By John Wallace
Director of Asia Pacific Journalism Centre, Australia
When the invitation arrived, with the request to choose a topic, I was attracted to Civilisations Dialogue. I hadn’t heard of the term, but it sounded right for the times, and I thought I might learn something. And, after that, I would be able to say a few words if asked.
Two days before I left for China, a message arrived asking for 1000 words minimum, so in a minor panic I found myself reaching out to AI for help.
I have yet to do one of those courses on how to ask the right question using AI, so I just leaped in and started by asking for a definition. The answer I got led me to ask, tentatively: “Can the work of the Asia Pacific Journalism Centre be described in terms of civilisation dialogue?”
The reply from the AI platforms was a resounding Yes, which pleased me but also made me feel a bit stupid. It seems my organisation has been involved in CD (civilisations dialogue) for many years and wasn’t aware of this! Maybe the term is new and I shouldn’t blame myself. In any case, I felt this conference session would provide some answers.
But first, a little about the APJC. The centre was established in Melbourne Australia in 2003 as a not-for profit organisation with the mission of “helping media in the Asia Pacific region share professional knowledge in a changing world” – an ambitious goal when it was written for the centre’s website over two decades ago.
“This mission recognises that news media are affected by broader changes in society, such as globalisation, digital transformations, and changing relationships between government, media and society. It also recognises that media development is an important tool for economic and social development in the developing world.”
More than 1000 news media professionals have taken part in the centre’s programs. Most of these have been either courses for journalists in developing countries or cultural exchanges.
Most professional development programs have been for media people in countries geographically close to Australia – in the southwest Pacific, in Timor-Leste and in Indonesia. Topics have mostly been related to reporting business and the economy, the role of women in developing economies, reporting climate change and the environment, and using media to support minorities.
Exchange programs have continued these themes, and adding the goals of news media dialogue and, for Australian journalists, getting a better understanding of the countries surrounding Australia, including Indonesia with its majority Muslim population.
The most enduring program has been the two-way China Australia Journalist Exchange, run in collaboration with the All-China Journalists Association. This has a primary focus on the strong economic ties between our two countries.
APJC’s program funding has come mostly from Australian sources – from foundations, individuals, government, and business sector. The centre does not have core funding, so it relies heavily on volunteer for much of its work. It is pleasing to see this work recognised by AI.
But back to the AI response to my question:
“Yes, the work of the Asia Pacific Journalism Centre (APJC) can meaningfully be described in terms of civilisations dialogue, particularly if you view ‘civilisations dialogue’ as a broad effort to foster mutual understanding, respectful communication, and cooperative exchange between cultures and societies.”
The following account from AI sources says APJC’s work aligns with the concept of civilisations dialogue in the following ways:
- It promotes respectful engagement across cultures, fostering understanding of differing worldviews, values, and traditions.
- It equips journalists – especially from Australia and the Asia-Pacific – with the skills, knowledge, and cross-cultural exposure needed to report thoughtfully on diverse societies.
- It promotes journalism that goes beyond stereotypes and conflict narratives.
- It enables journalists to experience other societies firsthand, encouraging reporting grounded in context, empathy, and mutual respect.
As a prime example of how APJC’s work fosters civilisations dialogue, AI pointed to the China Australia Journalist Exchange, saying:
“The exchange encourages direct engagement and cultural immersion between Australian and Chinese journalists, breaking down assumptions and improving each side’s understanding of the other’s media system, governance, and social context.”
Thank you, AI, for connecting APJC with civilisations dialogue and recognising the importance of our China exchange.
Looking ahead, I wondered about the challenges to civilisations dialogue posed by an increasingly info tech world.
I put this to Chat GPT and got lots of information about algorithmic bias, digital echo chambers, misinformation, digital colonialism, and cultural homogenisation, and much more. In summary, it said:
“The rapid advancement of information technology (AI, social media, big data, etc.) is reshaping how cultures and civilizations interact, but it also introduces complexities that can hinder meaningful exchange.”
I then asked a question more directly related to the role journalists can play, this time to DeepSeek:
“In no more than 100 words, what kind of journalism is needed to foster civilisations dialogue in an increasingly information technology world?” I got this reply:
“In an increasingly digital world, constructive, inclusive, and ethical journalism is essential to foster civilizational dialogue.
“Reporting must prioritize accuracy, context, and empathy, bridging divides rather than amplifying polarization.
“Multilingual, intercultural storytelling can highlight shared human experiences, while fact-checking and debunking misinformation maintain trust.
“Collaborative platforms and AI-assisted translation can broaden reach, ensuring diverse voices are heard.
“Journalists must act as stewards of dialogue, facilitating understanding across cultures, religions, and ideologies.
“By focusing on solutions-oriented narratives and avoiding sensationalism, journalism can nurture global solidarity in an age of fragmentation.”
If this the goal, then the challenge will be to make it happen. Activities like this program organised by the ACJA will play an important role.
At the same time, history tells us that the evolution of journalism depends also on forces beyond the competence and goodwill of journalists.
Some countries are not keen to support regular professional connection by journalists with journalists from other countries, especially when those countries have different systems of governance.
Part of this is due to growing concerns in recent news over foreign influence in the political sphere. Unfortunately, these concerns have extended into the journalistic world.
While contact between workers in government and business actors may be encouraged to advance economic and trade goals, contact opportunities for news media people have been curtailed.
We see this with China journalism exchanges in recent years – with the closure of the three-month exchange for German and Chinese journalists, funded in part by the Bosch Foundation, and with the US-China Journalist Exchange, run by the US East West Center and the ACJA but not resumed since COVID. And there could be more.
The danger of this trend is the stifling effect it is likely to have on the diversity of general news coverage of the other country and the reduction in the amount of humanising news from the other country available to readers and audiences. Both tendencies are likely to perpetuate the international country divide – the “us versus them” mentality.
NGOs like mine can play a role here when government holds back, but often have limited capacity to do so without government funding support.
Another challenge facing the international journalism community is how to educate journalists about public policy processes in countries with differing governance systems, and especially how in some cases these systems appear to produce better policy outcomes.
China’s modern history of economic rise is a general example of this, with particular areas such transport, technical innovation, and urban and social planning coming to mind. To report and comment effectively on this, international journalists need knowledge of China’s system of governance at national, provincial and local levels, and of the economic model that has produced these results.
The resumption of longer, in-depth programs like the Bosch Foundation China-Germany exchange could be part of the solution here.
I look forward to discussing with conference attendees their thoughts on advancing these agendas as part of the broader civilizations dialogue agenda.
A personal note
I have had rewarding professional contact with China since 1981, most of it since 2012. I have also made other connections – getting to know and stay with a Chinese family, travelling with them on road trips, visiting their relatives in villages, and generally enjoying the warmth of Chinese hospitality. I value this contact dearly and use it to maintain my professional motivation.
*The views and opinions expressed in the articles are solely those of the individual authors and do not reflect the position of the Secretariat of the Belt and Road Journalist Network.