on the presidency, its censors and propaganda machine

kicked into gear.

The surprise move would clear the way for Xi Jinping

to stay in power indefinitely.

It's a break from China's decades-old rules

to prevent power from being too centralized around one person.

“In China, the most important political announcements

are made through the state-owned news organizations.

This explosive news was announced by Xinhua news agency

on Sunday in the afternoon.”

So how did officials try to spin the news?

On Weibo, China's version of Twitter, China.com

published this video focusing on the central role

of the president.

“In the face of the complicated domestic and international

situation, this will further promote

the sustainable development of various great causes.”

China Central Television ran a similar editorial,

stating that “the people love their dear leader.”

Global Times, a Chinese daily, published an editorial

recommending that people “firmly support the

constitution amendment suggestion, which is both the rational choice

and our belief.”

But the same day, it published an editorial

that depicted the news in a softer light,

saying, “The change doesn't mean that the Chinese president will

have a lifelong tenure.”

The People's Liberation Army Daily

is the voice of the military.

It published a write-up saying that soldiers

and armed policemen all support the decision.

"President Xi Jinping has consolidated

his control of the army, and all of the soldiers

are supporting him 100 percent."

State-run media tried to control the narrative in Hong Kong, too.

“That video was made by the Ta Kung Pao.

It's a pro-Beijing Hong Kong newspaper.

And I think the most important part of the video

is trying to let people know that the Chinese constitution

actually had been changed four times

in the past several decades.

So it's not a big deal.

So people don't need to freak out.”

But not everyone was on board.

Chinese citizens took to social media networks

to voice their disagreements.

One user said he couldn't use the word “disagree” on Weibo,

because it was apparently a violation

of the social platform's terms.

But perhaps not surprisingly, those comments

were swiftly removed from the web.