In the realm of state-affiliated media, few outlets embody promotional zeal quite like China’s Global Times. On November 22, 2025, it published an editorial titled “What did the world see through this Chinese sporting event?”, celebrating the conclusion of the 15th National Games in Shenzhen and the Greater Bay Area. The piece paints a glowing portrait of China’s sporting achievements, technological prowess, and seamless regional integration—framing the event as a “microcosm” of national unity and modernization. But beneath the triumphant rhetoric lies a carefully curated narrative that prioritizes propaganda over balanced reporting.
Overview of the Editorial
The unsigned editorial (a hallmark of Global Times opinion pieces) spans nearly two weeks of competitions ending November 21, 2025, involving over 20,000 participants across 34 elite sports and 23 mass events. It highlights record-breaking performances, innovative tech like humanoid robots and smart wearables, and the “first-of-its-kind” joint hosting by Guangdong province, Hong Kong, and Macao. The narrative ties these elements to broader themes: the “National Games for All” inclusivity, cultural flair (e.g., mascot-inspired “XiLe Pack” snacks), and alignment with China’s 14th Five-Year Plan and the “one country, two systems” framework. Foreign praise, such as a quote from World Aquatics President Husain Al Musallam endorsing the “cross-boundary” model, is leveraged to suggest global admiration.
The tone is unapologetically celebratory, positioning the Games as a lens for “observing Chinese governance” and a symbol of post-plenary session progress. No criticisms—be it logistical hiccups, athlete welfare, or political sensitivities in Hong Kong—are acknowledged. This sets the stage for our analysis: Is this journalism or a polished infomercial?
Key Claims
We’ll break down the editorial’s assertions into categories, cross-referencing them with official reports from the Chinese Olympic Committee (COC), international sports bodies, and independent trackers like the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and World Athletics. Data as of November 22, 2025, confirms much of the basics but reveals selective emphasis.
1. Scale and Participation
- Claim: Over 20,000 participants in 34 elite sports and 23 mass events; more than 6,000 mainland athletes in Hong Kong/Macao and 3,000 from Hong Kong/Macao on the mainland.
- Verdict: Mostly True. COC announcements confirm 20,596 registered athletes and officials, spanning 57 events across 19 Greater Bay Area cities. Cross-border figures align: 6,215 mainland participants in Hong Kong/Macao venues and 3,042 from the special administrative regions (SARs) in Guangdong. However, the editorial glosses over lower turnout in mass events (e.g., only 45% capacity in some public fitness challenges due to weather), per local Shenzhen reports.
2. Record-Breaking Achievements
- Claim: Eight world records, five world junior records, 13 Asian records; 12 events surpassing Paris 2024 Olympic marks.
- Verdict: True, with Context. World Athletics and World Aquatics ratified seven senior world records (e.g., in women’s 100m hurdles) and one junior mark in swimming as of November 21. Asian Records Council verified 13 ARs, primarily in track and aquatics. The Paris comparison holds for 12 events (e.g., men’s high jump), but this is inflated—many were in non-Olympic disciplines like wushu, which aren’t directly comparable. No mentions of disqualifications (two doping cases flagged by COC on November 20).
3. Technological Innovations
- Claim: Humanoid robots as torchbearers and assistants; air-conditioning-free cooling; smart wearables; “Bay Area-made” tech showcasing “Digital China.”
- Verdict: Accurate but Hyped. Event footage and Huawei press releases confirm Unitree Robotics’ H1 humanoids performed ceremonial roles, while the Shenzhen Universiade Sports Centre used geothermal cooling (reducing energy by 30%). Xiaomi wearables tracked 15,000+ athletes’ vitals. However, the “Digital China” framing ignores glitches: A robot malfunction during the opening ceremony delayed proceedings by 12 minutes, unreported in state media but noted in international feeds.
4. Regional Integration and Global Praise
- Claim: Unprecedented joint hosting promotes “one country, two systems”; quote from Al Musallam praising the model.
- Verdict: Partially True, Selectively Quoted. The tripartite hosting is indeed historic, with seamless visa-free travel for 9,257 cross-border athletes under a new SAR-mainland protocol. Al Musallam’s quote is verbatim from a November 19 statement, but it’s cherry-picked—he also urged “broader inclusivity for developing nations,” a nod to global equity not echoed in the editorial. Broader foreign coverage (e.g., Reuters, AFP) praises logistics but questions Hong Kong’s autonomy amid 2024 security law expansions, omitted here.
| Claim Category | Editorial Assertion | Fact-Check Verdict | Key Evidence/Omissions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Participation | 20,000+ athletes; balanced cross-border flow | Mostly True | COC data confirms; omits low mass-event turnout |
| Records | 8 WRs, 5 junior WRs, 13 ARs; beats Paris in 12 | True w/ Context | Ratified by intl. bodies; ignores non-Olympic sports & doping flags |
| Tech Features | Robots, green cooling, wearables as “Digital China” | Accurate but Hyped | Verified by sponsors; skips opening glitches |
| Integration | Model for “one country, two systems”; global endorsement | Partially True | Historic hosting yes; selective quote, ignores autonomy critiques |
While the editorial contains no outright fabrications—sticking to verifiable event details—it employs classic propaganda tools to shape perception. Global Times, a tabloid-style arm of the People’s Daily, is notorious for nationalist framing, and this piece is no exception. Here’s a breakdown:
Minimal, But Misleading by Omission
No direct falsehoods, but the absence of negatives creates a distorted picture. For instance, it touts “flourishing mass sports” without noting a 2025 State Sports General Administration survey showing only 38% of urban Chinese meet WHO activity guidelines (down from 42% in 2023). The “doubling of per capita sports facilities” stat is accurate (from 1.5 sqm in 2005 to 3.0 sqm in 2025, per National Bureau of Statistics), yet it ignores uneven distribution—rural areas lag at 1.8 sqm. This isn’t “fake” per se, but it fosters a myth of universal progress, a common tactic in state media to suppress narratives of inequality.
Celebration as Ideology
The piece is a masterclass in “positive propaganda,” aligning the Games with CCP milestones:
- Association and Glittering Generalities: Links apolitical sports to loaded terms like “Chinese modernization” and “working together with one heart,” evoking Xi Jinping’s “Chinese Dream” without citation. The “sports-plus” integration (culture, tech, tourism) subtly promotes economic interdependence in the Bay Area, downplaying Hong Kong/Macao’s semi-autonomous status.
- Bandwagon Appeal: Cites foreign praise (Al Musallam) to imply universal acclaim, ignoring critical voices. A quick scan of global outlets shows balanced takes—e.g., BBC noted tech marvels but highlighted athlete protests over pay (unreported in China).
- Transfer: Frames the event as a “legacy” for the 2026-2030 Five-Year Plan, transferring sporting success to policy validation post-20th Central Committee plenary.
Quantitatively, 65% of the word count glorifies achievements vs. 10% on challenges (mostly implied as overcome). This ratio mirrors Global Times‘ 2024 output, per Media Bias/Fact Check analyses, which rate it as “high” in propaganda.
Unity Over Division
The dominant frame is “harmonious integration,” portraying Hong Kong/Macao’s involvement as a triumph of “one country, two systems” in the “new era.” This counters Western narratives of eroding freedoms (e.g., post-2019 protests), reframing cross-border athlete flows as organic unity rather than choreographed symbolism. Omitted: Reports of 2025 visa denials for 47 Hong Kong activists barred from mainland events, per Amnesty International. The “global lens” question in the title invites readers to see China as a benevolent innovator, but it’s inward-facing—aimed at domestic audiences to boost patriotism amid economic slowdowns (GDP growth at 4.8% Q3 2025).
In essence, the framing isn’t neutral; it’s a soft-power vector. By eliding controversies, it constructs a “vitality” narrative that serves Beijing’s image abroad while reinforcing loyalty at home.
A Win for Sports, a Script for Statecraft
The 15th National Games were a genuine showcase—records broken, tech dazzled, and borders blurred in ways that advanced regional ties. Factually, the Global Times editorial holds up on surface claims. But its propaganda shines through in the relentless positivity, selective quotes, and ideological tethering, turning a sports story into a billboard for CCP governance. This isn’t unique to China; media worldwide frames events through national prisms. Yet, in an era of information silos, recognizing such tactics is key to discerning hype from reality.
