Follow us on social

google cta
220712-n-ya628-3040-scaled-e1691777769905

How US media builds public support for confrontation with China

A recent NBC Nightly News threat hyping segment exemplifies the fourth estate’s complicity in a march to a new cold war with Beijing.

Reporting | Media
google cta
google cta

As the United States tries to navigate a new world order in which China has emerged as its primary competitor and at times rival, hawks in Washington, the weapons industry, and other financially or politically interested parties are seeking to base that relationship on fear, confrontation, and animosity rather than healthy competition and cooperation.

A seemingly unwitting ally in that pursuit is the U.S. mainstream media, and a recent NBC Nightly News segment perfectly illustrates its usefulness in the hawks’ endeavor.

The story focused on a recent joint Chinese-Russian naval exercise near the Alaska coast and it had all the elements to lead one to the conclusion that only a more militaristic and confrontational posture would be the most appropriate response.

First, hype the threat. Anchor Peter Alexander set the story up as “just the latest close call” between Russia and China and the U.S. without saying exactly what the close call was.

NBC reporter Aaron Gilchrist then said the military exercises were “being called an incursion” without saying just who was saying that, and later he referred to the drill as an “aggressive maneuver” without describing what was aggressive about it. In fact, Gilchrist even acknowledged that the Russian and Chinese navies “never entered U.S. waters.”

Second, the segment completely ignored the wider context and the complexities of U.S.-China and U.S.-Russia relations, which could have helped to explain Russian and Chinese motives for conducting these drills so close to American territory, including the possibility that they were responding to similar U.S. military activity close to their own respective countries.

And lastly, this all led to the idea that more money for the Pentagon is in order. “Alaska senators today (are) renewing calls for increased investment in military power in Alaska,” Gilcrhist said — without any examination of whether that is even necessary.

A spokesman for U.S. Northern Command said that U.S. military assets were deployed “to assure the defense of the United States and Canada” and that the Russian and Chinese patrol “remained in international waters and was not considered a threat.” That description of events stands in stark contrast to NBC’s Alexander and Gilchrist calling it a “close call,” “an incursion,” and an “aggressive maneuver.” And NORTHCOM’s statement in no way implies that the military needs more assets to address the issue.

(This also isn’t the first time Russian and Chinese naval vessels have patrolled the region and it isn’t the first time NBC Nightly News has hyped the China threat.)

Quincy Institute Research Fellow Jake Werner, whose expertise focuses on U.S.-China relations, called the NBC story “an unusually glaring example of ostensibly independent U.S. media uncritically adopting” a militaristic approach to the world.

“An even-handed approach would have noted that the U.S. is doing the same thing (with greater frequency) and that China doing so is part of an escalatory action–reaction dynamic to which the U.S. is very much also contributing,” Werner told RS. “Instead, China's action is an ‘aggressive maneuver,’ while examples of the U.S. doing the same thing are actually featured — but without the necessary context and only to make the claim that China is aggressive.”

Indeed, Blake Herzinger, a research fellow at the United States Studies Center in Australia, agrees. According to CNN, he echoed NORTHCOM’s assessment that the Chinese and Russian naval exercise was not a threat and that they “acted according to international law just as U.S. Navy vessels do when operating off the Chinese or Russian coasts.”

But, he added, “Chinese responses to similar [American-led] operations in the Indo-Pacific … hype up imagined threats and broadcast their military response as efforts to eject invaders from their waters.”

So while both sides are threat-hyping these respective naval exercises, on the American side, it appears that the U.S. mainstream media is the one doing all the heavy lifting.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

PHILIPPINE SEA (July 13, 2022) Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Benfold (DDG 65) conducts routine underway operations. Benfold is forward-deployed to the U.S. 7th Fleet area of operations in support of a free and open Indo-Pacific. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communications Specialist 2nd Class Arthur Rosen)
google cta
Reporting | Media
Is Greenland next? Denmark says, not so fast.
President Donald J. Trump participates in a pull-aside meeting with the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Denmark Mette Frederiksen during the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 70th anniversary meeting Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2019, in Watford, Hertfordshire outside London. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

Is Greenland next? Denmark says, not so fast.

North America

The Trump administration dramatically escalated its campaign to control Greenland in 2025. When President Trump first proposed buying Greenland in 2019, the world largely laughed it off. Now, the laughter has died down, and the mood has shifted from mockery to disbelief and anxiety.

Indeed, following Trump's military strike on Venezuela, analysts now warn that Trump's threats against Greenland should be taken seriously — especially after Katie Miller, wife of Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, posted a U.S. flag-draped map of Greenland captioned "SOON" just hours after American forces seized Nicolas Maduro.

keep readingShow less
Trump White House
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump Speaks During Roundtable With Business Leaders in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Washington, DC on December 10, 2025 (Shutterstock/Lucas Parker)

When Trump's big Venezuela oil grab runs smack into reality

Latin America

Within hours of U.S. military strikes on Venezuela and the capture of its leader, Nicolas Maduro, President Trump proclaimed that “very large United States oil companies would go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, and start making money for the country.”

Indeed, at no point during this exercise has there been any attempt to deny that control of Venezuela’s oil (or “our oil” as Trump once described it) is a major force motivating administration actions.

keep readingShow less
us military
Top photo credit: Shutterstock/PRESSLAB

Team America is back! And keeping with history, has no real plan

Latin America

The successful seizure and removal of President Nicolas Maduro from Venezuela demonstrates Washington’s readiness to use every means at its disposal — including military power — to stave off any diminishment of U.S. national influence in its bid to manage the dissolution of the celebrated postwar, liberal order.

For the moment, the rules-based order (meaning whatever rules Washington wants to impose) persists in the Western Hemisphere. As President Donald Trump noted, “We can do it again. Nobody can stop us. There’s nobody with the capability that we have.”

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.