Framing a Global Pandemic: Journalism Cultures and Media Coverage of COVID-19 in China, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Health Communication Pub Date : 2025-01-19 DOI:10.1080/10410236.2025.2450854
Muhammad Ittefaq, Hong Tien Vu, Anh Tu Dao, Duc Vinh Tran, Cole Hansen
{"title":"Framing a Global Pandemic: Journalism Cultures and Media Coverage of COVID-19 in China, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States.","authors":"Muhammad Ittefaq, Hong Tien Vu, Anh Tu Dao, Duc Vinh Tran, Cole Hansen","doi":"10.1080/10410236.2025.2450854","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Using a computational approach, this study analyzes and compares news coverage of the novel coronavirus in six major newspapers (i.e. <i>China Daily</i>, <i>The Korea Times</i>, <i>The New York Times</i>, <i>Chicago Tribune</i>, <i>The Guardian</i>, and <i>The Times</i>) from four countries (i.e. the U.S. the UK, South Korea, and China) that were severely affected in the beginning of the recent pandemic. Results show similarities and differences in how these elite newspapers used major frames of COVID-19 including <i>medical</i>, <i>social</i>, and <i>containment</i> during the first months of the pandemic. <i>China Daily</i>, however, adopted an additional frame of <i>fending off</i>. Statistical test results also indicated differences in how these outlets incorporated fear appeal messages into their news content. Specifically, the Western news organizations were significantly more likely than the Asian outlets to use fear in their coverage. Findings are discussed in the context of differences in the journalism culture and media coverage of the pandemic in the four studied countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":12889,"journal":{"name":"Health Communication","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2025.2450854","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Using a computational approach, this study analyzes and compares news coverage of the novel coronavirus in six major newspapers (i.e. China Daily, The Korea Times, The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, The Guardian, and The Times) from four countries (i.e. the U.S. the UK, South Korea, and China) that were severely affected in the beginning of the recent pandemic. Results show similarities and differences in how these elite newspapers used major frames of COVID-19 including medical, social, and containment during the first months of the pandemic. China Daily, however, adopted an additional frame of fending off. Statistical test results also indicated differences in how these outlets incorporated fear appeal messages into their news content. Specifically, the Western news organizations were significantly more likely than the Asian outlets to use fear in their coverage. Findings are discussed in the context of differences in the journalism culture and media coverage of the pandemic in the four studied countries.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
构建全球大流行:中国、韩国、英国和美国对COVID-19的新闻文化和媒体报道。
本研究使用计算方法,分析和比较了在最近的大流行开始时受到严重影响的四个国家(即美国,英国,韩国和中国)的六家主要报纸(即中国日报,韩国时报,纽约时报,芝加哥论坛报,卫报和泰晤士报)对新型冠状病毒的新闻报道。结果显示,在大流行的头几个月,这些精英报纸在如何使用COVID-19的主要框架(包括医疗、社会和遏制)方面存在异同。然而,《中国日报》采取了一种额外的防御框架。统计测试结果还表明,这些媒体在将恐惧呼吁信息纳入新闻内容方面存在差异。具体来说,西方新闻机构比亚洲媒体更有可能在报道中使用恐惧。研究结果在四个被研究国家的新闻文化和媒体报道的差异背景下进行了讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
10.30%
发文量
184
期刊介绍: As an outlet for scholarly intercourse between medical and social sciences, this noteworthy journal seeks to improve practical communication between caregivers and patients and between institutions and the public. Outstanding editorial board members and contributors from both medical and social science arenas collaborate to meet the challenges inherent in this goal. Although most inclusions are data-based, the journal also publishes pedagogical, methodological, theoretical, and applied articles using both quantitative or qualitative methods.
期刊最新文献
Engaging Minoritized Communities in Clinical Trials Through Social Media: Recommendations from Community-Based Participatory Research. "Just Listen … Really Listen": Expectations of Youth When Disclosing Mental Health Concerns with Parents. Other Management of Patient Privacy: How Physicians Navigate Disclosure of Late-Stage Cancer in China's General Hospitals. Examining Social Support Conversations on Reddit During COVID-19 Using Computational Methods. Decoding the Discourse: Analyzing the Linguistic Features and Strategies Behind the Querdenken Movement's COVID-19 Narrative.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1