "On the US Election"

Qin Hui, “On the ‘Mainstream Media:’  Replies to a Guest’s Objections Concerning the U.S. Election”[1]

Introduction and Translation by David Ownby

Introduction

Qin Hui (b. 1953), who taught at Tsinghua University until his recent retirement, is a historian and one of China’s most prominent Liberals and public intellectuals.  Translations of several of his essays, treating topics as diverse as Thomas Piketty’s Twentieth- First Century Capitalism, “Looking at China from South Africa,” and “Globalization after the Pandemic:  Thoughts on the Coronavirus,” are also available on this site.

The text translated here was posted on Qin Hui’s WeChat feed on January 5, 2021, addressing the general topic of the United States presidential election.  The term that appears in the title of Qin’s text, “Replies to a Guest’s Objections 答客难,” refers to a particular literary form associated with the Han dynasty figure Dongfang Shuo 東方朔 (c. 160– c. 93 BCE), who was a minor figure in the court of Han Wudi (r. 141-87 BCE), known mostly for his humor—he appears to have been something of a court jester.  There are different interpretations of the circumstances that gave rise to his “Replies to a Guest’s Objections.”  In his Writing against the State:  Political Rhetorics in Third and Fourth Century China, Dominik Declercq argues that Dongfang’s text grew out of a confrontation between the jester and other, more respected members of the imperial court.  These more respectable figures were attempting to ridicule the jester—surely a fool’s errand—and he turned their questions back against them. 

The Chinese search engine Baidu offers a different interpretation (based on a different biographical account of Dongfang), in which the jester presented a proposal to the emperor dealing with important affairs of state, only to have it rejected.  In this portrayal, “Replies to a Guest’s Objections” was a humorous reply to the emperor’s refusal.  In any event, the literary form has been associated with wit and with grievance from the outset, and later inspired an essay style known as  "hypothetical discourse 設論," which Baidu defines as “offering hypothetical questions and answers to bring clarity to an issue.”

In the present context, such arcane details tell us that Qin Hui’s essay is a conceit, that he himself composed the questions in order to skewer Chinese Trump supporters and their claims concerning the manipulation of the mainstream media in the United States by the radical left.  These claims touch on a wide variety of issues much in vogue with Trump supporters in the United States—that the mainstream media caters to non-Trump supporters, leaving Trump supporters “under-represented,” that Internet giants like Google and Facebook filter out opinions that are not in accord with their Silicon Valley values (i.e., that they are guilty both of “political correctness” and “creating their own audience”), that no one investigates the widespread charges of electoral fraud…

In sum, even if Qin Hui himself composed the questions, they are a fair representation of the seemingly sophisticated but ultimately hollow charges that circulate in right-wing circles in the United States—and apparently in China as well!—because the audience Qin is addressing is Chinese.  Although Qin posted his essay before the January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol, the New York Times reported today (January 15) that Trump supporters in China--egged on by state propaganda organs--are outraged that Trump has been removed from Twitter and Facebook.

Qin’s answers, alternately tongue-in-cheek and openly sarcastic, are meant to illustrate that these charges do not stand up to scrutiny.  Internet giants cannot be guilty both of political correctness and of a blind search for profits, because if they were after money, they would cater to the neglected Trump supporters.  Trump’s rise was powered by the Internet; why now argue that the Internet has brought him low?  Charges of fraud are indeed investigated by the proper authorities; the problem is that Chinese right-wing (“red right”) media refuse to report them, or simply take up another baseless conspiracy theory.  There is nothing in Qin’s text which will be very surprising to anyone who is reading the American press these days, although Qin’s arguments, as always, are invigorating and fun to read.  What is surprising is that this degree of political detail and engagement has reached China, a “totalitarian society” (in the eyes of many in the West), strangely full of Trump supporters.

I might note in passing that Qin invented nonsense homonyms for the Chinese words for freedom of speech (盐论自游 for 言论自由), democracy (民煮 for 民主), and authoritarianism (砖制 for 专制), presumably in the hopes that his post would not be taken down by China’s Internet censors (although this may be part of Qin’s conceit—none of these words is usually particularly sensitive in China’s online world).  In any event, as I post this translation on January 17, 2021, Qin’s text is still available online.

Links to other texts on this site

Click here for texts related to the theme of democracy.

Click here for texts related to Donald Trump.

Favorite Quotes

“I think the phenomenon of the ‘mainstream’ excluding the ‘non-mainstream’ is widespread, and is not limited to the realm of the media, nor to the distinction between democratic countries and authoritarian countries. But as long as the ‘non-mainstream’ is free and not suppressed by the powerful, it can always find a suitable posture.  This is certainly not to say that any ‘non-mainstream’ has the chance to become ‘mainstream.’ But in terms of logic, the fact that, in a market economy, ‘similar business interests tend to form similar values,’ does not prevent competition. Just as there is fierce competition among capitalists with ‘similar values,’ or among workers with ‘similar values.‘ Only a unified interest group or one with monopolistic privileges would preclude competition (and not a multiplicity of ‘similar business interests’).

Not only that, but there are even influential economists that argue that competition among a few oligarchs (none of whom possess special privileges) may be more effective than competition among countless small merchants. So, in the absence of suppression carried out by the most powerful (which clearly does not exist in the United States, otherwise the Trump regime would not be so powerless against the ‘mainstream media’ that opposes him), the mere existence of "Internet giants" itself will not eliminate ‘non-mainstream’ ideas.”
 
“Why doesn't the ‘mainstream media’ cater to the pro-Trump audience?  The precise answer to this question would require specialized research, which is beyond my ability. But since the ‘far-left manipulation’ argument is clearly not supported by the evidence or logic, there are only two possible logical answers.
One is that the U.S. ‘mainstream media’ is indeed not as profit-oriented as the ‘capitalist media’ is often made out to be here in China, and those who work in media still adhere to their own values.  This is what is called political correctness.

I don't see anything wrong with ‘political correctness’ if it doesn't involve the use of power to oppress others (as in certain countries), and is instead truly based on each person's own free judgment. In this instance, they refuse to cater to an ‘incorrect’ audience, even if they are leaving money on the table. Given that Trump is indeed a ‘loudmouth’ and often says things that are offensive and improper, it's not hard to understand that the media is prejudiced against him. The ‘red right’ blames the media for being anti-Trump, and thinks Trump is justified in scolding the media. In fact, the two may feed into one another.  At the outset, the media may not have appreciated some of Trump's 'non-mainstream' words and actions, but they were not completely against him. However, Trump's response was to criticize the media with no regard for decorum, and the media naturally became more disgusted with him. The reason for the deteriorating relationship between the two sides is not necessarily one-sided.”

“Although I have never been a big fan of Trump's administration, from his repeal of the TPP at the beginning of his presidency to his recent performance in the fight against the coronavirus, as the current legitimate president of the United States and someone who still has the support of more than 70 million voters in this election, I have so far disagreed with the accusations of some of my friends on the Chinese ‘blue left’ that he is a ‘Hitler,’ and I hope that he will not do anything to confirm these accusations at the end of his term.”
 
 Translation

Question:  What do you think about the manipulation of the mainstream media by the extreme left in the United States?

Qin Hui:  As far as this election is concerned, I think the pro-Trump camp's accusations that anti-Trump public opinion is the result of manipulation by the extreme left, and thus a disgrace to freedom of speech, are not true, and in fact these charges echo the opinions of people in China who are against freedom of speech.  The idea of freedom of speech does not exclude the objective existence of "mainstream" opinion, nor are "mainstream" opinions necessarily correct.  It is completely permissible to criticize or even “oppose” the mainstream.  

Scholars in particular surely should have their own independent opinions, in obedience neither to authorities nor to the masses. But the American media are all privately run, and those who work in media are free people. The authorities do not use their power to suppress or organize public opinion, nor is tax money used to attempt to influence public opinion, so how can we talk about manipulation?

Isn't the argument that private capital’s influence on the media endangers free speech something that liberals have historically refuted? This refutation usually consists of three arguments.  First is that there is more than one capitalist running a newspaper, which means that there will be competition between newspapers run by different capitalists, so there will not be just one voice.  Second, competition between newspapers is in fact competition for credibility, and newspapers that spew fake news or simply repeat what the government says will lose their readers. 

Without readers, they will make no money, which means that in order to make money, newspapers have to be more credible than official government-run newspapers.  Third, it is much harder to manipulate newspaper people if they run their newspapers in good conscience and are not solely profit-oriented. At least liberals used to believe these three arguments. Has something happened today to change this?

The main influence on the freedom of speech of the media under market conditions should be audience preferences. What has been the composition of the mainstream media audience in the United States over the years? What is the difference between this audience and the audience for new media? Why does the former tend to be anti-Trump? This is what we need to look at. I would also like to add that, on the issue of the so-called "general anti-Trump" mainstream media that there may be a difference between Chinese pro-Trumpers and white pro-Trumpers as media audiences.

The white pro-Trumpers, in terms of numbers, are made up mainly of the white poor, or what are called "red necks," and farmers, who probably don't really subscribe to newspapers or watch TV, but mainly rely on cell phones for their news. So the traditional media, or "mainstream media" does not care much about their preferences.

The Chinese pro-Trump faction, on the other hand, is different in that they are mainly white collar and middle class professionals, and are still basically the target audience of the "mainstream media," so they are particularly unhappy that these media do not care about their preferences. Non-Chinese Americans (white and Black) have a similar problem. The white elite mainstream (especially the intellectuals) and the lower class blacks and Latinos are mostly anti-Trump, and they truly make up the main audience for the "mainstream media."

But it’s the same thing for pro-Trumpers, because the non-mainstream white conservative elite and the Black conservative elite who support Trump are different from the red necks, in that these elites are still the same traditional media audience as the Chinese pro-Trumpers, but are also a non-mainstream audience, so they have similar complaints as the Chinese pro-Trumpers. Of course, this is my intuitive feeling at this time, whether this is the case remains to be analyzed empirically.

Question:  We know that Western societies are now very concerned about the rights of marginalized groups such as LGBT [GLBT in the original], so is it not true that the media itself has a problem with the rights of marginalized media?
In the Internet era, Internet giants such as Google and Facebook can effectively dominate the dissemination and flow of news and values through big data.

At the same time, Internet companies tend to have similar value orientations due to their similar business interests. In this instance, do these Internet giants in fact have the right to block non-mainstream values and values that do not conform to their own through technical means? Concretely, the probability that these values will by conveyed by the Internet giants' big data technology is so small as to be negligible.

Qin Hui:  I am not competent to answer technical questions about the Internet. But I think the phenomenon of the "mainstream" excluding the "non-mainstream" is widespread, and is not limited to the realm of the media, nor to the distinction between democratic countries and authoritarian countries. But as long as the "non-mainstream" is free and not suppressed by the powerful, it can always find a suitable posture. 

This is certainly not to say that any "non-mainstream" has the chance to become "mainstream." But in terms of logic, the fact that, in a market economy, "similar business interests tend to form similar values," does not prevent competition. Just as there is fierce competition among capitalists with "similar values," or among workers with "similar values." Only a unified interest group or one with monopolistic privileges would preclude competition (and not a multiplicity of "similar business interests").

Not only that, but there are even influential economists that argue that competition among a few oligarchs (none of whom possess special privileges) may be more effective than competition among countless small merchants. So, in the absence of suppression carried out by the most powerful (which clearly does not exist in the United States, otherwise the Trump regime would not be so powerless against the "mainstream media" that opposes him), the mere existence of "Internet giants" itself will not eliminate "non-mainstream" ideas.


In fact, it is precisely the creation of "Internet giants" that allowed the "red necks" to make a bigger noise than they could in the past!  Think about it: without the presence of Internet voices, would an alternative candidate like Trump have been elected in 2016? Think back to how much the pro-Trump camp appreciated the Internet back then! This time it's just a different election result, so how did the "Internet giants" turn from angels to devils all of a sudden?

Question:  Compared to the U.S., Northern Europe doesn't seem to be so clearly divided.  Is this simply because they are more ethnically homogeneous?

Qin Hui:  Ethnic homogeneity is certainly conducive to national identity. But the fact that Northern Europe is not so much in the eye of the storm as the United States is also an important reason.

Question:  In the Internet era, the media no longer relies on the sale of newspapers and programs to make money, and advertising revenue is many times greater than that coming from selling newspapers and programs.   Moreover, advertising companies take a big chunk of advertising revenues, and Internet advertisement companies are money machines, and leave only a pittance for the media companies themselves, so how can they still care about their audience?

Qin Hui:  The situation you described already existed long ago during the era of paper media.  It may be more obvious in the Internet era, but essentially there is no difference:  advertising needs an audience, and advertising agencies themselves are competitive and private. Who would place an ad in a newspaper that no one reads?  It has been said that in the Internet era, "wealth can create its own audience 金主可以制造受众."

In fact, carefully planned propaganda, especially forceful, univocal indoctrination can also create an audience.  When people say that in the era of authoritarianism, it is not "the one who wins people’s hearts and minds wins the world" but instead "the one who wins the world wins the people’s hearts and minds," this is what they mean. This was already the case in the paper era, to say nothing of the age of the Internet.

But "being able to create an audience" is not the same as being able to manipulate it at will. Even if the powerful monopolize public opinion, the so-called "one who wins the world wins the people’s hearts and minds" often winds up simply making people angry and afraid; if the powerful could really "win hearts and minds," no autocrat would ever fall. This is all the more true for the free media in an era of competition.  As for the difference between the advertising competition of Internet companies and the content competition of newspapers, it may be that advertising competition is more profit-oriented, while the credibility of newspaper content competition relies on presenting "facts and reason."

But if it’s only about profit, why are we worried about "political correctness?"  Moreover, it precisely because Internet advertising companies cannot manipulate at will the "audiences they create" that they buy “traditional media” that have kept their reputation intact, instead of just building new platforms to diffuse their advertising. Thus in the final analysis, media in the Internet era continue to care about their audience. Not only that, but if the original audience was the source of their "information service fees" (i.e., the money paid to buy newspapers and programs), now it has also become their source of advertising investment, a kind of "multiplier effect" which is surely all the more important.

Question:  Prof. Qin, you said that the private media in the United States is led by public opinion and the market. Right now (roughly) 95% of the mainstream media supports Biden, while 47% of Americans support Trump. The fact that the mainstream media would rather compete for an audience that makes up 50% of the market than tap into the other 47% shows that the business rules of supply and demand no longer work for the private media. They see the importance of upholding the political bottom line as outweighing the pursuit of the market.

Why is this so? Do their value judgments inevitably override their factual judgments as well? The media, in addition to being the fourth estate, is also a battlefield where the game of democracy plays out in society. If 95% of the media represents only 50% of public opinion, suppressing the other half, then how can the game be played properly?  Is the American mainstream media also responsible for tearing society apart? This is a question that has been troubling me for a long time.

Qin Hui:  Why doesn't the "mainstream media" cater to the pro-Trump audience?  The precise answer to this question would require specialized research, which is beyond my ability. But since the "far-left manipulation" argument is clearly not supported by the evidence or logic, there are only two possible logical answers.

One is that the U.S. "mainstream media" is indeed not as profit-oriented as the "capitalist media" is often made out to be here in China, and those who work in media still adhere to their own values.  This is what is called political correctness. I don't see anything wrong with "political correctness" if it doesn't involve the use of power to oppress others (as in certain countries), and is instead truly based on each person's own free judgment. In this instance, they refuse to cater to an "incorrect" audience, even if they are leaving money on the table. Given that Trump is indeed a "loudmouth" and often says things that are offensive and improper, it's not hard to understand that the media is prejudiced against him.

The "red right" blames the media for being anti-Trump, and thinks Trump is justified in scolding the media. In fact, the two may feed into one another.  At the outset, the media may not have appreciated some of Trump's "non-mainstream" words and actions, but they were not completely against him. However, Trump's response was to criticize the media with no regard for decorum, and the media naturally became more disgusted with him. The reason for the deteriorating relationship between the two sides is not necessarily one-sided.

A second explanation might be that it is really unprofitable to cater to the pro-Trump audience. For example, as I said above, if the U.S. "rednecks" are indeed accustomed to reading on their cell phones and not buying newspapers, then the newspapers have given up catering to this audience based on profit considerations, which is also in line with the logic of "capitalist media," right?
Both of these possibilities has its problematic side, but neither has anything to do with being "manipulated by the far left." If we accept the first one, then all that we can say is that the "mainstream media" is really naive and loveable, sticking to their principles even when there is money to be made, which would mean that Trump should think about why he is not popular.

If we follow the second one, being overly concerned about profits looks a bit vulgar, but there is nothing really wrong with it. All along, the reason why the free media has been able to remain independent from power is because they have these two things:  either they are all about reason or they are all about profit, both of which motivate them to remain independent of power and free from manipulation.

As for their shortcomings, let’s first say that nothing is perfect, and that freedom of speech does not guarantee that every class and every person has an equal voice, at least not at the present moment. We can only say that freedom of expression is fairer than regulated speech. The "mainstream" of free opinion is not necessarily correct, nor does it necessarily correspond to the "mainstream" of the population in percentage terms, but it is good in that it does not stifle the "non-mainstream," so that people can "listen to both sides and make up their own minds," correcting mistakes through trial and error. This is already a far cry from the control of public opinion.

In addition, while the media is indeed referred to as the "fourth estate," it has its own checks and balances, like the other estates, is not necessarily the goddess of justice. The congress, the government and the courts can all make mistakes, so the media will not get it right. But with checks and balances things will work out, and no one can hoodwink the public.  This is the difference between a democratic society and a dictatorship, is it not?

Finally, if the demands of the "red necks" turn out not to be a temporary phenomenon, then the market and democracy will eventually give them a voice (such as unconventional media) and a channel to express their will (such as voting). Trump's election in 2016 is an illustration of this. Even if he lost this election, there will always be a next time.

Question:  You say it's OK to raise questions about election fraud, but that the election results should be accepted when inquiries turn up no evidence. Yet there are many, widespread allegations of fraud now, and many people have brought forth evidence, but the courts just don't investigate and the states in question don't deal with it.  What is this if not manipulation? Can this be said to be fair?

Qin Hui:  Was there wide-scale fraud in this US presidential election? We Chinese have no way to judge and are in no position to judge.  We can only wait for the dust to settle and see what the Americans have to say. But the conspiracy theories spread by the “Chinese red right” on Chinese media are too sensational—going so far as to say that U.S. military attacked a computer facility in Frankfurt, Germany that was part of the electoral fraud (complete with photographs that were later proven to be faked!) This kind of shocking "big news" that even Trump himself has not talked about has appeared in Chinese media.

​How could anyone believe that the American system of democracy has declined to the point that it is worse than Haiti? Although we cannot theoretically rule out the possibility of an institutional metamorphosis, how could the pro-Trump advocates who hailed American democracy only four years ago when Trump was elected think that American politics had fallen so far in such a short time? And Trump was in power during these four years.  Shouldn’t he bear the blame?

At the beginning of the election, the "red right" understandably questioned mail-in voting. Some of my friends on the Chinese blue left shot back that there is nothing to worry about, and even argued that the mail-in voting is more reliable than traditional voting. I think this is going too far. Other issues aside, at least traditional polling stations have secret voting rooms to ensure that voters can fill out and put their ballots into the ballot box in privacy without being influenced by others, while mail-in ballots, which can be filled out anywhere, cannot guarantee the same protection, so some influence might occur before the ballot goes into the envelope. Even if the process of handling mail-in ballots is fine, this reduced guarantee of autonomy may well be missed.

But allowing mail-in ballots is a clear option when in-person voting is problematic. In the past, the number of mail-in votes was small and irrelevant, but in 2020, when the epidemic led to a huge increase in mail-in votes, the pro-Trump camp was uncomfortable with the situation and was somewhat unconvinced after losing the election by a small margin. But this reduction of autonomy is unlikely to be detected in the vote count, and common sense tells us that its impact was not terribly important, so its not worth wringing our hands over.

Moreover, those responsible for reviewing charges of election fraud did not ignore the charges, it is just the pro-Trump media did not report this.  The author of the following quotes turns out to be a Trump supporter, and I find his analysis of certain concrete issues very credible.

"The biggest disadvantage of using mail-in voting is that it leaves a lot of room for the kinds of political maneuvering that in-person voting tries so hard to prevent, and therefore has the potential to affect the outcome of the election.  But this kind of political maneuvering is not illegal, so we can only accept the outcome of the election and then seek to improve the system, rather than not recognizing the outcome of the election and causing the country to be divided…Of course, this time, mail-in ballots were used in the U.S. election on an unprecedented scale because of the once in a century coronavirus pandemic. Without this black swan event, I don't think most people would have favored such a massive mail-in vote, so we don't have to worry about doing it again in the future. But in any case, it's always right to point out the pitfalls of mail-in voting, and future elections should minimize it and be more rigorous in their procedures.”

"In an established democratic country like the United States, the most likely large-scale fraud is computer fraud, high-tech fraud. Because this kind of fraud, which requires only a small group of people operating covertly, may have wide-scale effects."

In this year's election, no one has been more vocal about allegations of massive or systematic fraud than Sydney Powell. Powell. Her allegations against the Dominion voting system are particularly egregious. But because her allegations are so appalling, I simply can't believe them. If the Dominion system is so badly flawed and so widely used, and has been for so many years, what have the computer experts, the people who care about election integrity, been doing? Surely they are not ignorant? And if they know, why don't they figure out how discover the hacking and put an end to it?

In Georgia, because the margin between the Trump vote and the Biden vote was less than 0.5%, there was a recount in which the votes were recounted by hand.  On November 19, the National Review published a short article by its editor Rich Lowry. The article said that the results of the Georgia hand recount proved that the claims of fraud in the Dominion system were simply not true. Georgia Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said they found that the differences between machine tabulation and paper ballots were differences of single digits in certain counties. Experts say there were no hacks to change any ballots. The secretary of state had cybersecurity experts audit a random sample of the machines, and they found no problems.

National Review, by the way, is the most prestigious conservative political journal in the United States, founded in 1955. Its founder, William F. Buckley, Jr. (1925-2008) is considered the father of modern American conservatism. Edwin J. Feulner, Jr. (b. 1941), president of the American Heritage Foundation, paid tribute to Buckley in a memorial service, saying "Without Buckley there would be no National Review, and without the National Review there would be no conservative movement, no Heritage Foundation, no President Reagan, and no today’s America."

On Nov. 22, Dominion System spokesman Michael Steel (a Republican) gave an interview on Fox News to respond to the allegations by Sidney Powell's lawyers that the Dominion System seriously influenced the outcome of the election. Steele said that's simply not possible. Steel explained, "It's physically impossible for that to happen. When voters vote on a Dominion machine, they fill out a ballot on a touch screen, and then they get a paper copy of that ballot and give it to their local election official for safekeeping. In the event of any electronic device interference during this process, the electronic voting record would not match the paper version of the ballot. But in every case we examined (both in Georgia and across the country), the paper version of the ballot matched the electronic voting record perfectly."

The Georgia recount (the hand recount) proves that there was no computer fraud in the state. Those who suspect electronic fraud in other states can do the same and can ask for a recount (a hand recount) in those states as well. Of course, a large deposit is required. If it is found that there is indeed a problem and the results have been flipped, and the deposit will be refunded, but if no problem is found, the deposit will not be returned, and you will have to pay an additional sum of money.

Obviously, the U.S. parties involved are going to do their utmost to review accusations of election fraud. But it is still impossible to satisfy everyone. And the confirmation of the election is time-bound, and cannot be delayed. It should be pointed out that in the "swing states," Republicans were basically in power, which means that these audits and reviews are also done by Republicans rather than being presided over simply by the "blue left,” and they still did not find the results that Trump had hoped for. As 10 former U.S. Secretaries of Defense counseled on Jan. 3: "Elections have been held, recounts and audits have been done. The courts have dealt with the appropriate challenges and the governors have verified the election results. The Electoral College has also voted on all of them, and the time to challenge the results has passed."

Although I have never been a big fan of Trump's administration, from his repeal of the TPP at the beginning of his presidency to his recent performance in the fight against the coronavirus, as the current legitimate president of the United States and someone who still has the support of more than 70 million voters in this election, I have so far disagreed with the accusations of some of my friends on the Chinese "blue left" that he is a "Hitler," and I hope that he will not do anything to confirm these accusations at the end of his term.

Note

[1] 秦晖, “美国大选答客难——关于“主流媒体,” published on Qin’s WeChat feed on January 5, 2021.