TikTok charm offensive fails on Capitol Hill, succeeds at Washington Post.
Or was it TikTok's ad placements?
In advance of congressional hearings regarding TikTok, the company engaged in a massive charm offensive. According to the Washington Post, that offensive included “a record lobbying blitz, ad campaign and numerous private meetings with the CEO.” TikTok also “tapped prominent influencers to serve as its envoys to Capitol Hill.”
Capitol Hill was not charmed. The Post reports that when TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew appeared before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, “lawmakers from both parties sought to tie Chew personally to the Chinese Communist Party, frequently interrupted him and called him ‘evasive.’” And they called TikTok a tool of China’s Communist government.
As far as I can tell, TikTok’s only friends on Capitol Hill are far-left Democrats like Jamaal Bowman and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Considering the bipartisan low regard in which the faction of the party they represent is held, it’s not clear whether this is a plus or a minus for TikTok.
But TikTok’s charm offensive seems to have paid real dividends at the Washington Post. It has delivered one pro-TikTok story after another.
In its report about the hearing, the Post deflects the bipartisan attacks on TikTok for its connections with China as being “without evidence” — a form of editorializing usually reserved for claims by Donald Trump and his supporters. The Post’s report overlooks the fact that much of the information on the threat posed by Chinese technology is classified.
This Washington Post article promotes the view that attacks on TikTok amount to a “red scare.” This article compares proposals to ban TikTok to Prohibition. This one calls TikTok “D.C.’s new boogeyman.”
Similarly, this one accuses Congress of using TikTok as the “new scapegoat” for the erosion of privacy in America. And here, the Post parrots Red China’s line on the TikTok hearings and warns that the spectacle will harm the U.S.
This article suggests that a TikTok ban would undermine First Amendment rights. The argument isn’t frivolous, but the Post fails to present counterarguments such as these made by Joel Thayer in an article posted by the Federalist Society.
Buried deep in the Post’s news section a few days ago was this report that TikTok banned Enes Kanter Freedom, outspoken critic of China and former NBA player. He was reinstated just in time for Chew’s congressional appearance.
I find the ban on Kanter Freedom more telling than all of the Post’s pro-TikTok reporting, including its contention that TikTok is a vehicle for free speech and its suggestion that there’s “no evidence” China influences TikTok.
However, my point in this post is less about TikTok than about the Post’s shilling for the company. The Post should reserve expressions of pro-TikTok sentiment for its editorial page.
Why hasn’t it? Here’s one possible explanation: Today’s print edition of the Post included a full page ad by TikTok at page five of the front section.
The ad was called “Data security and privacy, your concern, our commitment.” It touted systems the company allegedly is building “that are tailor-made to address concerns about data security.” The ad claimed the systems “will be overseen by a U.S. team specifically tasked with managing all access to U.S. user data and securing the TikTok platform.” It concluded: “We’re protecting your personal data and the integrity of the platform, while still allowing you to have the global TikTok experience you know and love.”
If I were a Washington Post reporter, I would note that all of these assertions were presented “without evidence.”
Is the Post’s slanted reporting on TikTok influenced by the fact that the company is placing full page ads in the paper? I don’t know. Is it influenced by the Post’s use of TikTok to promote its content? I don’t know.
I do know that some readers of the Post’s reports on TikTok — those who pay no attention to advertisements — are not aware that the paper runs the company’s ads. This fact was not disclosed in any of the articles I’ve read.
I also know that last year ,the Post breathlessly reported that Facebook paid a major GOP consulting firm called Targeted Victory to “malign” TikTok. Given TikTok’s use of consultants to promote its interests in the U.S., I’m not sure what’s scandalous, or even interesting, about one of TikTok’s rivals paying a consulting firm to attack the company. Nor do I attach relevance to the fact that the consulting firm Facebook hired works with Republicans.
There was nothing ethically problematic about the consulting firm’s representation of Facebook’s interest. I’m not sure the same can be said of the Post running ads for TikTok and at the same time publishing pro-TikTok reports in its news pages.
The Post's gushing for Tik Tok is a natural follow-up to its love affair with the spy balloon.