Dragon and Bear are back together!?

If you browse through the newspapers in China last week, it is unlikely to miss the headline of Russian PM Mr. Putin’s visit in Beijing and the huge trade deals between two nations. Energy deals, as usual. Remarkable cooperation for two countries and world economy, blah blah blah. Not until I noticed the news reported in FT column have I found how interesting this topic can actually turn out. Indeed the national political interest can have an obvious impact on the style of new writing, esp. for such kind of financial/political news.

Let us see how the world reacts to the closeness of two powerful nations, or as FT puts it, the relationship of Chinese Dragon and Russian Bear. Though it is quite hard to be objective on an issue like this, the news on Reuters did a comparatively satisfactory job there. The article is pretty objective and filled with facts rather than speculations and comments. Divided by several subtitles, it is quite clear with the facts presented and discussion about the eagerness from Russia and price of the deal respectively. Both sides have been interviewed though the emphasis was put more on the Russian oil company. During the discussion part, it provided more background trade info between the two. When there is the need for some strong comment, it is always the words quoted from some analysts rather than presented directly in the news. Since the analysis involved were ones from Chinese, European and Russian, the news became quite convincing to me. The only disappointment is that it missed the point that Russia and China suggested the trade in Yuan or Rubles, which could be the highlight if put into action. However, I found another following article solely on the currency problem to cover the whole story.

There are some magnificent achievement during Putin’s visit regarding the oil trade deal and other aspects such as the construction of nuclear plant and culture sides. However, the dispute of the oil price and other friction turned the deal into more of general proposal but a solid “right now” plan. There is quite a difference of opinions in different media. Take WSJ Online as an example. The energy pact snags was emphasized several times, even in the first sentence. Surprisingly, the actual figures of the deal or the details of any contract signed were not mentioned at all. Ironically, the article did a fantastic job pointing out the underlying intentions of two sides and the conflicts of the interests even if there were no descriptions of the deal. The arguments were quite solid and straightforward though and the currency used in the trade was highlighted in the news. As WSJ always do, the news again added a lot of background stories of the tension, which was somehow distracting in such a long passage. In a word, WSJ was quite pessimistic about the deal and defined the two sides as rivals. On the contrary, in Chinese version of WSJ, the news covering the topic was short and concise. More like a news update, it just informed the readers of the general info of the oil deal.

Obviously FT didn’t bother writing two different versions of stories. (Dragon and bear, the provocative comment I mentioned at the beginning.) When FT translated the whole blog and posted it on FT Chinese, the consequence is the heated debate in the comment below. Firstly, the article itself did come up with some unique points of view. The coincidental timing--Putin was busy in China when Hilary Clinton went to Moscow. And the currency topic was the highlight but the writer made it very obvious whose side he was on. In my eyes, the whole article was typical fear in Europe and U.S of the “formidable alliance” with Russia and China. (“making noises”, “most formidable authoritarian states have found common cause”). It did make an effort to “comfort” people later by stressing the huge divergence of interest between the two. Although it is acceptable in a blog with such kind of article, it may turn out really ugly translating it into Chinese. No wonder there were tons of Chinese coverage later quoting the blog from FT and criticizing it. Besides, this time even the news covering the deal on FT failed my expectation. There were two news articles with exactly same contents and different headlines. (“stalled”, “hits deadlock”). Again the focus there was the setbacks. The news was enriched by various figures and interviews. Frankly speaking, I cannot really say it was biased only because the article regarded the deal impractical and represented what the majority of people here think.

Another major financial media, Bloomberg, also covered the story in a quite intriguing way, where the mutual deal became Russian’s monologue. From the news, or in my eyes, “the analysis of Russian energy market”, Russian became the world’s energy supplier with the help of Chinese market. All the interviews were from Russian professionals or companies and potential impact was also only from Russian. Surprisingly, the similar problem occurred in the report on BBC (luckily not as serious as Bloomberg). Starting with the quotation of a Russian official, the article did not involve any opinions from Chinese side at all. While the whole story was presented from Russian side, it was not news worthy as international news. Are Chinese opinions that hard to get? In spite of that, the news was fairly objective and filled with quite a lot of evidence.

Finally come down to the two nations. In Chinese media, it was all great news with big inspiring headlines all along, such as “paint rosy future together”, “elevates sino-russian ties”. The one from Xinhua net, which is an official paper in the country, tried really hard to pass the great news to Chinese people. The pride (“the end of Chinese one-sided importation of tech”, “help Russia”) and the significance of the “strategic partnership” was everywhere through the lines. Even with the some mention of the unsettling price and imbalanced trade performance, the news tended to cover it with emphasizing the “promising potential ahead” and “what bilateral cooperation could bring to the world peace”. Lack of critical review on the deal and continuous discussion of the contribution towards world economic order made the news less exciting and it did serve the political purpose here. However, Chinese blogs, or even the debate in the FT comment reveals the fact that maybe Chinese people are not even as thrilled as the government does. There lies some similarity in Russian media. RT, which is a quite open English media online, reported the story. Besides lots of facts and figures, it did quote a lot of words from Putin. Moreover the importance of the common ground on some issues, and the culture ties were emphasized. The other analysis article clearly showed that Russian were not as optimistic as Chinese. The potential fear for Chinese power still exists and everyone knows the limited cooperation is for own interest.

As far as Im concered, the deal is undeniably win-win situation for both. More energy and natural resource supply meets Chinese big demand, while Russia intends to diversify the market rather than relying on Europe only. The current situation favors Chinese side, since China is maintaining the good economic growth and relies mainly on Far East for oil. However, Russia is going through a rough time due to the crisis and collapse of oil price. Even it is just limited partnership for own interests, it still benefits both sides. Also the force from US pushed two nations closer in a subtle way and westerners may really shiver a little as the blog form Telegraph put it. Maybe that is why the western media would rather see the dragon and bear as rivals than an united power together.

Supermarkets tussle

Sainsbury's announced like-for-like growth of 5.4 per cent during the 16 weeks to October 3, outstripping results reported by Tesco
Source: Times online

The most interesting thing regarding British newspaper I have noticed since I came here is how much emphasis the media put on the retailers. It is very likely that anytime you browse through the newspaper, you will find some articles about Tesco, Sainsbury or M&S, Waitrose etc. This week, I found it hard to ignore the war of words over sales performance between Tesco and Sainsbury, which are two top retailers here.

Retailing is an important and competitive industry in Britain, and obviously the news presented is not just about the information itself, but also for the aim of public impression, which could have an impact on sales. If we take a look at the information itself, it is nothing more than mere sales figures report of Tesco and Sainsbury. What really makes the story is the contradiction between two brands competing for top sales and the tension created in most articles. Domestic newspapers such as Telegraph, Daily mail and Times, give more coverage on the topic and try to make the story really eye-catchy. On the other hand, international media present the news in a more descriptive way and focus on Tesco more than Sainsbury, due to the fact Tesco is more internationalized nowadays.

Grocery news is always the centre of attention, when the sales figure of Tesco and Sainsbury both came out on two consecutive days, on Tuesday and Wednesday. It is interesting to see how different newspapers create the “drama” in the news. Daily Telegraph is the one with most enthusiasm about the topic, where there were several articles during the same day. From source 1, it is likely for every reader to get the drama starting from the 1^st sentence. Rather than a concise and newsworthy piece of news, the article was more of analysis and comment on the different sales figures claimed by both company. The first part of the article was all about the history of the battle between two, which is not a valuable start for news but quite interesting to follow. All the colorful words used and the way it was organized made the story intense and complicated, such as the use of “aristocrat”, “stole its crown”, “revenge” etc. The useful information and figure was given in the 2^nd part after the layout of the story. Still, the way it was introduced was full of tension instead of descriptive way wih some neutral words. Even after quoting the exact words from the interviews of both parties, the author added explanation to fulfill the story. The rest of the article focused on answering the question why Sainsbury was lagging behind Tesco. A lot of analysts were interviewed and a series of reasons were given, including the declining food inflation and promotion over the credit crisis. In my eyes, all these above aimed at informing the public that Tesco was doing better for some certain market reasons and Sainsbury was not losing its status. In a word, this one is really helpful for domestic readers and costumers who are into the retailing and it doesn’t require too much background knowledge.

Only an hour later on the same day, from the same editor, there was another article regarding the topic. source 2.No doubt that this one is much better trimmed than the previous one, when it was more professional and concise. The first sentence gave you the idea clearly and the background and detailed figures were in the following parts of the news. The interviews covered the opinions from Tesco, Sainsbury and Cazenove, which made the news objective and argument very solid. More data was provided for comparison. At last, the article also mentioned Justin King’s effort to distance himself from a move to M&S and the shares in Sainsbury’s fell. I’m going to talk about this point later. In a word, Daily Telegraph is the one where the news is with the most tension and from the news you can see its effort to back up Sainsbury’s long-term growth and status.

There is also an article on FT Online, which is more open to international readers. The source of every bit of information was clearly stated in the article. Moreover, there were more figures mentioned, not only those related to the dispute, but also some data about the sales structure of Sainsbury’s. From the news, it’s easy to get a glimpse of the UK’s current situation regarding retailing industry, and even the outlook on UK’s economy. The use of words was very accurate without any emotions involved. The “rumor” about Justin King’s run for chief executive at M&S was also mentioned. Here you can get the fact that Mr.King was trying to distance himself from the rumor. However, when I paid attention the exact words, it was “he refused to rule himself out of the race” and there was exactly opposite one on Telegraph saying “he again ruled himself out of contention”. After checking the other coverage such as the one on guardian, I am sure that his words were, “I intend to stay {in Sainsbury’s} and play in part in that.” In my eyes, his effort to clear the air is very likely to have immediate effect on the investors and price of shares. But he did not really say 100% no to the position. So it really depends on how you understand the words and deliver it to the public. At the same time, the one on Times was also quite objective and convincing with the title “Sainsbury rejects Tesco’s No.1 claim.” Since it was much longer than FT’s, more background information was provided about the competition between two rivals. The interview provided deeper analysis of the figure and was quite convincing.

As to the international media, Tesco is more popular than Sainsbury. It is not surprising that there were no related news coverage in Chinese media. However, there are some articles analyzing the sales performance of Tesco. Sainsbury was not mentioned at all. Due to the fact that Tesco has more expansion into Asia and US market, the media is more likely to cover the growth and expectation of the company.

The supermarket competition is really intense in UK and it is a great indicator for the whole economy. The declining inflation of food price may boost the sales soon. It is hard to say who is the no.1 brand based on short term performance especially when Sainsbury had a comparatively stronger previous year. But is the economy going to be better so soon like Sir Terry’s upbeat comment implies? I would rather listen to Justin King’s cautious point of view about the future of UK’s economy.

“Buy American” or “Made in China”

From: CFP, a local newspaper from where the major poultry consuming market is located in China.

As the trade friction, especially anti-dumping cases, between United States and China has intensified these years, it’s not shocking news any more to see that china started probe into American chicken imports. Following a series of dispute regarding tyres, auto manufacture and poultry products between two nations, the investigation from Chinese government towards American imports has broader background and implications than mere single trade dispute. The action attracted the attention of media from both countries involved and some coverage from British media as well.

On Sept.26th, China officially started the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigation into the imports of American chicken products. There is several timing during the month which makes the whole situation quite interesting to explore.

The initial announcement of the action from Chinese ministry of commerce could be traced back to the 2nd week of September, only several days after Washington made the decision that U.S put new tariffs on the Chinese tyres. It's widely believed that the timing sent the unmistakable signal of retaliation, which was mentioned in most news coverage. Actually from the official statement on the website, there were oblique hints referring to the tyre dispute and possible harm from trade war under the cloud of worldwide recession. "China is absolutely against protectionism," the statement said, “China is willing to work with various countries to make sure the world economy recovers soon". And the idea of revenge became quite obvious in other news coverage. For example, the comic above is from Guangzhou Daily newspaper, where the chicken product is the main dish for local people. In the picture, when Uncle Sam tries to smash imported tyres with the "special protectionist tariffs" bat, there is the Chinese official investigating American auto and chicken products. The comic is used by several local publications in China indicating the sino-american trade tension, while the focus of the news is how the price of chicken product could be affected by the cut on import as well. Clearly the target readers are consumers who are more concerned with the price of basic products. Nevertheless, the news (source 1) helps us get a glimpse at the government news style in China. Compared with western ones, the news here tends to use a lot of quotation and only few passive tense instead of a more objective point of view. Although filled with background information and some data, the report doesn’t provide solid argument. Though there are a few interviews involved, most comment is not convincing enough when the words have obvious emotions attached. The emotions of the victims from the "dumping” and the "action is not rare under WTO rules" are emphasized. With only views from one party, I think the article is trying to defend the policy and deliver the "welcome news" rather than presenting the newsworthy and unbiased message.

When we come to the international press, we are likely to find some short but clear news. Like the ones in Independent Uk and Bloomberg, both news are solid with useful information. They covered some key data and background information referring to the previous dispute. Unlike the short message from Independent, the report in Bloomberg is trying to be really objective with opinions from both sides and precise use of word, such as the use of "alleged subsidies" rather than only "anti-dumping" investigation.

Other press in U.K. also has some coverage over the sino-american dispute. To put it into world business section, the news all emphasize on the tension between US and China and the threat of protectionism. The report on Reuter tries to cover opinions from both sides, followed by details about previous events. A little distracting when the topic is about the chicken probe but the article has too much information about other dispute. If you are looking for some reports not as serious as the topic of protectionism, NYTIMES is a good choice. Though it’s still news with some data, the use of word is very interesting and not too professional, which is obvious just from the title. A lot of metaphors are used and the writer must have done some field trip to complete the feedback from the market. In all, it could be a fun reading with typical American optimism regarding the issue for local people.

In my eyes, both countries are facing great pressure with domestic economic growth and the import and export make up for a big part of economy for both countries. Made in China label is already an undeniable fact and trend around the globe, and china relies heavily on the export to US. On the other side, more US companies are investing in chinese market. So if the idea of Buy American Act comes back under Obama government, the "trade war" is inevitable.

source 1 news from china daily, official and political point of view, controlled by the government.