Sanrio Ends Vivant Collaboration After Chinese State Media and Online Backlash
Photo: The New York TimesSanrio, the Japanese company behind Hello Kitty and Kuromi, announced on Thursday that it would no longer pursue a collaboration with the Japanese television drama "Vivant," after Chinese state media condemned the partnership. Sanrio's Chinese branch said it would end the tie-up following criticism from the public and state outlets. The thriller features a fictional Chinese intelligence agency that apprehends Japanese spies and depicts Chinese spies as violent, which many Chinese viewers found offensive and which set off fierce online backlash. The state-run Global Times said Sanrio was letting its characters be used to spread messaging tied to "Japan's right-wing forces" and an "anti-China narrative." The show's creators defend it, saying it is completely fictional. Its story follows a salaryman, a white-collar worker, in Japan.
The left-leaning New York Times asks how "Vivant" became a target of Beijing's anger, focusing on the show itself and the intense criticism it has drawn. It gives the creators' defense that the series is "completely fictional" and, in the portion provided, does not cover the Sanrio tie-up. Breitbart, on the right, leads with Sanrio and frames the episode as "China Declares War on Hello Kitty." It stresses Communist Party condemnation and Global Times claims, argues the collaboration was not aimed at Chinese consumers, and ties the case to what it calls Chinese transnational censorship of pop culture, citing Kylian Mbappé's apology and lost sponsorships after he called Mao Zedong a "dictator." Both sides agree that Beijing objected to the depiction of Chinese spies. They differ in emphasis: the Times gives the creators' fictional-work defense, while Breitbart uses loaded language and a wider censorship narrative. The Times of India, an alternative source, stands out for centering Sanrio's business fallout and the end of the partnership.
How the sides differ Left sources explain why Beijing is angry and note the creators' defense; right sources frame it as Chinese censorship, linking it to the Mbappé case; alternative sources stress Sanrio's retreat.
Headline, comparison and summary written by AI from the articles below. AI can make mistakes, so check the original articles before relying on a detail.
The New York Times examines why the spy drama drew Beijing's anger and features the creators' defense that the show is completely fictional.
The Times of India focuses on Sanrio's trouble in China, the online and state media backlash, and the Chinese branch ending the partnership.
Breitbart leads with state media condemnation of Sanrio, frames it as Chinese censorship of pop culture, and links it to Kylian Mbappé's apology over Mao.