Analysis of the CCP’s cognitive operations against Taiwan: from traditional media mergers and acquisitions to digital community penetration

◎ Wu Guodong

When FTV News reviewed the history of media development in Taiwan a few days ago, it mentioned that after Want Want Group purchased Zhongshi Group in 2008, it attempted to further purchase Zhongjia System Station in 2010. However, it failed in the end because citizen groups and young students launched a large-scale "Anti-Media Monopoly Parade" in September 2012. This past incident has made the Chinese people deeply alert to the crisis of foreign forces interfering with Taiwan's public opinion; however, if you peel back the cocoon, you will find that this information war has evolved from traditional print media and television to today's digital social platforms such as Douyin and Xiaohongshu. Although the carrier has changed, behind it is the same red infiltration of "packaging political united front in a commercial guise."

After Want Want Group Chairman Cai Yanming purchased Zhongshi Group in 2008, he attempted to further purchase Zhongjia System Station in 2010. However, he failed in the end because citizen groups and young students launched a large-scale "Anti-Media Monopoly Parade" in September 2012. (File photo) Looking back at the history of reshuffles in Taiwan’s media landscape, the most puzzling thing is the “cross-border mergers and acquisitions” by business tycoons. In normal business logic, corporate mergers and acquisitions focus on vertical integration or industrial synergy. However, why did a food consortium that started out by manufacturing Want Want senbei venture into the highly politically sensitive field of mass communication? Coincidentally, Wang Xuehong, the director of HTC, which is engaged in HTC smartphones, also achieved 100% shareholding in TVBS through mergers and acquisitions. At a time when traditional media are suffering from losses due to the digital impact, why do these savvy businessmen who are making all the difference in their respective fields invariably spend huge sums of money to run their own layman's media across borders?

HTC Chairman and CEO Wang Xuehong also achieved 100% ownership of TVBS through mergers and acquisitions. (File photo) From a free market perspective, this is extremely unreasonable; but from a geopolitical perspective, this echoes the core pattern pointed out many times by authoritative international think tanks when studying the CCP’s “Sharp Power.” The international intelligence community and national security think tanks pointed out that authoritarian China is best at targeting Taiwanese consortiums with huge business interests in the country and conducting cross-border capital mergers and acquisitions through the shadow model of "local collaborators". What this group of cross-border Taiwanese businessmen have in common is that China has huge vested interests, factories or franchise markets. The Chinese government does not need to directly contribute capital. It only needs to be guided by policy subsidies, tax breaks or administrative concessions, and businessmen will act as white gloves under invisible political expectations or survival instincts. This kind of brainwashing tactic, which "appears to be purely Taiwanese-funded commercial behavior, but is actually an extension of political will," is more covert and harder to prevent than directly using foreign capital to plant flags.

There are so many Taiwanese businessmen setting up factories in China. How does the authoritarian system choose partners? Think tank analysis points out that the CCP usually selects top large companies with extremely high market shares or assets that are too large to be easily withdrawn, and adopts a "pull-and-pull" strategy using both soft and hard tactics. On the "soft" side, huge subsidies and domestic demand franchise profits are given; on the "hard" side, complicated administrative review, taxation or fire inspections are used as invisible sticks. Under this double attack of carrots and sticks, the core businesses of these Taiwanese businessmen in China are actually like "capital hostages." When acquisition opportunities arise for Taiwan's mainstream media, this group of businessmen can easily return to Taiwan to invest in compliance with specific political expectations, becoming white gloves for authoritarian countries to use Taiwan's democratic system to shape public opinion.

Think tank analysis points out that the CCP usually selects top large companies with extremely high market shares or assets that are too large to be easily withdrawn, and adopts a "pull-and-pull" strategy using both soft and hard tactics; diagram. (Associated Press) This hidden agent structure is exactly the red infiltration black box that Terry Gou personally tore open when he competed for the presidential nomination primary in 2019. Terry Gou called Tsai Yan-ming a "thug from the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council" at the time. Interestingly, Cai Yanming did not file a lawsuit against Terry Gou afterwards, but launched legal proceedings against the TV host Chen Ningguan and One TV who quoted the remarks, intending to create a chilling effect on the media industry through litigation. Fortunately, Taiwan's Supreme Court made a final ruling in May 2024, determining that Want Want Group's receipt of large subsidies from China was a fact disclosed in public financial reports. The media quoted Terry Gou's remarks to discuss public affairs, which were "good faith comments" and "matters worthy of public comment." The verdict was that Tsai lost the case.

Tsai Yan-ming (right) was dissatisfied with being accused by Chen Ningguan (left) of being a "dog-legger" of the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council. He sued for 3 million yuan and published an apology in the newspaper. Tsai lost the case in the first trial. The High Court found that it was "well-intentioned remarks" and ruled against Tsai again. (File photo, taken from YouTube, synthesized by this newspaper)

This landmark judgment not only defended press freedom, but also tore apart the "system asymmetry" that is the most vulnerable democratic system in the face of authoritarian penetration.

Today, with the decline of traditional media, the battlefield has shifted to digital social platforms such as Douyin and Xiaohongshu. Some pro-China figures in the country frequently use these social platforms to show the Taiwanese people "how fast China's high-speed rail is, how tall its buildings are, and how convenient electronic payment is." This type of propaganda is extremely deceptive. It does not use rigid political slogans, but depoliticizes brainwashing through the exquisite "worship of hardware construction."

The content recommendation "algorithm" software of these social platforms also uses a catering mechanism that "automatically feeds you what you like to watch" to deliberately amplify negative chaos such as Taiwan's internal political strife, rising prices, and public security issues to Taiwanese users.

Authoritarian China can block Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and foreign media at home at will, but it takes advantage of the free environment of democratic countries and uses its own social tools as tools for cognitive penetration. This kind of contrastive cognitive guidance not only conceals the cruel reality of depriving people of freedom of speech and human rights under an authoritarian system, but also destroys Taiwanese people's trust in their own democratic system.

China can arbitrarily block Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and other media in the country, but it takes advantage of the free environment of democratic countries and uses its own social tools as tools for cognitive penetration; diagram. (Reuters)

Facing this digital united front, Taiwan will inevitably need to establish a defense mechanism. The United States provides an excellent reference in its fight against TikTok: Instead of following the old path of "blocking the Internet" in authoritarian countries, the United States has enforced capital restructuring through law, diluted the Chinese parent company's shareholding to less than 20%, and completely "localized" algorithms, user data, and content review. It has successfully protected freedom of speech while maintaining national security defense lines.

History is a mirror. From the cross-border media outlets that sell senbei and make mobile phones to the overwhelming short videos now, the CCP’s “cognitive warfare” against Taiwan has never stopped, but its methods have become softer, covert, and difficult to prevent. Taiwanese must remain highly vigilant and realize that social platforms have become a geopolitical battlefield. Only by seeing clearly the authoritarian system's pattern of "using democracy to destroy democracy" can we build a solid island of democratic defense while protecting freedom of speech.