The case of China demonstrates how public diplomacy reflects the molding of mass public opinion ideological state apparatuses in both countries. Misconceptions on both sides are the result of ISA structures. For example, Americans generally admire China and its culture, but see it as an adversary at the very least and a threat at most. Chinese also admire America and its people but see it as an adversary if not a threat as well. While the Chinese believe they are a developing nation with a very large poor population, Americans generally see China as a wealthy overall, if not the wealthiest nation on earth trying to sideline the US.
Both Chinese and Americans see each other's country as very important - America is the most important country for the Chinese behind Russia, EU, and Japan. Nevertheless, the Chinese believe that the US is pursuing a containment policy - economic, military, and political containment - of China, and US is doing so by lining up other nations in the containment campaign. Most Americans polled believe that their country will become second-best to China during this century, a view that Americans entertained in the late 1980s and early 1990s about Japan. How does the common person formulate such views in China or the US, views that have some element of truth but which are largely the result of public diplomacy and ISA structures, which of course include "Twitting" as part of the 'open and democratic' process.
Amid a very serious and deep global recession (2008-present), public diplomacy has not worked any better to convince the world that the market economy best serves the public interest. A BBC poll finds that in 27 nations only 11% believe free market capitalism works and oppose further government regulation, while 23% respond that it is a detrimental system and about half believe government regulation can address the market's flaws. Just as disappointing I am certain both to financial markets and governments, especially US & EU, the majority believe that globalization and foreign investment are growing too fast and not serving the broader societal interest. In some global and US public opinion polls, corporations are viewed as enjoying inordinate power over governments, in others, only a small percentage want greater government regulation to control the role of corporations in society. Naturally, those familiar with polling know that the types of questions and the way they are asked makes a big difference in how a person responds to secure the desired result for the sponsor of the opinion poll, which is itself a tool withing the larger framework of ISA structure.
For many centuries throughout much of the world, religion was at the core of ISA structure; religion intertwined with politics was the most efficacious instrument of influencing public opinion. In the age of high tech mass communications, the "Twitting" is not merely a new tool, but a new religion designed to capture peoples' hearts and minds. The question is for whose ultimate benefit is this new 'Twitting' religion working, and does it have any traces of 'democracy'?