Analysis Of The Framework In The Media Coverage Of The "South China Sea Arbitration" By The Media From China, The Philippines And The United States

Modern international conflicts have been transformed from hard power conflicts such as the economy and the military to discourse conflicts dominated by the media.In the event of a dispute,the mainstream media,as the government’s "representative",is an important field for snatching international discourse rights,setting the media agenda,and guiding international public opinion."The South China Sea Arbitration" in 2016 provided opportunities for the media from neighboring countries,the United States and Japan to enter China’s affairs.After the complex and cross-cultural spread of different regions,languages,and civilizations around the world,the national image,the nature of the incident,the causes of the conflict,and the risks that have been generated have undergone various degrees of discrepancy.Discourse disputes and framework differences.The depiction and interpretation of arbitration events by American media with the hegemonic discourse influence not only the direction of international public opinion but also the effect of Chinese media ’s external communication.Therefore,this study took the case of "The South China Sea Arbitration"as an example to examine the reports of dispute center national media and American media,introduce the "interpretive packages" derived from William A · Gamson,and draw disputes from the interaction between "national" and "other countries".The narrative discourse,interpretation logic,and dominant framework of the event reveal the cultural dynamics of the differences and conflicts in the reporting framework,and summarize the strategies for promoting China’s international discourse power.This article is divided into five chapters.The first chapter selects the samples of the mainstream media in the three countries in July 2016,rewrites the orientation of "interpretive packages" of Gamson,and constructs a framework analysis matrix.The second chapter analyzes the framework of the report and finds that the Chinese media has adopted a historical narrative discourse to construct a complex,disordered,and contradictory arbitration event,conveying the firm determination of "China’s claim to historical sovereignty is unquestionable" and using a written metaphor.Rhetoric completes the transmission of events and attitudes.The Philippine media used a distorted narrative to explain that "accomplishing the Arbitration Tribunal is a helpless move" and has created a tense but gradually improving situation in the South China Sea,using editorial comic metaphors for ideological rich and vague political discourse.U.S.media use strategic narratives for powerful concept production and meaning-giving functions to label countries participating in this game,divide roles,structure plots,and set up conflicts to build a multi-faceted South China Sea situation that is resistant to tension.The third chapter starts from the reporting inference device and analyzes the logic behind the narrative discourse.Chinese media believe that the "South China Sea Arbitration Case" is an "illegal farce" starring at the front desk and behind the scenes.It will create security and legal risks,and proposes measures for both China and the Philippines to return to bilateral negotiations.The Philippines believes that the "decision" of an arbitration case is a "decision of a milestone," and that the dispute is in fact the result of a conflict of interest and the confrontation of a powerful nation.China’s obstinate clinging will bring military and legal risks to the region,so the Philippines has sought to seek in this case.Neutral position.The United States believes that "decision" is the decision to uphold the international order.Territory competition and the rise of China are the real causes of the dispute.China’s refusal to implement the verdict results will bring risks to international relations and China’s national image.Based on the foregoing analysis,the fourth chapter summarizes the dominant framework adopted by the three countries’ media.The Chinese media used the "sovereign" framework to construct an external publicity discourse based on our own through the concentration of media resources and the use of high-trust sources.The Philippine media constructed a "legal" framework that portrayed global reports to create an objectively neutral independent country image and used two-pronged tips and photo-dissemination techniques to reduce barriers to external communication.U.S.media follow the "Cold War" framework,using information filtering mechanisms and constructing "Cold War thinking" vocabulary to complete the export of dominant values.Finally,the fifth chapter summarizes the full text.The distance of communication,cultural identity and segmentation,and the difference in context are the causes of discrepancies between reporting discourse and frame conflict.At the same time,several opinions were raised on how to improve China’s international discourse rights.