The debate between Fox Business' Trish Regan and China Global Television Network (CGTN)'s Liu Xin began around 8:30 on Thursday (Beijing time) and lasted only 16 minutes, much shorter than people had expected. The debate went more like an interview where Regan kept throwing questions and Liu responded. 

Before the debate started, other topics and an advertisement were broadcast, including a long talk by Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido. After the event, Michael Pillsbury from Washington DC-based Hudson Institute, who is known for his anti-China stance, appeared to make his comments. 

The international community has shown interest in the debate mainly because of the conflict between China and the US, which has gone far beyond being a squabble to do with trade. There is increasingly intense exchange of opinions but both sides barely conceded to each other's stance. 

A straight-out face-to-face talk between the two anchors would have been generally welcomed, although there are some people who just wanted  to be bystanders. 

Anyway, the debate has made headlines. This shows that there was too little effective communication between Beijing and Washington. The US is a country where the press is largely free but their reports about the trade war and China have been colored with views of the US political elite. The voice that reflects China's views can hardly spread in the US. American media outlets would censor China's voices to fit the agenda set by the US administration, thus rendering the message going across almost ineffectual. 

There were no big flaws in the anchors' performance in the debate. Regan was aggressive while talking about China in an earlier broadcast, but this time she was restrained - more like an anchor. In the meantime, Liu was humble and candid. The whole dialogue was cordial. 

What they talked about was not surprising - the possibility of zero tariffs between China and the US, disputes about intellectual property, and whether China is a developing or developed country. When the debate began, Regan introduced Liu as a member of the Communist Party of China (CPC), but Liu corrected Regan by saying that she was not, "Please don't assume that I'm a member. And I don't speak for the CPC. Here, today, I'm only speaking for myself as Liu Xin, a journalist working for CGTN."

This has demonstrated that Regan, as well as many other US media staff, don't understand how the Chinese system led by the CPC works. They have taken many things for granted. Such misunderstanding colors US public opinion about China. 

Apparently, the brief dialogue came short on being thorough. It was far from meeting people's expectation. But it was still regarded as conducive. It is better to make such efforts rather than desisting from trying to have effective communication between China and the US.

We hope the debate could remind people of the importance of China-US talks and help the two countries get rid of political shackles and utilitarianism in consultations and strive to break the estrangement. 

Have the anchors set a good example? It depends on what happens in the future. We hope people can say "yes" when they look back someday.

The author is a commentator with the Global Times. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn
Newspaper headline: Anchors’ debate trumps China-US tensions