CGTN is a Chinese state-run broadcaster; they themselves chose to use the phrasing “China does thing”. It may be in an effort to present a more unified face for the widely varied research happening in China, as well as showing a more easily-understood headline for Western audiences.
There’s another way to find this out. Just one tap to CGTN homepage. Try to read how they describe government news, domestic news, and international news.
It's more that you don't really get any headlines out of China that aren't from or laundered through Chinese English-language media first. Whereas in the West, universities send their PR pieces to the Western media directly. No normal journalist is trolling Arxiv or Nature or whatever for juicy papers, and certainly not Chinese-language journals: they're just rehashing the media release, usually uncritically. Which is why you hear about every time someone sneezes near a new battery chemistry that "may revolutionise energy storage" but "needs more research into mass production methods" at MIT but almost never at Tsinghua, unless it's done the rounds first and caused a stir in the domain-specific publications.
True, but mostly from rags like the Sun and Express, which are only loosely allied to the concept of journalism in general, let alone technological reporting. Also the Register, but that is deliberately riffing on the tabloid headline tropes.
I believe the same, but also, on paper, China is supposedly communistic, so there should only be one "China" to talk of (and, no, I'm not making some subtle statement about anything else.) Perhaps that's the agenda for CGTN in particular.
Growing up in Poland all we heard in the news was that "American scientists found that..."
The article could mention the relevant institution but the headline never would as it would rather confuse the reader.
If you think it should be phrased differently, you should tell it to CGTN, China's Beijing-based state-run media. HN merely accurately transcribed their headline, as per the site rules.
I read it as similar to the US espousing how its researchers developed something.
Not really a big deal, though I'd have... you know... linked to the actual paper or maybe mentioned the professor's name more prominently.
I think most stuff I read emphasizes institute and researchers more heavily, but I can see why anyone doing public research might want to expand the scope of credit.
"American scientists discovered that..." really isn't that uncommon though? At least quite common in German news.
I guess when you're inside a country which produces the news, the actual location inside that country matters more than for people outside that country ...
E.g. for the US what's commonly called Americentrism - I guess a similar term exists for China.
Is this also common for EU/USA? Do we say "UK developers new method for ..." or "Researchers at Cambridge"?
I swear I'm not making any political statements, just wondering why we treat it as a homogeneous entity.