Wu Yangsong: Analysis of the Optimization and Enhancement of the Communist Party of China’s Discourse Power in the Omni-media Era
Currently, an unprecedented revolution in information technology is "driving the entire world into an information society and the era of all-media." Xi Jinping has noted: "As all-media continues to develop, we see the emergence of process-integrated media, holographic media, universal-participation media, and omni-effect media. Information is everywhere, affects everything, and is used by everyone. This has led to profound changes in the public opinion ecosystem, the media landscape, and methods of communication." Characterized primarily by the total-process recording of discourse information, the holographic presentation of discursive styles, the universal participation in discourse production, and the omni-effect dissemination via discourse terminals, all-media has reset the production methods, interactive relations, and power structures of discourse across society. It has sculpted a brand-new field of mass discourse and formed the objective ecological environment for the construction of the Communist Party of China's (CPC) discourse power [1]. In this entirely new discursive environment, how to further consolidate and enhance discourse power has become a prominent and practical issue facing the CPC.
I. All-media Sculpts the Basic Environment for the Construction of the CPC’s Discourse Power
Innovations in media technology and the evolution of the discursive environment are closely linked. Driven by the convergence of network, digital, and intelligent technologies, all-media has deconstructed the production methods and dissemination models of discourse from the traditional media era. It has reset discourse power relations, inaugurated a new era of mass discourse, and sculpted the basic environment for the construction of the CPC's discourse power.
(1) Media and Discourse Power
It can be said that "discourse is power" or "power is discourse." In essence, discourse power refers to the influence generated by discourse. In real life, the formation of discourse power is the composite result of multiple interwoven elements and effects, yet it always relies on a certain influence formed through the production, processing, and dissemination of specific discourse. In this sense, discourse power is a type of power that—through the control and application of discursive resources—expresses specific ideas and value orientations to gain the power to explain, regulate, and guide social life. In practice, it manifests as the attraction, cohesion, and influence of discourse.
In real life, the influence of discourse is inseparable from the role of media. As the saying goes, the medium is the message; it is "the tool used in the communication process to expand and extend the transmission of information." As the channel and carrier for the dissemination of discourse information, media does not merely transmit information; it also selects, isolates, and processes it, generating discourse power through "information surfaces" and "information gaps." As Neil Postman emphasized, every medium provides a new orientation for ways of thinking, expressing thoughts, and venting emotions, thereby creating unique discursive symbols. Media generates a corresponding discourse system by selecting, editing, and processing discourse information, and through this system, it forms discourse power to construct people’s social cognition and world of meaning. "Every technology possesses a set of institutional systems," which include rules for the production of discourse information, norms for dissemination, mechanisms for audience reception, and related management frameworks. In a class society, the evolution of media forms and changes in their biases directly break the original discourse power structure. They present unique discursive scenarios in terms of themes, content, methods, and spaces, building new discourse power relations and forming a specific discourse ecosystem and environment. In short, media, discourse, and power constitute an inseparable coupling. Throughout the long course of human history, every shift in mainstream media has acted as a massive catalyst for social structure and human development, while simultaneously bringing about radical discourse ecosystem transformations and challenges to discourse power.
(2) All-media Triggers a Transformation of the Discourse Ecosystem
Since the 21st century, the rapid advancement of information technologies such as the internet, big data, and artificial intelligence has driven a new round of transformation in communication media and inaugurated the New Era of all-media. All-media is a cross-media form resulting from the deep integration of various current media types. It is characterized by notable traits such as "media integration, diversification of subjects, flattening of structures, mobilization of carriers, fragmentation of content, multipolarization of models, video-orientation of expression, immediacy of communication, and socialization of behavior." These traits have changed the traditional methods of discourse production, dissemination, and presentation found in media environments dominated by newspapers, radio, television, and single-network webs. They manifest a vision of mass discourse production and dissemination where "everyone is a media outlet," driving a transformation of the entire discourse ecosystem.
First, all-media has reconstructed new modes of discourse production. In the traditional media era, discourse production was always one-dimensional; the relationship and positions between the producer and the recipient of discourse were clear, distinct, and difficult to traverse. In this chain, discourse was always completed by specific groups through conscious editing, processing, and "gatekeeping." As the objects of discourse, the social masses found it difficult to participate effectively in production and interaction, which essentially followed a one-dimensional and closed narrative logic. Driven by the convergence of network, digital, and intelligent technologies, all-media "first reconstructed the identities and relational attributes of 'senders' and 'receivers' in political communication." It ensured that discourse production was no longer the independent act of a specific segment or group, creating a mass era of discourse production. In this environment, the discourse monopoly of traditional mainstream media has been broken. Discourse power has diffused from centralized authoritative institutions into the hands of countless individuals and communities, changing the environment in which the CPC produces discourse.
Second, all-media has reshaped new patterns of discourse dissemination. In the traditional media era, discourse dissemination followed a "center-periphery" logic, manifesting as top-down "vertical" communication and representing an irreversible, "one-to-many" linear transmission. Between the subject and object of discourse, there was a one-dimensional "active-passive" dissemination, showing a clear centralized and hierarchical relationship. Under this model, stable relations of teaching and control were established, forming a discourse dissemination order with distinct levels, a stable center and periphery, and clear lateral boundaries. In this context, the construction of a political party's discourse power held a significant advantage. In the all-media era, discourse operates within a holographic, all-domain, and all-encompassing matrix dissemination landscape. It manifests as a "network-chain" model—a "spider-web" style of reversible and divergent dissemination. This generates "many-to-many," flattened, and socialized discourse dissemination relations. This brand-new model has fundamentally changed the relationships of discourse dissemination from the traditional media era, altering the environment in which the CPC disseminates discourse.
Third, all-media has reconstructed a new space for discourse power. In the traditional media era, limited by the modes of production and dissemination, the space for the public's discourse power was relatively restricted. Driven by the convergence of network, digital, and intelligent technologies, all-media has constructed a diverse, open, and equal discourse power relationship. It has changed the structure of the original discourse power space, bringing challenges to the construction of the CPC's discourse power. "New media leads to the emergence of new centers of power, thereby triggering increasingly intensified tensions within existing dominant authoritarian structures." In the all-media era, the public’s discursive consciousness has been effectively activated. In practice, they can not only participate seamlessly across the entire chain of production, collection, analysis, and dissemination of discourse information but also possess more possibilities for speaking, gaining greater discursive space and influence. Essentially, they have been endowed with more discourse power, such that "the voices of ordinary citizens have begun to sway the policies and decisions of political power." Consequently, the environment of the CPC's discourse space has changed.
(3) Basic Scenarios of the Discourse Ecosystem in the All-media Era
Media is politics. With communication characteristics defined by composite forms, scenarization, and diverse modalities, all-media has not only changed the modes of discourse production and dissemination from the traditional media environment but has also reconstructed the discourse power structure of society at large. It has created an entirely new discourse ecosystem and political landscape, becoming the fundamental scenario that the CPC must face in constructing its discourse power.
First, the public's consciousness as discourse subjects has significantly strengthened. Through innovations in communication technology and the emergence of discourse platforms, all-media has endowed the public with the freedom, space, and power to speak as equals. Particularly under the influence of low-cost production mechanisms and zero-cost sharing mechanisms, every citizen can conveniently publish opinions and express themselves, increasing the possibility of "receiving attention from others." This drives the public to continuously strengthen their motivation and instinct to "speak out," which has greatly enhanced their consciousness as subjects of discourse.
Second, discourse content is focused more on daily life. All-media has derived a disenchanted era of mass discourse, leading to evident changes in the public’s social cognition and political psychology. Looking at the content of discursive interaction, the minutiae of daily life have increasingly become the primary topics and points of interest. Discussions surrounding personal quality of life and sensory enjoyment have become the focus and norm of interaction. In contrast, various types of "life discourse" form a powerful stream of information that constantly dilutes traditional, grand ideological narratives.
Third, discursive styles exhibit a "pan-entertainment" [2] characteristic. The all-media era is an era of "discursive carnival," where the entertainment function of discourse is continuously amplified, and traditional standardized paradigms of expression are increasingly challenged. In the all-media era, the individual becomes an important subject of communication. "Individuals in cyberspace are present in a virtualized and symbolized manner, allowing them to shed their real-world identities and discard various discursive embellishments and emotional hesitations inherent in real-world interaction. They interact using more direct and simple language, seeking personalized and entertaining ways of expression and information recommendations."
Fourth, the emotional characteristics of the discourse space have become increasingly prominent. In the all-media environment of massive information dissemination, the public is more inclined to accept information that aligns with their existing positions and preferences. The roles of emotion, belief, and values universally override the pursuit of and respect for objective facts. "The value of much online content lies not in its truthfulness, but in its influence through mood-making or emotional presupposition." Emotional, inflammatory, and "labeled" remarks spread wider and faster, while the difficulty of constructing discourse power based on facts, logic, and rationality continues to increase.
II. Practical Challenges Facing Discourse Power Construction in the All-media Era
The transformation of the discourse ecosystem and the resetting of discursive scenarios triggered by all-media have brought challenges to the construction of the CPC's discourse power. These challenges are concentrated in the way the plurality of discursive demands tests discursive consensus, the diffusivity of discourse dissemination impacts discursive dominance, the deconstructive nature of discourse space challenges discursive aggregation, and the complexity of the discourse environment dissolves discursive effectiveness.
(1) Plurality of Discursive Demands Tests Discursive Consensus
"Constructing consensus" is an intrinsic trait of modern party politics and a basic goal of a political party's discursive practice. Politics and its discourse, being "the affairs of the masses," must necessarily possess social consensus to resonate with citizens of different demands, thereby integrating various forces to promote social development. In the traditional media era, based on the one-dimensionality of production and the verticality of dissemination, party discourse possessed a natural technical advantage in forming consensus. This model is now being replaced by new communication media. Driven by the convergence of network, digital, and intelligent technologies, all-media follows a divergent and open narrative logic. Changes in production mechanisms and the upgrade of dissemination models allow the public not only to "listen" but also to "speak" and "converse." That is, the public has not only become producers of discourse but can also engage in discursive exchange, discussion, and interaction. On this basis, they generate countless flowing fragments of discursive space, constituting a complex and pluralistic scenario of discursive demands. Undoubtedly, behind these demands lies both the awakening of the subjects' awareness of their rights and the expression of their differing interests. The problem lies in the fact that these pluralistic and fragmented demands and the discourse that emphasizes "coalescing souls" [3] and constructing consensus appear to be a pair of contradictions. If handled improperly, it can easily lead to an estrangement between the "folk" and "official" discourse fields, or even cause a rupture in the entire discourse space. Although it is difficult to please everyone's individual discursive demands, party discourse must seek the "greatest common denominator." How consensus-based party discourse can maximally cover, include, and integrate increasingly pluralistic discursive demands—and better "integrate different interest subjects, eliminate major differences, and transmit and form common values"—is the primary question that the CPC's discourse power construction must answer in the all-media era.
(2) Diffusivity of Discourse Dissemination Impacts Discursive Dominance
J.B. Thompson argues that the core of political discourse is the search for a kind of "unity," emphasizing that this "unity" is established and sustained through the "construction of a unified form on a symbolic level, subsuming individuals within a collective identity regardless of their differences and disagreements, thereby establishing and supporting relations of dominance." In the era of traditional media, Party discourse was always promoted through one-way, linear communication and high-level organizational embedding. This continuously reinforced such "stable relations of dominance," granting the Party a natural social leading position. Under the "network-chain" theoretical model of media convergence communication, "an infinite influx of participants and actors enjoy relatively equal opportunities for expression, and everyone can become a network node." The Party now faces a discourse communication environment that is increasingly flattened and pervasive. In this environment, traditional dominant discourses find it difficult to gain favor. Simultaneously, the vast and complex volume of discourse produced by diverse subjects undergoes continuous fusion, fission, and fermentation. This interferes with the public’s attention to and perception of Party discourse, directly impacting the Party's discursive cohesion and leading power. "While diversified and dispersed communication greatly facilitates individual expression, it also causes the fragmentation of discourse power. Today, as the influence of audience discourse increasingly demonstrates a 'clustering effect' [4], the realization of the leading power of the mainstream ideology faces a complex political ecosystem." How to effectively enhance discursive leadership and influence within a pervasive, decentralized environment is a practical problem that must be solved in the construction of the CPC's discourse power.
(3) Deconstructive challenges of the discursive space vs. discursive cohesion The CPC is the leadership core of the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The Party's discourse is, in essence, not only the condensation and expression of the fundamental interests of the broadest possible masses of the people, but also bears the responsibility of organizing and mobilizing social developmental forces, as well as planning and leading national development. In practice, this requires using the power of discourse to aggregate the masses and construct social identification, forming an internal cohesion where everyone "thinks toward the same goal and exerts effort in the same direction." Media convergence, driven by the integration of network, digital, and intelligent technologies, generates a discursive space that differs from the authoritative "discursive fields" [5] derived from traditional media. Instead, it possesses distinct "grassroots discourse" attributes, characterized by a general weakening of discursive construction and a significant strengthening of deconstructive power. It inherently possesses the momentum to criticize, reject, and deconstruct the authority of official discourse.
The media convergence discursive space is essentially an amplified "news space" governed by the "man bites dog" logic of journalism. Driven by this logic, the space follows a "carnival" style of discourse that "fears no escalation," obsessively pursuing the new, the strange, and the eccentric. In practice, this exerts a potentially negative influence on traditional mainstream and authoritative information. "The masses also tend to utilize and exert their full autonomy in cyberspace to adopt an active, antagonistic stance. For instance, they may engage in banter, irony, and mockery through the humorous and witty deconstruction of authoritative narratives." The pattern of strong construction and weak deconstruction seen in the traditional media era has been broken and reversed. In short, the deconstructive nature of the media convergence space and the cohesive requirements of the Party's discursive aims constitute a pair of contradictions. How to further enhance the CPC's discursive construction and cohesion in this environment directly concerns the quality of the Party's discourse power.
(4) Complexity of the discursive environment vs. discursive effectiveness The media convergence discursive space is a "general store" of voices, saturated with various ideological demands. "The popular application of network media technology, the rise of network grassroots culture, and the formation of an 'amusing ourselves to death' atmosphere have promoted and accelerated the de-ideological development trend of the virtual public sphere." Currently, the complex narratives of various public opinion events, the "carnival" of network chaos, and the aggressive penetration of guest discourses [6] have caused various non-mainstream ideological discourses to expand continuously. These form intense games and confrontations with mainstream ideological discourse, making it very easy to dissolve the effectiveness of the CPC's discourse power.
First, the disorder of discourse production has disrupted the public's perception of CPC discourse. The media convergence space presents a landscape of "cacophony," where fake news, rumors, and misleading content proliferate. These chaotic phenomena seriously interfere with the public's normal political cognition, causing psychological bias and cognitive disorder regarding political information and Party discourse. Second, the imbalance of the discursive space challenges the effects of CPC discourse. Under the collusion of capital and technology, the media convergence space is filled with various commercial demands. Particularly under the "logic of traffic," questions of right and wrong—even common sense—become blurred, directly challenging the Socialist Core Values [7] transmitted by CPC discourse. Third, intense discursive struggle damages the public credibility of CPC discourse. This space is the main battlefield for public opinion struggles. "Discordant notes and noise constantly emerge in the field of public opinion, triggering a struggle for 'interpretive rights' in the ideological sphere." Certain hostile forces disrupt the discursive environment, openly engaging in media misdirection and network incitement to manufacture chaos, seriously interfering with the dissemination and credibility of mainstream discourse. How to guide the public's perception in a timely, accurate, and effective manner, improve the mechanisms for "dispelling rumors, refuting fallacies, and clarifying truths," and consolidate the CPC's central position in discourse, is an urgent issue for the Party.
III. Optimization paths for the construction of the CPC's discourse power in the era of media convergence Practice has proven that "every innovation in media technology leads to huge changes in political communication styles and even political operation modes." In the era of media convergence, building the CPC's discourse power is a complex systemic project involving the transformation and enhancement of the Party's discursive awareness, discursive system, and discursive capacity.
(1) Strengthening discursive awareness Discursive awareness is the prerequisite for building discourse power. It refers to the psychological mechanisms and logical thinking displayed by the discursive subject during practice. It is a state of cognition and planning ability—a "will to speak"—demonstrated by the subject based on their perception of the environment to achieve specific goals. As the specific consciousness of a political party's speech, it is primarily reflected in whether the party can effectively discern the environment, correctly grasp discursive laws, and actively lead production, dissemination, and governance. Its strength directly relates to the party's discourse power and governing efficacy. Currently, catalyzed by various new media, discourse exerts unprecedented influence, becoming a kind of "material force" affecting the development of the era. Strengthening discursive awareness has become the primary issue.
Objectively speaking, in the traditional media environment, we focused more on "doing" than "speaking," believing that "doing well" would naturally lead to "speaking well," remaining immersed in the fixed perception of being "slow in speech but quick in action" [8]. If this cognitive inertia is not overcome, the CPC's discursive awareness may struggle to grow effectively and adapt to the current environment. The urgent task is to deeply understand the functions, roles, and laws of communication in the New Era, transform the traditional logic of "a straight person fears no crooked shadow" [9], and overcome the "discursive blunting" of being unwilling, afraid, or unable to speak. We must tangibly enhance sensitivity and initiative in constructing discourse power. In action, we must improve our insight into the discursive environment, further boost discursive self-awareness and proactivity, have the courage to step onto the front stage, and take the lead in construction through a high sense of discursive responsibility.
(2) Optimizing the discursive system The discursive system is the foundation and carrier of discourse power. In the era of media convergence, the key to improving the CPC's discourse power is to continuously optimize the Party’s discursive system, carrying out systemic innovation in themes, content, and form.
First, enhance the contemporaneity and appeal of discursive themes. Themes form the main thread of the discursive system, regulating its content and direction. In this era, whether a theme is attractive is the "first move" to winning discourse power. It is a visible fact that traditional "lofty and grand" political topics are easily diluted by specific demands for people's livelihoods and more miscellaneous public interests, making it hard to capture public attention. "Various emerging political demands from real political life form a powerful 'political information flow' that dilutes or even 'backwashes' those lofty political ideals." As a vehicle for ideology, the Party's themes cannot abandon the blueprinting of grand ideals, but they require more concern for, and interpretation of, the themes of the times and the people's livelihoods. The core of the problem is handling the relationship between the ideal and the reality. The CPC needs to find the point of fit and balance between the two, becoming adept at realizing the Party's goals through practical topics. In practice, we must gather and refine "integrative topics" from the changes of the times and daily life, standing on high ground while starting from small details.
Second, improve the scientific nature and persuasiveness of discursive content. Only when words are grounded in reason can they achieve credibility. The "reason" of discourse depends on whether the content possesses objective truth, effectively responds to real-world problems, and correctly reflects the call of the times. "The main reason ideology can influence people's thoughts and concepts lies in the explanatory and persuasive power of the discourse content." Media convergence places higher demands on this. On one hand, we must insist that "content is king." Party discourse must be placed on the foundation of real life, "not only conveying correct value judgments but also having a solid factual basis, relying on factual judgments to clarify the truth." On the other hand, we must maintain a problem-oriented approach. As Michael Roskin said, when ideas become more practical and realistic, ideology becomes an important cement that can aggregate movements, parties, and groups. Based on grasping the laws of social development, we must enhance the explanatory power of CPC discourse regarding real problems and its responsiveness to the concerns of the masses. Only when the masses deeply feel that the Party's discourse is closely related to their own thoughts, hopes, and confusion can discursive identification be built.
Third, reinforce the popular nature and infectious power of discursive forms. For theory to "grip the masses," it requires both thoroughness in content and thoroughness in form. One must be able to "speak the truth clearly" and "ensure what is said is spread far." Objectively, for a long time, the CPC's discourse has given a stereotypical impression of being "rigorous but not lively enough," which to some extent limited its effect and influence. In the era of media convergence, construction must focus on effective forms to enhance infectious power. "Only when a discursive system is recognized and accepted by the masses can it be said to have mastered true discourse power." In practice, we should focus on narrative style, digging for forms that best express the spirit of the times. We should "select well-loved examples, vivid expressions, and easy-to-understand language to soak the mainstream ideology into them." We must borrow from and integrate diverse network expressions and folk narrative styles, highlighting popularized and "life-oriented" (生活化) narratives so the CPC's discourse can be presented more concretely and vividly.
(3) Enhancing discursive capacity Discursive capacity refers to the skills, experience, and methods mastered by the subject during practice. It points essentially to the issue of "discursive effect" and is key to constructing discourse power. "Discursive power (话语力) is not just about whether a voice is emitted, but whether the voice can be heard and internalized by the target audience." We must improve the Party's capacity, especially in refining discourse production and innovation, dissemination and guidance, struggle and maneuvering, and governance and adjustment.
First, improve the CPC’s capacity for discourse production and innovation. The capacity for discourse production and innovation points to the discourse subject’s mastery of the laws of social development, their response to the demands of the masses, and their guidance of the direction of social development; it reflects the issue of producing a specific system of knowledge and discourse. In the omnimedia era, the construction of the CPC’s discourse power must be adept at winning over, attracting, and coalescing the masses through high-quality discourse production and by breaking new ground while upholding the fundamentals. In practice, we must, on the one hand, be adept at creating original discourse concepts and signature discourse content, utilizing effective discourse concepts and content to enhance the CPC’s discursive leadership and power to mobilize. On the other hand, we must be adept at leading the direction of public opinion through precise discursive indexing [10]. As emphasized, we must "strengthen the capacity for agenda-setting, ensuring that what should be said is said thoroughly, letting what should be hot become hot, and letting what should be cold cool down." Through discursive indexing, we can focus discourse discussion and lead the direction of discourse. At the same time, we must focus on absorbing and extracting effective discursive elements from the consensual cognition of the "folk discourse field" [11], performing new blends and reconstructions of these elements. Through effective discourse production and innovation, we can enhance the appeal and influence of the CPC's discourse content.
Second, improve the CPC’s capacity for discourse communication and guidance. If a specific discourse system is not effectively communicated, no matter how persuasive it may be, it will struggle to exert its influence. How to transform the persuasiveness of discourse into the influence of discourse tests the discourse subject’s capacity for communication and guidance; this is particularly important in the current omnimedia discourse environment. To further enhance the CPC’s capacity for discourse communication and guidance, the urgent task is to grasp the laws of discourse communication in emerging media. Conceptually, we must realize a shift from "discourse control" to "discourse docking"; in action, a shift from "passive rebuttal" to "proactive engagement"; in method, a shift from "monologue-style" to "dialogue-style"; and in function, a shift from "talking to oneself" to "prescribing the right medicine." In this process, special care must be taken to avoid traditional macro-narratives and cookie-cutter discursive preaching. "A single set of discourse cannot satisfy everyone, and a single tune can hardly be sung throughout the world." We must follow refined, targeted, and differentiated communication to achieve effective interaction between the CPC’s discourse and different social groups, tangibly enhancing the infectiousness and penetration of the Party's discourse among diverse populations.
Third, improve the CPC’s capacity for discursive contention and struggle. Discursive contention and struggle are important channels and methods for the construction of discourse power. A discourse always demonstrates its truth and persuasiveness through polemics, contention, and struggle with other discourses, thereby winning its own authority and influence. In the omnimedia era, the construction of the CPC’s discourse power must be adept at carrying forward the spirit of struggle, tangibly improving both the capacity for struggle and the art of struggle. In practice, we must resolutely implement the responsibility system for ideological work, ensuring that we "be responsible for the land we guard and do our duty for the land we guard" [12] with a clear banner and a firm stance. We must improve political sensitivity and political discernment. Regarding matters involving major issues of right and wrong or political principles, we must dare to take charge and "draw the sword" [13]; we must never be vague or equivocal, let alone retreat. When facing public opinion "noise" or erroneous ideological trends, we must resolutely meet them head-on, engage in confrontation, effectively respond to doubts, refute errors, and resolve confusion to "clear the source and purify the flow" [14]. In short, when facing all kinds of improper remarks in the omnimedia era, we must dare to draw the sword and have the courage to struggle, firmly grasping the discursive initiative and dominance in the field of public opinion through discursive struggle and contention.
Fourth, improve the CPC’s capacity for discourse governance and adaptation. In the omnimedia environment, sound capacities for discursive response, governance, and adaptation are necessary conditions for the construction of the CPC’s discourse power. Xi Jinping pointed out: "We must scientifically understand the laws of network communication, improve the level of using and governing the internet, and ensure that the internet—this 'maximum variable'—becomes the 'maximum increment' for the development of our cause." In the omnimedia era, we must establish and perfect strict content review and verification mechanisms to eliminate false information and improper remarks at the source and resolutely resist the infiltration of harmful ideologies. We must carry out the governance of discourse space according to the law, focusing on using the power and means of the rule of law to resolutely rectify media discourse chaos and create a good political ecosystem for discourse. We must use relevant systems and mechanisms to respond to the doubts and concerns of the masses in a timely and effective manner, firmly grasping the discursive initiative and orientation in the field of public opinion through authoritative, continuous, and sincere discourse supply. At the same time, we must be adept at continuously performing discursive adaptation based on changes in the discourse environment, focusing on the prediction, tracking, and evaluation of discursive information. Through dynamic adaptation, we can continuously enhance "user stickiness" for the mainstream discourse and further enhance the CPC's discursive dominance, cohesion, and guidance.
Author’s Unit: School of Marxism, Guangzhou University Source: Contemporary World and Socialism, Issue 6, 2025 Editor: Hui Hui