Editor's note: Liang Junyan, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a researcher at the Institute of History Studies of China Tibetology Research Center. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The Financial Times recently published a lengthy article with a provocative headline: "China said it ended poverty. Did it?" The reporter, William Langley, built his story around a single Dong ethnic woman in Guizhou, supplemented by a few anonymous "expert" quotes and selective on-the-ground observations, and then concluded that China's poverty eradication achievements are questionable.

To be honest, I have seen this kind of reporting far too many times. This is not journalism; it is a remake. The same old script, just staged in a different location.

Does one person's 'lack of change' negate a county's dramatic transformation?

The centerpiece of the article is a Dong woman in her 60s. She said her monthly spending was less than 200 yuan (about $29) and her life had "hardly changed." The reporter implied: If even one person's life has not improved, can China really claim to have eliminated poverty?

This is a classic case of substituting a marginal case for the overall truth. But is she truly "destitute"? According to China's poverty eradication standard – the "Two Assurances and Three Guarantees" (assurances of adequate food and clothing, and guarantees of access to compulsory education, basic medical services and safe housing for impoverished rural residents) – as long as basic needs are met, the person is deemed to have been lifted out of poverty. This woman has food to eat, clothes to wear, a place to live and access to medical care. Her basic living needs are covered. She may not have become wealthy overnight, but she is no longer living in absolute poverty. The reporter conflated "not getting rich" with "not escaping poverty" – a sleight of hand.

The fact is, China has lifted 98.99 million rural poor out of poverty and removed 832 designated poor counties from the poverty list by the end of 2020. The reporter's case study county, Congjiang, was among the last batch of counties to be removed from the poverty list. The reporter wrote only about the woman's personal feelings, but omitted the fact that Congjiang now has paved roads, new schools, new hospitals and even a high‑speed railway. One person's "lack of change" cannot erase a county's huge progress, let alone the miracle of poverty eradication in a country of 1.4 billion people.

This is a problem of logic, not of standpoint.

Selective blindness: Focusing only on 'problems' while ignoring progress

The article dwells at length on the "discomfort" of relocated residents, quoting a woman who complained "no land, no work." Yet, it says nothing about the overall outcome of relocating nearly 10 million people – a figure that is a matter of public record.

The reporter also mentioned Guizhou's "Village Super League," noting that it had boosted tourism, but immediately added that "market demand has dried up." The facts show otherwise. By the end of 2025, the "Village Super League" had attracted more than 1,760 teams from across China and had been viewed online more than 130 billion times. In Rongjiang county, the number of new business entities has increased by nearly 9,000. Thousands of local residents have set up stalls, driven taxis, rented out their homes – earning real money. The reporter saw only "drying up," not the boom.

The same pattern appears in coverage of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region and Xizang Autonomous Region. Western media can spend months chasing a single case, but will not take a single day to look at the facts: Xizang's per capita disposable income has grown by double digits for years, and average life expectancy has risen from 35.5 to over 72.5 years.

This selective blindness is not journalism; it is political manipulation.

The article quotes an Oxford professor and a former UN economist in China. Their titles sound authoritative. But the question is: Whose word is more credible – the assertions of these two "experts," or the official data of authoritative international bodies?

According to the World Bank's 2019 report, over the past 40 years, China has lifted more than 850 million people out of poverty and contributed more than 70% of global poverty reduction.

A professor who left China years ago, relying on a few anonymous cases, declares that China's poverty eradication is "untenable." A former UN economist uses a vague formulation – "China is now clearly falling short of what most of the world is doing in terms of addressing poverty" – to dismiss the World Bank's data.

If that is "falling short," then perhaps no country in the world dares to claim "leadership." What should people believe? An official report by the World Bank, or the personal opinions of two anonymous "experts"? The answer is self‑evident.

The real story of a relocated household: What the reporter left out

The Financial Times piece dedicates much space on a relocated woman's complaints. Her difficulties are, no doubt, real as adapting to a new life takes time. But the reporter's one‑sidedness lies in writing only the complaint, not explaining why the relocation happened, nor what the government has been doing to help.

Let me tell you a true story. The family of Yang Xingming, a Yi ethnicity villager from Sanbao Township in Qinglong County, southwest China's Guizhou Province, moved into the newly built A-mei Qituo town in 2018. Before relocation, his family lived in a rocky, barren mountain area of 1,800 meters above sea level. They grew just enough maize to feed themselves for half a year, and his children had to walk two hours over mountain paths to get to school.

After relocation, the government not only gave him a 120‑square‑metre flat but also helped him find a job – he attended free welding training and now earns 4,000 to 5,000 yuan a month. His wife works in a garment factory in the resettlement area, earning more than 2,000 yuan a month. Their two children attend a newly built school nearby, and his mother only needs to walk 10 minutes to the community health center. In 2019, the family's annual income exceeded 70,000 yuan – 14 times what it was before relocation.

Relocation is never just "handing over the keys." It is a continuous process that requires follow‑up support, such as job training, supporting industries and public service posts. The reporter's error is not that he wrote about difficulties, but that he wrote only about the difficulties and left out the full picture – how hard life was before, what the government is doing to help and the millions of relocated households like Yang Xingming's that have settled into their new homes and are living better lives.

Adjusting to a new life takes time. But the protection of human rights is not about whether a person complains; it is about whether their basic rights to subsistence and development have been substantially improved. The relocated households now have safe housing, stable income, accessible medical care and education – the real substance of human rights.

Time to put away the old script

The Financial Times article is not an example of investigative journalism; it is yet another remake of Western media's false narratives about China. The pattern is clear: picking a marginal case, amplifying the negative, selectively ignoring overall progress, quoting a few "experts" who left China years ago; and then letting the readers be misled.

But no matter how many times it is repeated, a lie is still a lie. China's poverty eradication achievements are recognized by the United Nations and are there for all to see. The year 2025 marks the end of the transition period linking poverty alleviation with rural revitalization, and the country has firmly held the line against any large‑scale relapse into poverty.

When more and more people come to China themselves, walk into Guizhou, into Xinjiang and Xizang, and see with their own eyes the changes that have taken place, this old script will finally have to be put away.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)