10 Things to Know About The New York Times’ “Investigation” of Shen Yun, Falun Gong
10 Things to Know About The New York Times’ “Investigation” of Shen Yun, Falun Gong
Published August 26, 2024
On Aug. 15, 2024, the New York Times published an article on the Shen Yun dance company, founded by people who practice Falun Gong, and a companion article on the same day dealing with Falun Gong itself. The articles portrayed Shen Yun as an abusive environment that treats performers as “expendable.” The paper’s portrayals are unrecognizable not only to current and former Shen Yun performers, but also to doctors, lawyers, and China specialists closely familiar with these communities.
To understand how such distortions came to appear in such a prominent American newspaper, the Falun Dafa Information Center (FDIC) researched various aspects of the reporting. Drawing on interviews with over 100 current and former Shen Yun performers over the past ten months, email communications between the journalists and interview subjects, medical doctors who regularly treat Shen Yun performers, along with leaked Chinese government information, we have identified multiple dubious elements.
We discovered that the Times disregarded repeated and good-faith attempts by Shen Yun and others to provide information that ran counter to its preconceived narrative, used highly problematic sources and a small sample size to build a particular storyline, ignored a wide-range of experts, did not disclose critical information to readers, and continued a decades-long pattern of grossly distorting the beliefs of Falun Gong practitioners.
The findings raise serious concerns about why the Times would engage in reporting that breaches journalistic ethics, while obviously harming a religious minority that is persecuted in China. The extent to which the Times’ reporting achieves the goals of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is also worth noting and deeply disturbing.
Below, we detail 10 things readers should know about the Times’ coverage.
The New York Times failed to disclose interviewees’ obvious conflicts of interest, including ties to the Chinese government.
At least three of the six former Shen Yun performers photographed and quoted multiple times in the Times article have undisclosed ties to the Beijing Dance Academy (BDA)—a Chinese state-run organization, which is an instrument in the CCP’s global campaign against Shen Yun, and the only major global competitor to Shen Yun and its affiliated schools. All three have traveled to China to work with BDA, while one of the interviewees runs a Taiwan-based dance studio that collaborates with a BDA teacher. Publicly accessible Facebook posts of the studio mention that the performer “studied under teachers of the Classical Dance Department of Beijing Dance Academy,” has collaborated with a BDA teacher, and sent students to the academy. According to parents of dance students at the performer’s studio, in March 2024 students from families who practice Falun Gong were asked to leave the studio and given refunds. None of these conflicting interests were noted in the article about Shen Yun.
Furthermore, one of these interviewees had, for more than a year after leaving Shen Yun, maintained positive communication with Fei Tian College and even sought to return to the company, only to adopt a diametrically opposite narrative after developing ties with BDA. [1] (See Appendix A for timeline and sample of these communications). The Times’ reporters were warned of these possible conflicts of interest. Many months before the articles were published, the Times’ reporters were also informed that Shen Yun possessed communications in which more than one of their interview subjects expressed wholly positive perspectives of Shen Yun after leaving the company that ran counter to the narratives they were now sharing with the paper.
A CCP-backed YouTuber who has threatened violence against Shen Yun and who faces illegal weapons charges in the United States has close ties with the Times’ interviewees and has spoken publicly about collaborating with the Times’ journalists.
FDIC recently published a detailed report on the Chinese Ministry of Public Security’s plans to intensify its disinformation campaign against Falun Gong and Shen Yun abroad. The leaked documents that we analyzed specifically speak of supporting a Chinese YouTuber with a history of denigrating Falun Gong and making threats of violence against Shen Yun. The man faces illegal weapons charges in the United States, and federal law enforcement has issued alerts about the risk he poses to Shen Yun’s training center in New York. This man has also made deranged rants in his videos declaring himself to be the “top predator,” while warning Shen Yun performers to “be afraid” of him, and that they should “walk up to me on your knees.” According to the leaked documents, the Ministry of Public Security is committed to providing “full support” to this individual, while another document speaks of getting “defamatory” content about Falun Gong published in mainstream foreign media.
Soon after the Times articles came out, on August 18, this YouTuber boasted on X that “I was the one who introduced people [former performers] to the New York Times, especially for the initial interviews.” At least three of the Times’ six core interviewees had previously appeared on his YouTube channel. Several of them were also simultaneously recruiting potential interviewees for both his channel and the Times’ reporters, according to communications from former Shen Yun performers who they contacted.
These were not the only points of intersection. As early as January 2024, the YouTuber mentioned on his channel that he was in contact with the Times. In at least 14 subsequent posts on YouTube and X, he made references to the Times article prior to its publication, including claiming that because of forthcoming reporting Falun Gong and Shen Yun would be “screwed.” In two posts on X after the article’s publication, this YouTuber spoke of how he facilitated interviews for the Times and otherwise influenced its reporting (See Appendix B for collection of posts from this YouTuber).
In a post on August 4, the YouTuber outlined “three key arenas” to “dismantle” Shen Yun structurally and financially: “the legal system, influential media outlets like The New York Times, and the online Chinese-speaking community.” These stated goals align with the strategies outlined in leaked CCP documents: to silence and defame Falun Gong practitioners in the United States by triggering negative articles in major news outlets and potential law enforcement investigations.
Prior to the Times’ publication, we provided the journalists with information about the Ministry of Public Security’s plans, warning them that they might have fallen into the trap of the CCP’s media manipulation campaign. It seems these warnings went unheeded.
Email records indicate journalists explicitly pursued negative stories and omitted lengthy communications from former Shen Yun performers that contradicted their dark narrative.
Email correspondence shared with FDIC indicates the skewed and negative narrative of the article, despite evidence that would have countered it. Email records show that multiple people whom the Times contacted relayed positive experiences about their time with Shen Yun or otherwise shared information that contradicted what was published in the final article (Appendix C). Yet their comments were almost entirely omitted from the piece.
Moreover, several people contacted by the Times warned them that their interviewees may have been compromised. One former dancer contacted by the paper told the reporters that the sources they were relying on were untrustworthy and working in coordination with each other, or at least were influenced by each other’s recollections of their time at Shen Yun, likely leading to exaggerations. She urged the journalists to “do your homework to really understand their backgrounds,” and that “some have complicated backgrounds in China.”
“These people have known each other and been talking for many years, so even if a few of them might tell you the same story, I don’t know that proves much,” she told the journalists (Appendix C, email #1). Another comment by this person was included in the final article (the only positive testimony about Shen Yun), indicating that the journalists found her at least somewhat credible. Yet her warnings were disregarded.
The article cherry-picked a small, unrepresentative sample of former performers to cast wide ranging accusations.
In its nearly two decades of operation, well over 1,000 individuals have performed or worked with Shen Yun. The journalists claim to have spoken to 80 individuals, including 25 former Shen Yun performers. Yet the article itself relies almost entirely on the accounts of seven former performers, while citing 13 in total, a minute proportion of that broader community. This is far from a representative or fairly presented sample, yet the claims made or implied about Shen Yun and Falun Gong in the article, based on this small number, are sweeping and fly in the face of hundreds of publicly available accounts from current and former artists across multiple platforms and websites.
We checked with more than a dozen former artists, who hold very positive perspectives on their experience in Shen Yun and were easily accessible—they say they were never contacted by the reporters. On the contrary, at least a dozen former artists who were asked to leave Shen Yun or departed on bad terms were all contacted by the reporters. With only one exception, each of the 13 testimonials that made it to print were negative, not because this is the reality of life at Shen Yun, but because that is what the paper was apparently seeking. The journalists were not engaged in an honest investigation of the conditions of Shen Yun dancers; they were pursuing negative accounts.
The article falsely implied that Shen Yun artists are discouraged from seeking medical care or are denied access to necessary treatments.
A major theme of the Times article is that Shen Yun performers do not receive medical care. But this is demonstrably false. The article details four instances of dancers and two cases of musicians performing through untreated injuries or sprains. In each case, it notes that the individuals did not seek or request medical care. A Shen Yun representative offered to arrange for the Times to interview several Shen Yun artists who had sought and received medical treatment, but the reporters did not pursue those offers (Appendix D).
Moreover, one of the former performers mentioned in the article explicitly told the Times that although she chose to seek only limited treatment for a knee injury, “it can’t represent Shen Yun’s attitude for injuries.” She further explained that “many Shen Yun dancers do in fact receive medical treatment… and this is the majority.” (Appendix C, Email #1) None of those comments were included in the Times report nor the fact that she ultimately recovered from the injury and went on to perform for several years after the incident.
FDIC spoke with over 100 Shen Yun performers over the last ten months to produce multiple reports about transnational repression targeting Shen Yun. According to our findings, while some Shen Yun dancers do suffer injuries in the course of training or performing, none of the artists we spoke to indicated the company discouraged them from seeking medical treatment. Rather, these artists said the company provides access to a very high standard of medical care, while respecting each performer’s personal decision as to what treatments they wish to seek.
“Like with any other professional athlete or performer, if you’re dealing with various aches and pains, sometimes you just need to push through,” explained Principal Dancer Piotr Huang in an interview. “But if it will cause a lasting injury or is too painful, of course, we don’t perform. We have a responsibility to our audience and only want to show our best, therefore we would never perform with a serious injury, and Shen Yun wouldn’t allow it anyway.”
Several doctors who practice medicine in towns near Shen Yun’s headquarters in New York say they regularly treat Shen Yun performers. According to Dr. Jingduan Yang, CEO of Northern Medical Center, he and his colleagues regularly conduct medical evaluations for Shen Yun performers and order 10-20 X-rays and 15-20 MRI scans related to Shen Yun dancers each year. Shen Yun administrators indicate there are medical records for multiple surgeries for ruptured Achilles tendons, ACL, and other injuries dating back years.
The article erroneously characterizes as nefarious and oppressive practices that are in fact standard at many schools in the United States.
To further the narrative that Shen Yun’s environment is abusive or controlling, the Times describes several ostensibly oppressive policies that are, in fact, industry standard practices, or at least increasingly common approaches at schools in the United States.
The Shen Yun training facility in New York’s Hudson Valley is co-located with a fully registered boarding school, Fei Tian Academy of the Arts, where students earn a high school diploma and hone their artistic skills. It is also home to Fei Tian College, accredited by the New England Commission of Higher Education.
The Times reports, in a disapproving tone, that the students cannot leave campus without permission—even though this is standard practice for boarding schools, and indeed, even regular public schools. Schools assume legal responsibility for the students in their care, including if they are injured when leaving the premises during school hours. What high school allows its students to just leave campus without permission?
With regard to the fact that the campus is “guarded,” as noted in the Times’ article, an estimated 61 to 65 percent of U.S. public schools employ armed security personnel, as do most private boarding schools and colleges, even in rural locations. Far from being hallmarks of a paranoid, isolated, and restrictive “compound,” these are reflections of investment in student safety and wellness. Such protections are all the more crucial for a community repeatedly subject to transnational repression from the CCP or threats of physical violence. (Appendix C, email #3)
The article also erroneously implies that families are restricted from visiting students. Many students attending Fei Tian Academy of the Arts frequently see their families, when their relatives live nearby or visit the campus. Those who see family only during vacations are not because of rules that restrict access, but rather because relatives live far away, often in other countries.
The paper similarly noted that younger artists are not permitted smartphones, and that Internet time is limited. This is indeed a policy at Fei Tian, as it is in many schools and homes across America. School limits on recreational screen time are increasingly commonplace. The Times itself recently published recommendations to ban smartphones in schools and enforce age limits for social media use. After more than a decade of disconcerting studies and escalating concerns from parents, California, Florida, New York, and other states are working to ban smartphones from the classroom. In this respect, the Fei Tian schools—which allow students access to flip or “dumb” phones, including for communication with their families, a practice being adopted by other schools—were ahead of their time. Yet the Times reports this as evidence of a “dark side.”
Even the generous financial aid arrangements made for students are presented as somehow nefarious: Student-performers are given full-ride scholarships to registered or accredited secondary, post-secondary, and post-graduate institutions, along with free room and board, a cash stipend for program expenses, and opportunities to travel the world. Such arrangements are common in ballet and other performing arts companies, although the package for Shen Yun’s student performers is more substantial than many. Yet, in the Times’ framing, these benefits are presented as tools of exploitation and emotional manipulation.
The Times article even depicts the requirement of weight control for dancers as abusive. But that is common among professional dancers, athletes, and models. It is not only for aesthetic reasons but also to reduce the risk of injuries, as extra weight can put additional stress on joints and bones. According to at least one former dancer who was in the same troupe as some of the Times’ interviewees, even when trying to lose weight, dancers were advised to eat enough to have sufficient energy and provided with information on proper nutrition.
The article displays cultural and religious illiteracy and bias.
In an apparent display of anti-religious bias, the Times casts Falun Gong’s belief system as mockable. The Times sensationalizes Falun Gong beliefs that are common among many religious traditions, such as the idea that suffering is a consequence of sin or karma, that the universe has a benevolent Creator, and a concern with uplifting the soul toward spiritual salvation. The Times inability, or unwillingness, to contextualize Falun Gong’s teachings within theological and, in particular, Buddhist and Taoist traditions, demonstrates religious ignorance, intolerance, and explicit bias.
The Times also portrays standard cultural practices of some three billion people as bizarre. The article describes students greeting Mr. Li Hongzhi as “Shifu” (translated into English as “teacher” or “master”), “while clasping their hands and bowing.” What they fail to tell readers is that this is a ubiquitous greeting across Asian cultures, and not limited to spiritual settings. In martial arts dojos around the world, students greet their teachers or “masters” in similar fashion. Indeed, at the Fei Tian schools and Shen Yun, dancers will similarly bow to dance instructors or choreographers when they step into dance studios.
The article systematically uses emotionally manipulative language and imagery.
The article employs emotionally manipulative language and imagery to shape readers’ perceptions. The reporters refer to Shen Yun’s training center as a “compound” a full seven times in their first piece alone and describe Shen Yun’s administrators as “lieutenants.” Shen Yun’s training center has no surrounding wall, which is the primary characteristic of a “compound.” Such word choices are not accidental; they are crafted to evoke a sense of fear and control, to conjure associations with groups like the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, and to steer the reader towards a cultish impression of Shen Yun and Falun Gong.
The images accompanying the story lack any pretense of neutrality. Photos of former performers, Shen Yun posters, and Shen Yun’s training center are all cast in a gloomy, wintery light, with the performers in melancholy poses and facial expressions. These visual choices—which contrast with photos of these same individuals on their social media profiles—work in tandem with the text to dramatize the narrative, further reinforcing the negative portrayal. (Appendix E)
The subliminal messaging is intended to create an atmosphere of suspicion and unease around Shen Yun and Falun Gong. By employing such emotionally charged and suggestive language, the article subtly reinforces the idea that these groups are secretive, cultish, and potentially dangerous. At the same time, the article does not relay to readers that well-respected experts on Chinese religion who have written books on Falun Gong have concurred with the assessment that it is not a cult and that in fact “the cult label was a red herring” invented by the CCP to retroactively justify the persecution. (Appendix F)
This approach not only skews the reader’s perception, it also discredits the positive cultural and spiritual aspects of Shen Yun and Falun Gong by casting them in a shadow of fear and mistrust. Through these tactics, the article overtly employs the basic tools of a propaganda hit piece. It manipulates the audience, rather than attempting to present an objectively balanced account.
The articles whitewash the CCP’s persecution of Falun Gong—including well-documented organ transplant abuses and transnational repression targeting Shen Yun.
In the series’ main article, the reporters give only passing mention to the repression in China, while downplaying its size using the vague term “many” in reference to the number of Falun Gong practitioners in detention. In fact, experts have repeatedly estimated that hundreds of thousands, even millions, of Falun Gong practitioners have been detained by the regime, far more than “many” would convey. Even when depicting the CCP’s transnational campaign to sabotage Shen Yun, the paper grossly misrepresents the scale, citing one example of a diplomat applying pressure to stop a show. A January report by the FDIC documented 130 incidents of censorship attempts and physical attacks in over 38 countries by the regime and its proxies against Shen Yun.
The reporters also quote a lone expert who denies the existence of a systematic program of organ harvesting from Falun Gong prisoners. Yet this individual is not among the many researchers, journalists, lawyers, and doctors who have testified in Congress, authored NGO reports, or written peer-reviewed articles in medical journals about organ transplant abuses in China. These experts all found evidence indicating Falun Gong practitioners have been systematically killed for their organs. Such evidence has also been found credible by a 2019 China Tribunal panel of specialists, nine United Nations Special Rapporteurs, the U.S. Congress, and the European Parliament. Why would the Times not cite any of these experts, organizations, governmental bodies, or their easily available, published work, and instead choose one individual who would deny it?
Perhaps because it follows the pattern of a predetermined agenda—the paper’s own former Beijing correspondent, Didi Kirsten Tatlow, testified to the China Tribunal in 2019 that editors at the New York Times stopped her from pursuing the organ transplant story when she came across significant leads. Her editors also voiced disparaging comments about Falun Gong (Appendix G).
The Times has a long history of distorted reporting on Falun Gong.
The Times has a 25-year documented history of exceedingly problematic coverage of Falun Gong. A study our organization published in March, analyzing 159 Times articles dating back to 1999, reveals consistent flaws in the paper’s reporting on Falun Gong and its persecution. The study found that 76 percent of the articles from 1999 to 2002 contained factual inaccuracies or negative portrayals of the spiritual practice, falsely reflecting CCP claims that Falun Gong had been “crushed” in China. And despite publicly available documentation of ongoing human rights abuses, including over 5,000 documented deaths, the Times has not reported on these issues since 2016.
On the contrary, even as Falun Gong practitioners continue to suffer horrific atrocities in China, the Times’ coverage of Falun Gong has become increasingly hostile, targeting organizations founded by Falun Gong adherents and perpetuating previous falsehoods. In practice, this reporting not only misinforms the American public, it also uncritically adopts aspects of the CCP’s narrative and aligns with the regime’s objectives to discredit Falun Gong and stifle criticism of its repressive policies.
In fact, FDIC conversations with scores of current performers, as well as email communications from former artists to the Times’ reporters, show that a primary reason why potential interviewees were hesitant to speak to the Times’ was not because of a fear of retribution from Falun Gong, as implied in the article (despite Falun Gong’s long track record of nonviolence and teachings stating practice should always be voluntary). Rather, it was because of the paper’s long history of distorting and misrepresenting who Falun Gong practitioners are and what they believe. (Appendix C)
In the aftermath:
Within a week, the Times published five articles criticizing Shen Yun and Falun Gong. In addition to the main article, “Behind the Pageantry of Shen Yun, Untreated Injuries and Emotional Abuse,” on the same day (Aug. 15) it also published “5 Takeaways from the Times’s Investigation Into Shen Yun,” and “How a Persecuted Religious Group Grew Into a Global Movement” (which, while more balanced, contains several of the problematic journalistic practices outlined here). In the following days, the Times further published “The Dark Side of Shen Yun” and “Lifting the Curtain of Shen Yun to Reveal a Dark Side,” while saying “we plan to continue our reporting.” It appears to be a systematic and protracted effort, one that the journalists themselves said they had worked on for ten months.
Why is the Times dedicating such resources to one performing arts company run by a persecuted religious group?
In the immediate aftermath of the reports:
Chinese dissidents, scholars, and experts closely familiar with the Falun Gong community, as well as ordinary Times readers, have voiced skepticism and concerns about this reporting and its inaccuracies. (Appendix H) Notable examples include, author and political risk analyst Anders Corr who publicly questioned the Times’ denial of organ transplant abuses targeting Falun Gong; prominent Chinese commentator and pro-democracy analyst Hu Ping, who has written on Falun Gong, voiced support for Shen Yun and questioned the articles’ depictions; and Arthur Waldron, a China scholar from the University of Pennsylvania and a member of the China Tribunal panel, who heard days of testimony on the persecution of Falun Gong and organ harvesting, and sent a personal message questioning the accuracy of the articles and the motives of the reporters, while expressing empathy and support for Falun Gong practitioners. Some New York Times’ readers familiar with Shen Yun or Falun Gong also tried to post comments under the articles that questioned the depictions; while a few were published, at least two people shared with FDIC thoughtful, reasonable comments sympathetic to Falun Gong and Shen Yun that web moderators did not approve, even as hundreds of snarkier posts demonizing these communities were permitted.
Shen Yun has received threats. An Aug. 19 message to the Shen Yun website demanded that Shen Yun’s criticism of the Times’ reports (such as Shen Yun’s official response statement) be immediately removed. If they are not removed within a month, the message said, then:
“Shen Yun Performing Arts and Fei Tian school employees, and family members very likely will have some inexplicable car accidents, their houses will unexplainably catch fire and burn, and also may be attacked by New York gangsters. We hope you can be responsible to them and their families.”
Who would write such threats? The CCP? The YouTuber who setup interviews for the Times and has made threats to Shen Yun in the past? The Times’ interviewees? Or perhaps a reader deceived by the paper’s irresponsible reporting?
Where to next?
The falsehoods and distortions in the Times’ articles are not small errors. The paper’s reporters omitted critically important and relevant information, including about their sources, typical rules and regulations at boarding schools, well-documented research on the repression faced by Falun Gong practitioners, and cultural context on Asian culture and spirituality.
It is hard not to conclude this was a deliberate and premeditated effort of writing, editing, and publishing stories that paint a uniformly negative, inaccurate, and unjust portrait of Shen Yun and Falun Gong. It seems that at multiple points in the reporting process, Times staff made decisions to pursue this pre-constructed storyline.
The result was a sweeping story making wide-ranging allegations about an American company and persecuted minority based almost entirely on a handful of sources with clear conflicts of interest, ulterior motives, prior coordination, and even ties to a Beijing-backed YouTuber and a well-documented CCP foreign influence campaign. Moreover, this was done in the face of repeated warnings, contradictory information, and access to knowledge that would facilitate a more accurate, fair depiction.
There appears to have been a multi-layered breakdown in any internal review process at the Times meant to ensure the accuracy, fairness, and credibility of reporting—let alone ensuring that foreign influence operations by malign actors are not at play.
Such decisions have consequences. Within China, the CCP’s propaganda apparatus has already begun making widespread use of the articles in its own campaign to demonize Falun Gong, a campaign which fuels violence against millions of innocent people—including family members of Shen Yun performers. Outside China, such reporting inevitably turbo-charges Chinese diplomatic efforts to pressure theaters not to book shows, while putting performers in physical danger.
Given the above, the Falun Dafa Information Center is calling for:
- New York Times readers and others to read and share this report.
- Other news outlets not to take the Times’ reporting on Shen Yun and Falun Gong at face value.
- The New York Times to retract the articles.
- The Times to launch an internal investigation of the failures outlined above.
- The Times to implement corrective measures to ensure these failures do not repeat in future reporting about Shen Yun or Falun Gong.
- U.S. policymakers to consider the weaknesses in the U.S. media landscape that were taken advantage of and to explore safeguards to protect CCP critics, vulnerable minorities, and American companies from such victimization in the future.
About the Falun Dafa Information Center
The Falun Dafa Information Center (FDIC) is a non-profit located in New York, which documents the Chinese Communist Party’s persecution against Falun Gong practitioners in China and abroad, while advocating on behalf of victims. Founded in the fall of 1999, the center’s research and its staff have been referenced in major news outlets, testified before Congress, and been cited in reports by human rights groups, the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, among others. For more information on our mission, history, and staff, see the About Us page.
Endnotes
[1] Prior to associating with BDA, this interviewee sent several messages to a former professor at Fei Tian College—one requesting to come back to Shen Yun and a year later, an email expressing gratitude for her time with Shen Yun and praising the experience. She also invited the professor to her wedding in 2021. (See Appendix A)
Appendices
The following appendices are provided to share evidence collected by the Falun Dafa Information Center (FDIC) that informed its analysis and conclusions regarding the New York Times recent coverage of Falun Gong and Shen Yun. The appendices match references made to them in the text of the report.
