西方媒体编辑人员采用的另一种常见策略是，尽量弱化或完全忽略可能对中国营造有利舆论的新闻。最近最引人注目的例子也许就是对中国新冠疫苗的报导。
从一开始，我们就看到西方媒体质疑中国研发的疫苗功效。同时，获中国提供疫苗的发展中国家领导人的正面回应或无法获得西方开发疫苗的新闻却被掩盖，或以分析报导的方式削弱中国疫苗功效的舆论。对于俄罗斯的“卫星-V”疫苗，也有类似的意识形态偏见。但是这些负面的报导，主要还是针对中国。
西方媒体没有客观地报导中国通过提供负担得起的疫苗来帮助穷国抗疫的重要性，反之是大力鼓吹沙文主义的言论，以让读者从质疑的视角看待中国和中国公司的每项举动。
毫不意外的是，世界卫生组织（WHO）最近批准中国的国药集团新冠疫苗，列入“紧急使用清单”，并没有获得西方媒体的关注，有关新闻只放在毫不起眼的位置。联合国这项决定意味著中国疫苗将纳入针对发展中国家的新冠肺炎疫苗实施计划（COVAX），这将使全球数百万人受惠。这也将是一个潜在改变格局的举动，特别是对于无法负担西方疫苗所需的昂贵冷藏基础设施投资的低收入国家而言。
西方媒体对疫苗的粗暴双重标准导致一位国际专家看不过眼就发言支持中国疫苗。澳州新南威尔士大学的麦克劳斯（Prof. McLaws）教授，在对于澳洲是否会接受接种中国科兴和国药集团疫苗的国人回国的新闻报导中指出，对于许多人质疑中国疫苗缺乏同行评议的数据，这是没有根据的，甚至用她的话说，这是一种“科学种族主义”。
必须强调的是，麦克劳斯教授并不是西方媒体普遍报导中意识形态上偏颇的“专家”。她是一位享誉全球的流行病学家，也参与多项新冠肺炎的项目，这包括世卫组织属下针对新冠肺炎预防感染、控制预备、准备和应对的突发卫生事件规划专家谘询委员会。她也是世卫组织全球疫情警报和反应网络的协调人，并且在澳洲的一些公共卫生组织中发挥著重要作用。
尽管在西方也有一些具有公正，没有政治偏见的科学家和新闻工作者，试图对与中国有关的许多事态发展进行更平衡的评价和分析，但对于中国政府和中国人来说，当下和可预见的将来，他们都不得不与充满敌意，意识形态和种族歧视的西方大众媒体共存。
《西方媒体反华推手》（下篇）（Western Media Dogs Of War）原文：
Minimizing or completely ignoring news stories that may lead to more favourable public opinion of China is another common strategy employed by western media editors. Perhaps the most striking recent example is the coverage of China’s covid vaccines. Right from the beginning we have seen the western media cast doubt on the efficacy of the China developed vaccines. At the same time positive responses from the leaders of developing countries provided with the Chinese vaccines or unable to access Western developed vaccines have either been blanked out or presented with analysis aimed at undermining public opinion of the efficacy of the Chinese vaccines. A similar ideologically biased position has also been taken with respect to Russia’s Sputnik vaccine,
But the main focus of negative reporting is against China.
Instead of objectively reporting on the importance of assisting poorer countries through affordable vaccines to fight the pandemic, the main thrust of western media coverage has been to offer jingoistic rhetoric and to get their readers to view every action of China and Chinese companies through the lens of suspicion.
Unsurprisingly the most recent World Health Organization decision to give emergency use approval to one of the Chinese-made Sinopharm’s Covid-19 vaccines has been largely consigned to the back pages of the western newspapers. This decision which sees the Chinese vaccine being included in the Covax programme for the developing world will potentially benefit millions of people worldwide. It is a potential game changer especially for low income countries that cannot afford the investment in the highly expensive refrigerated infrastructure required by western vaccines.
Western media’s crude double standards on vaccines has led one international expert to comment in support of the Chinese vaccines. In a little publicised news report on whether Australia will accept Austrailians to return when they have received the Sinovac and Sinopharm vaccines, Prof. McLaws from the University of New South Wales noted that much of the skepticism which stems from a lack of peer reviewed data was without basis and even amounted in her words to “scientific racism”.
Prof. McLaws, it must be emphasised, is not the usual ideologically biased ‘expert’ commonly reported by western media. She is an acknowledged world leading epidemiologist whose COVID-19 related activities include membership of the WHO Health Emergencies Program Experts Advisory Panel for Infection Prevention and Control Preparedness, Readiness and Response to COVID-19. She is also the focal point of WHO’s Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network and plays a prominent role in some of Australia’s public health organizations.
Whilst some fair minded and non politically partisan scientists and journalists with integrity in the west may attempt to provide more balanced assessments and analysis of the many developments related to China, it is a fact of life for the Chinese government and Chinese public that they will have to live with a hostile, ideologically and racially discriminatory western mass media in the immediate and foreseeable future.