IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/chnrpt/v56y2020i1p39-59.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Different Countries, Different Perspectives: A Comparative Analysis of the South China Sea Disputes Coverage by Malaysian and Chinese Newspapers

Author

Listed:
  • Yang Lai Fong

    (Department of Journalism, Xiamen University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)

  • Ramachandran Ponnan

    (School of Communication, Taylor’s University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)

  • Antoon De Rycker

    (School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Berjaya University College, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)

Abstract

The South China Sea disputes involve both island and maritime claims among several sovereign states within the region, namely China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei, Vietnam and Taiwan. Framing an analysis of international news and diplomatic relations allows researchers to examine how news organisations provide their audiences with context regarding news stories through content promotion and exclusion. This study examined how the Malaysian and Chinese newspapers reported about the South China Sea disputes and Malaysia–China bilateral relations. The findings indicated that the newspapers reported the topics with different intensity and prominence, while different news sources were employed. It was also found that conflict was a salient frame used by the various newspapers. In addition, this study found that the Malaysian and Chinese newspapers exhibited different valence in reporting the South China Sea disputes. Among the Malaysian newspapers under examination in this study, Sin Chew Daily (a Chinese-language daily) employed the most similar frame to that of the Chinese newspapers, where the coverage was pervasive with supportive valence towards China.

Suggested Citation

  • Yang Lai Fong & Ramachandran Ponnan & Antoon De Rycker, 2020. "Different Countries, Different Perspectives: A Comparative Analysis of the South China Sea Disputes Coverage by Malaysian and Chinese Newspapers," China Report, , vol. 56(1), pages 39-59, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:chnrpt:v:56:y:2020:i:1:p:39-59
    DOI: 10.1177/0009445519895627
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0009445519895627
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0009445519895627?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:chnrpt:v:56:y:2020:i:1:p:39-59. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.