One possibility is that it's a manifestation of the broader realization that China will probably not end up democratizing as it continues to develop, in contradiction to years of mainline thought that hoped for the emergence of a neoliberal trading partner rather than a rich, technologically advanced yet despotic state.

Previous discussion of an Economist article positing this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16499939

If this is the case, it shouldn't be a surprise that reporting reflects this broader shift in outlook. However, this isn't mutually exclusive with a top-down edict, especially if the timeframe you're referring to is shorter than that implied by the broader perceptual shift argument.

Just about everything that Americans and Europeans were sold on about China, when it came to their entry into the WTO and acceptance on the global stage, has turned out to be a lie.

Not only has there been zero democratization, it has gone rapidly backwards during the Xi era. Nearly all human rights - the few that had been tangibly acquired post Deng - have been revoked in China. In the decade prior to Xi there was actually some limited freedom of speech occuring online, that is mostly gone at this point. They've cracked down on pretty much everyone and everything, even disappearing Marxist students protesting for better worker protections recently.

It was a very foolish premise by the West, to think that all nations want the same things culturally. That you can prod and shape the direction of nations/cultures in such a manner.

Australian scholarship and media has substantially changed it's tone on China in the last five years.

While there are undoubtedly some forces from "above" pushing for this change, I think that government and corporate interest is still largely aligned with China. Both out parties are fairly comfortable with Chinese investment and lobbying despite a couple of scandals in the last three years. Sam Dastyari is on of the few cases where a politician was burned for it.

The bottom up forces include several University Chinese student clubs being ousted as both funded and influenced by the Chinese government. The Australian (centre right paper) is also focussing some of its limited investigative resources on this now too. Scholarship is also showing signs of changing directions, with many of the students I know working on the soft power and sharp power tactics of the chinese government. Things like Chinese Pacific Island nation investment and debt and the influence of Confucious centres in Universities.

I'm sorry that I can't provide sources—I am at work at the moment.

Because it is becoming apparent that China is now the main threat to the West.

This pattern of behavior by China has been happening for a long time, the activity itself is nothing new. My theory is, Trump is extremely good at getting attention, especially of the many that hate him. He has put the USA's relationship with China in the spotlight, and when any American actually looks into it, right or left, it's pretty clear we are getting a bad deal.

Now more people know about it, more people care about it, or are unhappy about it, so it gets more clicks. Plus the government is going to encourage this stuff instead of try to sweep it under the rug like they might have done in other situations when trying to smooth out relations. So yea, I think the zeitgeist is definitely heading towards a confrontation with China, whether that is by design or not. There also seems to be a sense of urgency as people are realizing (too late) that the longer this lopsided relationship goes the less chance the US has to salvage anything short of actually going to war, which would probably be a near world-ending situation.

I don't think so. American media generally had the same tone for the past 20 years as far as I can remember where news segments longer than 60 seconds about China had to finish with a Tiananmen reference or something similar (imagine Chinese TV finishing every US report with "the US is currently bombing 7 countries").

I think the only difference is that more and more of the American public are now on the receiving end of the media rhetorics so people have more of an eye for these kinds of things now.

Will this top down agenda be anything different from paying journalists to send out a few PR articles for my company? I doubt not.

The story that's now on the front page of NYT is actually quite flattering on China. (And very interesting).

Did you not read the article? There has been a change in China's behavior.

Because America has realized that it’s caught in the Thucydides trap.

> OT - anecdotally, I'm seeing an uptick in anti-China reporting. Are you feeling that too or is just me?

There is always anti-[something] "reporting". The russia hysteria has died down so now it's time for the china hysteria. After that, it'll be back to terrorism or something else.

We've always been at war with eurasia, or is it eastasia? Propaganda is ubiquitous and ever present. Has to be to maintain control over a gigantic country. What's true for china, russia and the EU is also true for us.

> Alternatively, it could be a top-down "agenda" to confront China and the media is gradually setting the zeitgeist to confront China.

There is definitely a battle between the pro- and anti- china factions amongst the elites. Seems like the anti-china group is gaining momentum.

> What are your thoughts?

It's obvious top-down agenda for sure. Just like with the constant anti-facebook spam in the media. But with china, the top doesn't seem united yet.

When we see start seeing anti-china spam from recode, theverge, businessinsider, dailybeast and the rest of the second rate propaganda outfits, then we can be sure it's a solid unified top-down agenda. Another dead giveaway is anti-china propaganda comments. If we see a sudden increase of those, then we can be sure that the top has unified. Until then, all we can do is wait.

Yes, I think so. Media too exaggerated