Much has been said about China's so-called "bullying" in the South China Sea, but what counts as "bullying" is rarely examined.

Such is the case when a Philippine media outlet published a diplomatic note sent by China to Malaysia over the South China Sea disputes and titled it "Malaysia gets taste of China West Philippine Sea bullying." But the article reveals more about the Philippines' disinformation campaign against China than China's alleged "bullying."

In the leaked February 18 diplomatic note addressed to the Malaysian embassy in Beijing, China reiterated its territorial sovereignty over Nansha Qundao, including Nankang Ansha and Beikang Ansha, and urged Malaysia to halt its oil and gas exploration in the region.

The document, a standard piece of diplomatic correspondence, doesn't necessarily shed a new light on China's position on the South China Sea – China has consistently claimed indisputable sovereignty over Nansha Qundao and its adjacent waters.

Nor does it say much about broader China-Malaysia relations, which remain robust as the two nations celebrate 50 years of formal diplomatic ties. Certainly, it is not a relationship where one bullies the other. In the note, China states that it "highly values China-Malaysia relations" and is willing to properly handle maritime differences with Malaysia through dialogue and communication. What "bully" does that?

When the Philippine Daily Inquirer published its article on August 29, it probably did not anticipate the international backlash.

In a strong rebuttal to the "bullying" narrative, Malaysia's Foreign Ministry issued a statement on September 4, expressing "grave concern" over the leak of the document, which it described as an official communication between the two countries. The ministry also called for a police investigation into the leaked note. Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim later called China "a great friend," further debunking the "bully" myth.

The sensationalist title is indicative of the sustained effort by the Philippines to wage an information warfare against China. This includes launching the "transparency initiative," where China's actions in defending its territorial sovereignty are labelled as "grey-zone tactics." As with so-called "bullying," the exact nature of the term is rarely clarified by Manila or local media outlets.

This has led to a series of spats where both sides trade blame for clashes and collisions in the South China Sea, which have happened more frequently since Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. took office. In August alone, Chinese and Philippine vessels reportedly collided on three separate occasions at Xianbin Jiao, where the Philippines' largest coast guard vessel has sought semi-permanent presence for nearly five months.

Noticeable discrepancies from Philippines

Noticeable discrepancies, however, have been exposed when Philippine officials and media outlets came under scrutiny.

In an August 31 video posted by an ABS-CBN reporter, Philippine coast guard spokesperson Jay Tarriela accused a Chinese coast guard vessel of ramming into a Philippine coast guard vessel at Xianbin Jiao. While Tarriela first identified the vessel's pennant number as "5205," he later changed the number to "5202." Meanwhile, the screen that Tarriela points to has a text that reads "5202." The video, however, shows the Chinese vessel number to be "5205." China Coast Guard's statement on the same day said the Philippine ship 9701 deliberately rammed into the Chinese ship 5205 in an "unprofessional and dangerous manner."

Certain Philippine organizations have also dangerously veered toward disinformation, a tactic that risks inciting nationalist fervor at home. In May, a self-proclaimed civic group named "Atin Ito" claimed to have successfully "bypassed China's blockage" in a resupply mission to China's Huangyan Dao. This claim was later contradicted by a source close to the matter, who revealed that, deterred by China's Coast Guard, the Philippine convoy stopped nearly 100 kilometers away from the island.

As part of the "transparency initiative," the Philippines has sent numerous reporters, including foreign correspondents like CNN's Ivan Watson, to its coast guard vessels. No shortage of sensationalist and often distorted headlines there, either. Expansive coverage targeting China conveniently ignores the fact that, as with the Xianbin Jiao clashes, the Philippines is often the one initiating incidents at sea. While the South China Sea is often called one of the most contested waterways, media coverage remains laser-focused on China and falls short of recognizing the activities of other claimant states in the region.

Imbalanced reporting leads to confusion

The imbalanced reporting and unwarranted hostility towards China have inevitably led to confusion, as partially expressed by Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim in a June interview. He questioned, "Why this obsession, the tendency to exaggerate border issues with China, when we in Malaysia, or the Thais, or Brunei, or Indonesia, all have problems with our neighbors?" He goes on to call the narrative singling out China "untenable and unacceptable."

While some boast the "successful" results of the "transparency initiative," the real impact of the Philippines' disinformation campaign against China is detrimental.

"This campaign, subtly and sometimes overtly promoted through traditional and social media, threatens to tear apart our nation. Suppose we do not address this issue immediately and adequately. In that case, it will spiral into a full-blown hate campaign, not just against China but against the Chinese Filipino community among us," former Philippine Senator Nikki Coseteng said in a recent interview. With anti-China sentiments on the rise among Filipinos, she cautioned the Southeast Asian country to avoid inciting an all-out war.

In the latest development, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning on Monday expressed China's "shock" over the leak and stated the news release is "ill-motivated." She said China and Malaysia have always maintained close communication on the settlement of differences and disputes, a stark reminder that dialogue and consultation remain the standard approaches for addressing international issues.

This time, the plan by Philippine media outlets to bolster the "David versus Goliath" narrative has backfired when Malaysia refused to be constrained by it. The reactions should serve as a wake-up call for the Philippines and its people: The international diplomatic scene is more complex and nuanced than black-and-white storytelling.