A Study On New York Times' Reports About March 14 Unrest And July 5 Unrest

New York Times focused on China from its founding, and it reported many aspects of China. Because of its influence growing each day by day, its reports about China are worth to research. For finding out the true colours of its reports about March 14 and July 5 unrest and hunting its inherent laws, the reports which published on New York Times' website (http://www.nytimes.com/) are researched in this thesis.Previous studies believe that western media are inclined to quote the secessionist forces's words rather than citations of Chinese govenrment's supporters. And the research in charpter two shows that this viewpoint cannot be supported effectively. But, New York Times handles China's official information sources and private information sources in different ways, and it deviates its way in reporting sudden occurrence as well as different explanations after the citation of information sources. In these ways, it makes China and Chinese government's opposite side more important.Then, this thesis analyse this problem in these ways:the basic principles of New York Times's reporting policies; the obedience of these principles in its reports about March 14 and July 5 unrest; the comparison of the reports about March 14 and July 5 unrest and similar reports refering other countries. And the result is that New York Times dose not obey these principles in today's reports about March 14 and July 5 unrest, and New York Times obey these principles better in the reports about the countries which share similar cultural and political features than the reports about the countries which do not.Finally, in this thesis, there is a reflection of this phenomenon:it has a direct relationship with the distrust towards government of American political culture and the attention of the individuals as a part of the society.