Comparison Study On News Frames Of South China Sea Disputes In The Mainstream Media Of China,America And ASEAN

In recent years,around the hot topic of the South China Sea disputes,China,the United States,ASEAN and other stakeholders have constructed an intricate international public opinion field.This is an excellent window to observe the different reporting strategies of different countries' media based on different interests.What kind of news framework have different media established in the South China Sea dispute report?What is the difference between each other?What kind of reporting tendency and value orientation are reflected?The empirical clues observed through this window undoubtedly have typical enlightenment and academic significance for understanding the prejudice in international communication and the factors influencing the effect of international communication.Based on the perspective of framework theory,this paper adopts the high,medium and low frame structure of Guoren Zang,this paper selects 102 reports of China Daily,111 of The New York Times,and 326 of the Jakarta Post on South China Sea dispute from July 2010 to October 2018,using content analysis and text analysis method to summarize the differences of frames between the three media,and analyze the reporting tendencies and value orientations behind the news frames.Based on data analysis results,The study found that:1.There is no significant difference in the number of reports in the basic framework,and they all show obvious periodicity over time,but there are significant differences in report length,report genre and report tendency.2.In terms of the high-level framework,this paper finds that the three have different interpretations of the nature definition,responsibility attribution,moral judgment and solution measures of the South China Sea dispute.The media of different countries have chosen different high-level reporting frameworks from their respective interests.3.In terms of middle-level frame,through the selection and reorganization of major events,previous events,history,attribution,assessment,results,and influence,the New York Times,China Daily,and Jakarta Post respectively constructed a middle-level framework centered on military conflict,positive progress,and risk response.4.In terms of low-level frame,China Daily uses lots of words that can demonstrate the positive progress of the South China Sea dispute and the peaceful and friendly relations between the countries in the region;However,the New York Times used a large number of conflicting and stimulating military war words in the report,deliberately exaggerating the contradictions and conflicts of different countries;Although Indonesia has its own interests in the South China Sea,high-frequency keywords show that peace","stability","security" and "cooperation"are still the main tone of the Jakarta Post.The Chinese and American media have their own words on the South China Sea issue,and the Indonesian media have tried to maintain balance and neutrality in their reports.This paper argues that in the regional international issues represented by the South China Sea dispute,the role of the“second international public opinion field”of regional countries cannot be ignored.In order to enhance the international communication ability of Chinese media in Southeast Asia,In addition to the public opinion war with the Western media on the"first international public opinion field",we must also pay close attention to the second international public opinion field",and strive for regional audiences in a swinging and "split" state.