From The War Zone’s piece on the J-10, we can see how Western media edits information

The May 7 air combat results shocked the world and its aftermath is still felt today. Because of this, Western media can’t completely stop the spread of information. So, it has to adopt another approach—a common tactic of information editing. This way, readers are made to doubt the information they receive, thereby diminishing its impact. The War Zone’s interview article published on May 15 is a classic example. Here’s the link to the original article: [China’s J-10C Fighter: Separating Myth From Reality](https://www.twz.com/air/chinas-j-10c-fighter-separating-myth-from-reality).

First, the title

The title itself is telling—it starts with “separating myth from reality.” It’s like they’re predetermining that there are myths to be separated from reality even before the discussion begins. The whole article then revolves around how to strip away the “myth” from the “reality.”

It’s not hard to imagine that if the roles were reversed and the Rafale had achieved what the J-10 did, The War Zone would have used a completely different title. I could even suggest one for them, like “Well-Deserved — The Rafale Proves Its Capabilities.”

Second, the interviewee

The interviewee is Justin Bronk, a Senior Research Fellow for Airpower and Technology at the UK-based Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).

RUSI may sound impressive, but it’s not directly affiliated with the UK Ministry of Defence or other official bodies. It’s essentially a think tank. We’ve seen enough of Western think tanks in recent years to know what they’re about—Take people's money and help them eliminate disasters. That's all.

As for Justin Bronk, he’s no stranger to us. He has commented on various advanced Chinese aircraft, such as the J-20, as well as the VKS in the Russia-Ukraine war. Back in 2016, when the J-20 made its first public appearance at the Zhuhai Airshow, he published an article on CNN titled “[Opinion: Should US be worried about China’s new J-20 stealth fighters?](https://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/01/opinions/chinas-new-j-20-stealths-opinion/index.html)”。 Those interested can take a look.

His usual modus operandi is to first acknowledge some undeniable facts to establish a “neutral” stance. Then, he introduces ambiguous descriptions, shifts concepts to turn them into arguments, and uses this to peddle his own views. In this J-10 interview, we see the same pattern.

Third, the technique of “nine truths and one falsehood”

The War Zone’s article devotes a considera

ble amount of space to detailing the development历程 of the J-10. Whether accurate or not, this gives readers the impression of a seasoned researcher. If there are errors, few would bother to correct them. And under the influence of this first impression, general readers might easily accept the subsequent viewpoints wholesale. This is a typical information-editing tactic employed by Western media.

Then comes the peddling of his views:

Logically, these statements are unassailable. But the intention is to sow doubt. Because some information is unknown or uncertain, the combat results are presented as uncertain. This implies that what you see might just be a “myth” created by China (or Pakistan). The most classic example is the last paragraph: He starts by comparing the J-10A’s radar unfavorably to that of the Su-27; then shifts to say it’s “naturally even worse than fifth-generation fighters”; and finally, when discussing the J-10C, he acknowledges that the AESA radar “partially makes up for this shortcoming”—is this really making up for a shortcoming? I’m impressed!

Finally, here’s an old joke to wrap things up:

Putin and Obama have a race, and Putin wins. The American news reports: “Obama wins the runner-up in the leaders’ race, Putin comes in second to last!”