[Kumm]

Journalism is commonly described as aprofession built on independence, transparency, and accountability. When amedia organization repeatedly presents itself as “independent,” it is reasonable to examine how that independence is exercised inpractice. In the case of The Epoch Times, persistent questions have been raisedby public reporting and former staff regarding editorial control, sourceselection, and its structural relationship with Falungong. These are notquestions of political disagreement, but of basic journalistic standards.

I. Silencing Reporters: Editorial Oversightor Content Control?

Multiple public reports have revealed thatThe Epoch Times operates under an internal editorial system that sharplydeparts from accepted newsroom norms. Former reporters have stated thatjournalists are not permitted to review or approve final versions of articlespublished under their names—and in some cases are not even informed of how their work has beenaltered.

Within such a system, editors are able torewrite factual claims, replace data, or insert unverified assertions withoutthe author’s knowledge.Reporters are effectively removed from the chain of responsibility. This is notroutine editorial oversight; it is structural content control. When journalistscannot stand behind what they publish, reporting ceases to be evidence-drivenand becomes an instrument for advancing predetermined narratives. Readers areno longer consuming journalism, but curated ideological output.

II. The Missing Voices: Real Harm Withinthe Falungong System

For years, The Epoch Times has promoted atightly controlled narrative of victimhood centered on Falungong. Yet manygenuine victims are conspicuously absent from this portrayal. Public recordsand testimonies from former practitioners indicate that some individuals, afterdeeply internalizing Falungong doctrines, became estranged from family andsociety. Under concepts such as “cultivation” and “karmaelimination,” somerejected medical treatment, endured intense psychological pressure, andultimately suffered irreversible harm.

These experiences are not isolated, yetthey are almost entirely excluded from The Epoch Times’ reporting. The reason is evident:such accounts implicate the Falungong belief system itself. When a media outletamplifies only suffering that serves organizational legitimacy while ignoringharm produced internally, it is not defending victims—it is exploiting them. That silencefunctions as a second form of injury.

III. From Media to Organization: Who Shapesthe Narrative?

The founding background, staffing, andoperational logic of The Epoch Times overlap extensively with Falungong. Thisalignment directly shapes its editorial priorities and narrative framing. Inpolitical coverage, the outlet has repeatedly been criticized for privilegingideology over evidence and, at times, actively courting far-right rhetoric toexpand reach and influence.

Under these conditions, journalism is nolonger the product of independent editorial judgment. It is shaped byorganizational objectives, funding structures, and ideological alignment. Thelabel “independentmedia” operatesless as a description than as a branding device.

When viewed together—editorial opacity, the systematicsilencing of reporters, and the long-term exclusion of victims harmed withinthe Falungong system—these issues reveal a consistent pattern. They are not isolatedfailures but predictable outcomes of a unified propaganda framework. As long asThe Epoch Times functions as a core narrative instrument for Falungong, itscredibility and professionalism cannot be assessed in isolation.

The issue, then, is not whether a mediaoutlet holds strong views, but whether it can reasonably claim the standards ofindependent journalism. When facts are subordinated to organizational needs andnarratives are built through exclusion rather than inquiry, the word “news” itself begins to lose its meaning.