习近平会见白俄罗斯总统卢卡申科_中安在线. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Biased language

Use of value-laden, strongly positive wording that implicitly endorses one side.

Examples: 1) “中国和白俄罗斯是相互信任支持的真朋友，是共同发展繁荣的好伙伴，是全天候全面战略伙伴。” – Phrases like “真朋友”, “好伙伴”, “全天候全面战略伙伴” are highly positive and evaluative, presenting the relationship as unquestionably close and beneficial. 2) “中白关系经受了国际风云考验，近年来实现跨越式发展，进入历史最好时期。” – “跨越式发展”, “历史最好时期” are strong positive judgments without supporting data. 3) “高质量共建‘一带一路’成果丰硕…多边协作富有成效。” – “高质量”, “成果丰硕”, “富有成效” assert success and effectiveness without evidence. 4) “事实证明，深化中白全天候、全方位合作顺应历史发展潮流，符合两国人民根本利益。” – “事实证明”, “顺应历史发展潮流”, “符合两国人民根本利益” are sweeping, normative claims presented as fact. 5) “做动荡世界中的稳定力量。” – Casts the two countries as a “stabilizing force” in a “turbulent world”, a positive self-characterization. 6) 卢卡申科部分：“为白经济社会发展提供重要支持”、“为世界和平稳定繁荣作出重大贡献”。 – Again, strong positive evaluations of China’s role and of the initiatives, without evidence.

5 suggestions

Replace value-laden terms with neutral descriptions. For example: change “真朋友”“好伙伴” to “长期合作伙伴” or “保持密切合作关系的国家”。

Qualify evaluative phrases and attribute them clearly as opinions of the speakers. For example: “习近平表示，中白关系近年来取得显著发展，他认为已进入两国关系的最好时期之一。”

Avoid absolute formulations like “事实证明…顺应历史发展潮流，符合两国人民根本利益”; instead write: “习近平认为，深化中白合作符合两国发展需要和双方民众的利益。”

For claims such as “成果丰硕”“富有成效”, either provide concrete indicators (trade volume, investment数据, 项目数量) or rephrase as: “双方评价共建‘一带一路’合作取得积极进展。”

For statements like “为世界和平稳定繁荣作出重大贡献”, attribute and soften: “卢卡申科称，白方认为相关倡议有助于推动热点问题政治解决和地区稳定。”

Unsubstantiated claims

Assertions presented as fact without supporting evidence or specific examples.

Key instances: 1) “中白关系…近年来实现跨越式发展，进入历史最好时期。” – No data or examples are given to substantiate “跨越式发展” or “历史最好时期”。 2) “高质量共建‘一带一路’成果丰硕，重点合作项目扎实推进，多边协作富有成效。” – No mention of which projects, what outcomes, or how effectiveness is measured. 3) “事实证明，深化中白…合作顺应历史发展潮流，符合两国人民根本利益。” – This is a broad claim about historical trends and ‘fundamental interests’ of both peoples, with no evidence or reference to public opinion, economic indicators, etc. 4) 卢卡申科：“两国务实合作全面深入，为白经济社会发展提供重要支持。” – No concrete examples or figures of the support or its impact. 5) “习近平主席提出四大全球倡议…为世界和平稳定繁荣作出重大贡献。” – No specific cases or outcomes are cited to show “重大贡献”。

4 suggestions

Add concrete data or examples: trade volume growth, investment figures, number and status of joint projects, or specific multilateral outcomes to support claims of “跨越式发展” and “成果丰硕”。

When evidence is not available or not provided, clearly frame such statements as the speakers’ views: e.g., “双方领导人认为…”, “在中方看来…”, rather than as established fact.

For claims about ‘fundamental interests’ or ‘major contributions’, reference independent assessments or at least specify the basis: “根据双方公布的数据…”, “在联合国相关表决中…”。

If no substantiation can be provided, tone down the certainty: change “事实证明” to “双方认为” or “中方/白方认为”。

Omission of key information

Leaving out relevant context or perspectives that would allow readers to fully evaluate the statements.

The article only presents official statements from Xi Jinping and Lukashenko. It omits: 1) Any mention of international controversies or criticisms related to Belarus (e.g., governance, human rights, sanctions) that might affect how this partnership is viewed. 2) Any reference to differing views within either country (opposition parties, civil society, independent experts) about the China–Belarus relationship or the ‘Belt and Road’ projects. 3) Any potential challenges, risks, or criticisms of the ‘四大全球倡议’ or of China’s role in resolving ‘热点问题’. 4) Any third-party or neutral analysis of the strategic implications of the partnership, leaving only the two leaders’ positive framing. This omission does not make the factual quotes false, but it creates a one-sided, overly positive picture of the relationship and initiatives.

5 suggestions

Add a brief background section summarizing key international context: for example, Belarus’s relations with the EU and US, existing sanctions, and how the China–Belarus partnership is perceived internationally.

Include comments or analysis from independent experts or think tanks, presenting both positive assessments and concerns about economic, political, or security implications.

Mention any known challenges or criticisms of specific Belt and Road projects in Belarus (e.g., debt sustainability, environmental or local impact) if relevant.

Clarify that the article is reporting official positions: e.g., “上述表态反映了两国领导人对双边关系的积极评价，外界也有不同声音。” and, if space allows, briefly outline those different views.

If the format is intentionally brief, at least signal limits: “本文主要摘录双方会见时的公开表态，未涵盖相关争议和第三方观点。”

Unbalanced reporting / Selective use of sources

Relying exclusively on one type of source or one side’s statements, without including alternative or critical perspectives.

The article’s only sources are the official remarks of Xi Jinping and Lukashenko. There are: - No quotes from opposition figures, independent analysts, or international organizations. - No data from neutral institutions. - No mention of how other countries or stakeholders view the China–Belarus relationship or the ‘四大全球倡议’. This creates an information environment where only the two governments’ positive narratives are visible, which structurally favors them.

4 suggestions

Supplement leaders’ quotes with at least one or two independent expert comments that provide context or nuance, including potential downsides or disagreements.

Include basic comparative or third-party data (e.g., from international financial institutions, UN reports) to balance official claims about economic and social benefits.

If space is limited, explicitly label the piece as an official meeting brief and link or refer to separate analytical pieces that discuss broader implications and differing views.

When summarizing, avoid only highlighting praise; also note any areas of divergence or unresolved issues if they exist and are publicly known.

Appeal to authority

Using the status of leaders or official positions to lend weight to claims, instead of providing evidence.

Because the article is structured entirely around statements by Xi Jinping and Lukashenko, their authority as heads of state implicitly supports the evaluative claims: - “习近平指出…事实证明，深化中白…合作顺应历史发展潮流，符合两国人民根本利益。” – The phrase “事实证明” coming from a head of state may be taken as authoritative, though no proof is shown. - “卢卡申科表示…为世界和平稳定繁荣作出重大贡献。” – The claim relies on Lukashenko’s position, not on cited evidence. The article does not question or contextualize these claims, so readers are nudged to accept them because of who is speaking.

4 suggestions

Clearly distinguish between factual reporting and leaders’ opinions: use formulations like “习近平认为…”, “卢卡申科称…”, and avoid presenting their evaluative statements as established fact.

Where possible, follow up authoritative claims with independent verification or note the lack thereof: e.g., “相关数据尚难以全面验证这一评价。”

Balance leaders’ statements with neutral or critical perspectives from non-governmental sources, so that authority alone does not determine perceived truth.

Avoid phrases like “事实证明” unless actual evidence is summarized or referenced immediately afterward.

Narrative fallacy / Oversimplification

Constructing a simple, coherent positive story about the relationship and initiatives, glossing over complexity.

The article presents a straightforward narrative: China and Belarus are ‘true friends’, their cooperation is entirely beneficial, it aligns with ‘historical trends’, and contributes to world peace and stability. There is no mention of: - Complex geopolitical tensions involving Belarus and other powers. - Possible trade-offs or domestic debates in either country. - Mixed outcomes of large-scale initiatives like the Belt and Road. This oversimplifies a multifaceted international relationship into a single, uncritically positive storyline.

4 suggestions

Acknowledge complexity briefly: e.g., “在当前复杂的国际形势下，中白合作既面临机遇，也面临挑战。”

Mention at least one or two concrete issues where interests need coordination or where there are differing expectations, to avoid an unrealistically smooth narrative.

Clarify that the meeting reflects one aspect of the relationship, and note that broader relations also涉及经济结构调整、外部压力等多重因素。

Avoid sweeping statements about ‘顺应历史发展潮流’ or ‘为世界和平稳定繁荣作出重大贡献’ without indicating that these are contested or at least debated claims.