A Coparative Framing Analysis Of American Major Media's Coverage Of American Ban On Huawei 5G

Since the China-United States trade war,hi-tech industry has played a more and more important role in the competition.The Trump administration attempts to contain China's rise by banning Huawei and its 5G technology,while it has also tried to spread the ban over the world.The ban has not only become crucial for the trade war,but also exerts great effects on all the countries.Therefore,the international mainstream media have covered this hot event and implied various stands.This paper makes a comparative framing analysis of three major American newspapers(The New York Times,The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post)on the topic of American ban on Huawei 5G.The research is mainly based on Framing Theory and Gamson's Theory of Interpretive Package.The news samples are selected with the keys words of “HUAWEI” “5G” and “BAN” from May 2019 to May 2020 from the three newspapers.The content analysis is first applied and thus the major frames are concluded by inference.Then,the frames and texts are concluded into “signature matrices” with the help of “framing devices” and“reasoning devices”.By comparison and analysis,the paper probes into the different frames of three major American media,aimed to explore the inconsistency in their reporting features and the consistency in their reporting preference regarding the same Chinese issue.Besides,the paper attempts to discuss the findings from the view of national ideology,partisan stance and target group.In addition,the research tends to rich the case study of framing analysis.Through careful analysis,several findings have come to light.The first finding is based on the content analysis.On the whole: the past one year has seen a zigzag decline in the number of the news;most news are biased and published as correspondences;the news mainly focus on the American measures as well as the attitude of other countries towards Huawei;the major citations are the comments from American politicians.In comparison: among the three newspapers,The New York Times covers the event in a largest number and is most likely to cite the American officials in its relatively balanced reporting;The Wall Street Journal pays the most attention to Huawei's reaction and prefer the comments from commercial circles,while it is most likely to report the event in a objective manner;The Washington Post pays least attention to the event and prefer the remarks from partisans and experts,while the themes of its news are relatively one-sided and it tends to be most biased among the three.Furthermore,five major frames has been generalized with the help of the first finding,that is “Huawei Threat” “Ban Hampered” “Firms Damaged” “Ban Waver”and “Backfired Results”.The most significant one is “Huawei Threat”.The second finding is based on the “Interpretive Package”.On the whole:“Huawei Threat” is the most conspicuous frame in the “signature matrices”,since it appears at each ban stage and in each newspaper.In respective: The New York Times represents three frames “Huawei Threat” “Ban Hampered” and “Ban Hampered”through the early,intermediate and later period;The Wall Street Journal includes frames of “Firms Damaged” “Huawei Threat” and “Ban Hampered”;The Washington Post builds up frames of “Ban Waver” “Backfired Results” and “Huawei Threat”.Thus The New York Times first shows the influence,then the causes and last the results,while The Wall Street Journal first reports the causes,then the process and the influence.Besides,The Washington Post first stresses the conflicts,then the results and last the causes.The third finding is based on the analysis of interpretive frames and symbolic devices.On the whole,there is the overt bias against China and Huawei because of the different national ideology and the great challenge posed by rising China against the US,which shows the American papers' duty to serve the country.In comparison,the three newspapers have respective reporting features due to the preference of different parties and target audiences.Specifically,The New York Times caters to the upper political circles and tends to demonstrate the major point of views of the American government and sets up a image of “dangerous” Huawei under the control of the autocratic Chinese government,meanwhile it prefers to blame the republican government for its incompetency due to the democratic stance of the paper.The Wall Street Journal caters to entrepreneurs and most business people,so it pays more attention to the interest of American firms and tends to cover the event from a more professional business perspective,which helps to build up a more substantial Huawei image of a ambitious and competent international company,meanwhile it has the stance tendency towards republicans and is more likely to stress the extrinsic reasons for the hampered ban.The Washington Post caters to partisans and various political interest groups and also tends to look for middle grounds between two parties,so it confirms the threat of Huawei,but its attitude towards hampered ban is ambiguous.