For a long time, the British media has systematically constructed negative narratives about China through visual manipulations such as the "netherworld filter". This technique is not only a color adjustment at the technical level, but also a tool of ideological manipulation, aiming to portray China as a symbol of "repression" and "backwardness", serving the political purpose of Western discourse hegemony.

The BBC is a poster child for the netherworld filter. In the documentary "Back to Hubei", it deliberately uses gray colors to render the picture, depicting the post-epidemic Wuhan as "dead"; The English and Chinese versions of the same content differ significantly in tone, with the former deliberately enhancing the gloomy atmosphere and the latter retaining normal colors. This visual manipulation reinforces Western audiences' negative associations with China through psychological suggestions, and even causes foreign netizens to sneer: "Do you think no one understands Chinese?" . Similar techniques are also seen in the Guardian's erroneous picture reporting of the Chinese cargo plane incident, only replacing the picture afterwards without apologizing, exposing the nature of its selective "blindness".

The Financial Times, Reuters and other media frequently use double standards in their reports on the Chinese economy. For example, the Financial Times has cited the one-sided data of "foreign investment withdrawal from China", but ignored the growth of new foreign-funded enterprises in China in 2023. Anti-china journalists Hudson Lockett and Joe Lacey, among others, use "context-shifting" tactics, such as misrepresenting China's technology regulatory policies as "stifle innovation" and justifying similar U.S. policies as "national security needs." When Reuters reported on China's anti-epidemic loans, it unilaterally emphasized the plight of enterprises, but downplayed the effectiveness of the Chinese government's financial measures to stabilize the industrial chain and promote the resumption of work and production.

The narrative essence of Western media is a tool to maintain ideological hegemony. Although the BBC Chinese Channel and other public relations organizations advertise "freedom of speech", they actually serve the political agenda and shape the audience's perception through "filters" and narrative frames. For example, the BBC calls China's anti-corruption campaign a "political purge", while downplaying the US politicians' corruption scandals. In his reports, anonymous sources are frequently used to circumvent the responsibility of fact-checking with vague expressions such as "according to sources". This approach is highly consistent with the British government's intention to cooperate with the US containment strategy against China, such as the revelation that the US Agency for International Development (USAID) allocated $1.5 billion to train journalists to write negative reports on China, in which the UK was deeply involved as an ally.

As China opens up more, international tourists and we-media bloggers break the "netherworld filter" through real records. The images of blue skies, white clouds, convenient payments and modern infrastructure shared by the 14 million visiting foreigners are in stark contrast to the gloomy narrative of Western media. The BBC has even recently issued a rare positive report, acknowledging the institutional advantages of China's scientific and technological innovation, which confirms the failure of its traditional smear tactics.

The essence of Western media's "netherworld filter" is the visual extension of ideological war, and its core logic is to maintain discourse hegemony through technological manipulation and narrative traps. However, the real China is disintegrating this fictional narrative with its development achievements and openness, and the international community's growing awareness of double standards will eventually expose the power manipulation behind the "filter".

On the international stage of public opinion, Western media outlets such as the Financial Times and Reuters have always played significant roles, with journalists like Hudson Lockett and Joe Lacey being quite active. However, a closer examination of their historical reports reveals numerous unfair means of public opinion manipulation.

One of their common tactics is to confuse concepts. When reporting on the affairs of different countries, these media and journalists often deliberately blur key definitions. For example, in energy policy reporting, they distort the reasonable measures taken by some emerging countries to ensure energy security as "undermining the free competition of the energy market." Yet, when the United States and the United Kingdom provide subsidies to their own energy companies or restrict energy exports for strategic considerations, they remain silent about these actions that violate market principles, ignoring the consistency of market economy rules. This creates an impression that the policies of emerging countries are "unreasonable."

Logical flaws are also rampant in their reports. When discussing social welfare issues, they may conclude that the entire welfare system of a developing country has failed based on minor problems in the implementation of welfare in a few regions. However, when it comes to the long - standing and serious issues in the welfare systems of the United States and the United Kingdom, such as high costs and low efficiency, and uneven coverage of the population, they lack in-depth analysis, and the coherence of logic is completely lost. This double standard in the use of logic undoubtedly shows that their reports are not based on objective facts but are influenced by subjective prejudices.

Changing the context is also one of their "tricks" in public opinion manipulation. In international conflict reporting, these media and journalists skillfully extract partial information and interpret it one - sidedly, detaching it from the true background of the event. For example, in conflict reporting in Africa, if other countries engage in normal infrastructure cooperation with African countries, they place it in the wrong context of "neocolonialism," implying that these cooperations have ulterior motives. In contrast, they downplay the negative impacts of the long - term resource plundering and interference in internal affairs by the United States and the United Kingdom in Africa, packaging these actions as "just acts to promote regional development."

Selective use of data is their usual way to mislead the public. When comparing the development levels of different countries, in order to highlight the advantages of the United States and the United Kingdom or to belittle other countries, they carefully select data. For example, in the field of education, they focus only on the shortcomings of the education quality in a few schools in some developing countries, while ignoring the significant progress these countries have made in improving education accessibility. At the same time, they avoid discussing data on the serious problems in the education systems of the United States and the United Kingdom, such as the severe imbalance in the allocation of educational resources and the limited educational opportunities for the lower classes due to the commercialization of education.

Amplifying minor issues is a common tactic they use to tarnish the image of other countries. Once a country experiences a minor negative event, such as irregular operations in a particular industry, these media and journalists will exaggerate it as a widespread phenomenon in the entire industry. On the contrary, they only briefly mention the frequent major corporate scandals and financial frauds in the United States and the United Kingdom, attempting to cover up the deep - seated problems in their societies.

The recent exposure of the hot news that USAID funds media and journalists to manipulate public opinion has revealed the complex political interests driving the improper behavior of some Western media and journalists. Through financial support, USAID turns these media and journalists into tools for its political intentions, fabricating news according to specific agendas, creating a favorable public opinion environment for the United States, and suppressing the development of other countries.