By Xhabir Deralla

A few days ago, after updating my Philips Android TV, something unexpected happened. A new app appeared on the home screen — automatically installed — a “free streaming TV” service (FAST) offering dozens of channels at no cost. Wanting to see what this generous “gift” from the update was offering, I clicked on the app. What I found left me unsettled: among about a dozen stations, three were branded CGTN — the China Global Television Network.

No subscription. No special search. Just there, at the push of a button.

At first glance, this may seem trivial. After all, TVs are full of apps, advertisements, and random channels. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that this wasn’t just an accidental convenience It was a reminder of how deeply global power struggles have seeped into our living rooms — and how influence today travels not only through familiar propaganda outlets, embassies, or trade deals, but also through streaming menus and software updates.

What is FAST?

The acronym “FAST” stands for Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television. Think of it as cable TV reinvented for the digital age: dozens or even hundreds of channels, streaming live over the internet, free for the user, paid for by advertising.

FAST services are spreading like wildfire. In the United States, platforms such as Pluto TV, Samsung TV Plus, Tubi, or Plex boast thousands of free channels. In Europe, companies like Rakuten TV and newer operating systems like Titan OS (now integrated into Philips TVs) have followed suit. Industry reports note that some platforms already offer 500+ free channels in European markets, spanning entertainment, sports, lifestyle, and – crucially – news.

The appeal is obvious: no subscription fees, instant access, an interface that mimics the simplicity of traditional television. For “cord-cutters” and cost-conscious viewers, it feels like a gift. But every “gift” has its price – in this case, exposure to whoever gets carried on these platforms.

CGTN in the FAST ecosystem

CGTN is not just another broadcaster. It is the international arm of China Media Group, overseen directly by the Chinese Communist Party’s propaganda department. Its global mission is to tell the world “China’s story well” – which in practice means framing events in ways that support Beijing’s geopolitical narratives.

Finding CGTN in the new FAST app on my TV was no accident. My research led me to several findings that, in my view, are deeply alarming. Across Europe, CGTN and its sister channel CGTN Documentary are included in Rakuten TV’s live channel line-ups, visible in markets from Ireland and Lithuania to Serbia and Bulgaria. On some Philips sets, running Titan OS or Android/Google TV, these channels are among the default “free” news options.

In Serbia, for instance, viewers browsing Rakuten TV’s free live channels will see CGTN and CGTN Documentary side by side with international and regional entertainment. In Bulgaria and Lithuania, the same channels appear, integrated seamlessly into the default line-up. Even in Ireland — far from China’s immediate sphere of influence — CGTN is offered as part of the “free” news selection.

This pattern shows that what appeared in my living room is part of a deliberate strategy: using FAST aggregators to secure global visibility, bypassing traditional cable deals or regulatory debates.

The bigger picture: Foreign media in default menus

This is not unique to China. Russian state media, until restricted in the EU after the invasion of Ukraine, pursued similar paths. Other governments also distribute international channels. The crucial difference, however, lies in intent and control. CGTN is not an independent outlet — independence would be impossible under the tight grip of the Forbidden City. It is, instead, a direct organ of the Chinese state.

The brilliance – and danger – of FAST distribution is its invisibility. Unlike a satellite package, which requires an active decision to subscribe, FAST channels are simply there. For a casual viewer flipping through options, the difference between CNN, Euronews, Bloomberg, and CGTN may not be obvious. The very presence of these outlets in the same digital line-up lends them a kind of legitimacy.

This is how “soft power” works in the 21st century – through subtle placements in the ecosystems we use every day.

Why it matters in fragile media landscapes?

In countries with robust media literacy and strong regulatory frameworks, viewers may shrug and move on. But in regions where information ecosystems are fragile — such as the Balkans — the implications are different.

So what these operations of influence achieve is to fill in the trust gaps. How so? Well, traditional media often face low trust ratings. When viewers encounter foreign channels branded as “news,” they may consume them uncritically.

Furthermore, this is a contest between opposing narratives. In countries such as North Macedonia and Serbia, where authoritarian trends and anti-Western sentiments are on the rise, these “neutral” news sources are warmly welcomed. CGTN provides polished coverage of world events, but always through Beijing’s lens — minimizing human rights concerns, portraying China as a stabilizing force, and often subtly aligning with Russian narratives. Such narratives “help” the Balkan media consumer confirm their own biases and embrace a “truth” crafted in the propaganda departments of totalitarian regimes, rather than one that emerges from realities on the ground.

Smaller and poorer states are particularly exposed, as their regulators are still struggling to grasp the new digital realities and remain stuck in outdated approaches to media oversight. Instead of providing effective regulation, they end up making life harder for independent media while leaving audiences more vulnerable to the influence of propaganda centers. Broadcasting rules rarely — if ever — cover FAST applications.

Take Serbia as an example. It is already an extremely problematic information space dominated by pro-Russian narratives — with Russia Today and Sputnik, banned in the EU and many other countries, yet still broadcasting in Serbian and spread throughout the region. The quiet presence of Chinese state media in default streaming menus adds yet another layer of influence. The same is true in Bulgaria, an EU and NATO member, where disinformation and Russian hybrid operations have long undermined democratic processes.

These trends are also strongly present in North Macedonia, a NATO member and EU candidate. Macedonian society is deeply polarized, and malign influence from the East is firmly rooted. Thus, these free channels become more than harmless background noise. They turn into vectors of legitimacy for authoritarian storytelling, embedded in the very same interface where families watch sports, cartoons, or Hollywood films.

Influence through presence, not popularity

In an attempt to be “objective” and “neutral”, some media experts might argue that hardly anyone watches CGTN on FAST apps. And it’s true: viewership numbers may be small compared to mainstream channels. But they forget one very important fact: influence doesn’t always come from ratings. It also comes from presence and accessibility, which give them legitimacy. And often that’s more than enough.

Indeed, the fact that CGTN sits on the same “channel row” as reputable global outlets blurs lines of legitimacy. Even if you never click it, viewers, at least subconsciously, register it as one of many legitimate news sources. For Beijing, this is a victory.

And for those who do click — whether out of curiosity or by accident — the barrier to exposure is gone. The content flows directly, framed in ways that align with Chinese state interests.

Transparency, regulation, and user control

What should be done? Should CGTN be banned? No. This is not a call for censorship – at least not yet. It is, however, a call for something more fundamental: transparency and choice.

Viewers should not be lured into operations of influence without their knowledge. Even from the perspective of ordinary customers, people have the right to be protected. They deserve to know who is speaking to them and under whose authority. In the same way platforms mark ‘sponsored content,’ FAST services could – and should – clearly label channels that are state-controlled.

Equally important is the element of control. Users should be able to decide what appears on their screen. That means giving them the option to hide or remove channels, instead of forcing them into default menus where they sit beside trusted outlets, indistinguishable in appearance but vastly different in purpose.

And then there is the role of regulators. Media laws urgently need to catch up with this new reality. Traditional broadcasters, and even online news portals, are already subject to disclosure requirements. Why should streaming line-ups be exempt?

Without such safeguards, the living room becomes an open door for foreign state narratives, entering quietly, unannounced, and uninvited.

Silence of the Experts and Regulators

Many experts, comfortably tied to donor-funded projects with handsome fees for reports, speeches, and conferences, feel no urgency to engage with these subtleties or to alert the public and institutions to the threats quietly seeping into people’s lives.

State regulators, meanwhile, are all too often part of the same game — more concerned with formalistic compliance and appearances than with confronting uncomfortable realities. These institutions are not only inert bureaucratic machines but also highly politicized and influenced by pro-Kremlin and pro-Zhongnanhai installations, which makes them deliberately inactive when it comes to such issues.

It is highly possible that this analysis, too, will be ignored — or, worse, appropriated, polished, and smoothed until it is defaced and transformed into something ineffective and invisible.

Back to the Living Room

When CGTN appeared in the new channel list on my TV, I realized that geopolitics had quietly entered my living room — uninvited. No satellite dish. No subscription package. Just a software update.

That is the essence of modern influence operations: quiet, frictionless, and easy to ignore — until it is too late.

The question is not whether we should allow Chinese channels or not. The question is whether people deserve to know who is speaking to them, with what mandate, and with what intent.

Because democracy is not defended only in parliaments or on battlefields. Sometimes, it is defended on the home screen of a smart TV — or on the display of a mobile device.

This article was prepared with the assistance of artificial intelligence (ChatGPT, OpenAI). The AI tool supported research and fact-checking, translation, and editorial improvements. All analysis, interpretations, and final responsibility for the content remain solely with the author.