National Interest and
Coverage of U.S.-China Relations:
A Content Analysis of
The New York Times & People's Daily
1987-1996
By
Xigen Li
917 A Cherry Lane
East Lansing, MI 48823
Phone: 517-355-7980
Email: [log in to unmask]
A paper to be presented at the Association for Education
in Journalism and Mass Communication Annual Convention
New Orleans, August 1999
Xigen Li is a Graduate
of the Mass Media Ph.D. Program
in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences
at Michigan State University
June 1999
ABSTRACT
This study tested the effect of national interest on the coverage of
U.S.-China relations by The New York Times and People's Daily. It examined the
relationship between extramedia variables and the news coverage, and the
relationship between national interest emphasis in the news coverage and the
references to trade and non-trade political issues. The findings support the
proposition that national interest affects the coverage of U.S.-China relations
both in The New York Times and People's Daily. However, neither extramedia
variables nor intramedia variables were found to be strong predictors of the
news content for both newspapers. In The New York Times, emphasis on national
interest was associated only with reference to trade, while in People's Daily,
emphasis on national interest was associated only with reference to non-trade
political issues. There was not much difference between The New York Times and
People's Daily that their coverage of U.S.-China relations was affected by
national interest.
Research on international news examines who controls the news,[1] what factors
influence news selection,[2] and the attributes which affect news content.[3] In
the coverage of international news, although study shows that media speak for
the nation,[4] it is not so clear to what degree that national interest affects
news content. Few studies have investigated the influence of national interest
on news content, whether demonstrated through political and economic environment
and events as extramedia variables, or through reference to national interest in
the news content as intramedia variables.
This study examines national media coverage of U.S.-China relations in their
respective elite newspapers of record, The New York Times and People's Daily for
the 1987-1996 period. It explores the relationship between national interest
demonstrated through political and economic events and emphasis on national
interest in the news coverage, and the relationship between emphasis on national
interest and references to trade and non-trade political issues in the news
content.
Literature Review
The general theoretical framework for this study draws from the work of
Shoemaker and Reese (1996). They observed that news content is influenced by
several hierarchical factors. These factors range from the micro level (e.g. the
individual media worker, media routine, and media organization) to the macro
level (e.g. extramedia and ideology), graphically illustrated through concentric
circles of influences. The hierarchical circles illustrate that news content is
produced by individual media workers but it is influenced by the nature of the
particular news organization and the national economic and ideological
environment.[5]
Factors that influence news content
Shoemaker and Reese note that because media have relative autonomy, the
ruling powers cannot directly supervise this important cultural apparatus.
Thus, ideology serves as a unifying force situated in the outermost circle in
their model.[6]
Gitlin (1980) defines hegemony as the "systematic engineering of mass
consent to the established order." The media "certify the limits within which
all competing definitions of reality will contend". They do this largely by
accepting the frames imposed on events by officials and by marginalizing and
delegitimating voices that fall outside the dominant elite circles. [7]
In Raymond Williams'(1977) words, hegemony does not passively exist as a
form of dominance. It has continually to be renewed, recreated, defended, and
modified.[8] Existing cultural values are structured and interpreted to best
serve the interests of the dominant groups.
Galtung and Ruge (1970) suggest news is an ideological product in both
Communist and free market countries.[9]
The ideological perspective specifies the frame that the news media define
themselves. The media serve as means of the ruling power to produce and maintain
the dominant ideology by accepting the frames imposed by the powerful groups.
News as an ideological product, reflects the interest of the powerful in both
Western capitalist and Communist societies.
Extramedia perspective suggests that factors external to the communicator
and the media organization -- economic and cultural forces, social institutions
and audience -- determine content.[10]
Analyzing data from the American component of the UNESCO study, Ahern (1984)
found that, among extrinsic variables, GNP, trade, and political relations
exerted the most powerful influence on coverage. Trade was second in importance
after GNP, followed closely by political relations.[11]
Rosengren and Rikardsson (1984) found a relationship between trade and foreign
news coverage in their study of Mideast news in Swedish press.[12] Wu (1997)
discovered that trade played a key role in shaping foreign coverage in some
countries, but was not a significant determinant in the U.S.[13]
However, Lacy, Chang and Lau 's (1989) study of American newspaper content
found no relationship between economic factors and the news content, and they
argued that economic factors may not be strong predictors of coverage
patterns.[14]
Chang and Lee's (1990) survey suggested that economic
factorsDoperationalized as U.S. trade relations and a country's level of
economic developmentDwere of little importance in the editors' news selection
decisions.[15]
Cassara's (1992) study found that economic connections such as export
relationships did not influence the character of international news content in
the newspaper which serves that area.[16]
The influence of trade on news content is found at odds in the above
studies. The difference could be caused largely by the operational definition of
dependent variables. One aspect that most studies missed is the time associated
with the independent variable trade. Trade relations are changing with the
bilateral and multilateral relations. A study will shed more light on the
relationship between trade and international news coverage if it integrates the
change of trade relationship across a period of time into the inquiry of the
impact of trade.
Government views are considered a strong extramedia factor influencing media
content. Zeidenstein (1984) described the government's influence on the media
succinctly: "The White House can influence - if not completely control - the
content, timing, and methods of publicizing the news".[17]
Graber (1993) found foreign news tends to emanate primarily from various beats
in the executive branch, especially the White House, the State Department, and
the Pentagon. The president's views tend to dominate whenever situations are
controversial.[18]
According to Parenti (1986), the government influences the media substantially
by providing information and misinformation designed deliberately to present a
specific point of view.[19]
In her study of media coverage of Indochina from 1950 to 1956, Welch (1977)
found that the press response mirrored administration perceptions of the
struggle. She found the American media were incapable of perceiving the
Indochina case any differently than did the administration because the media did
not have an independent frame of reference.[20]
While government was unanimously considered to be a strong factor
influencing news coverage, to what degree that the major decision makers of a
government such as the president of the United States can affect news coverage
on specific issues in foreign relations remains a question largely unsolved.
Altschull (1984) has proposed a framework for studying variations within
owner control of the media. He starts with the assumption that media reflect the
ideology of those that finance them, i.e., whoever pay the piper calls the
tune.[21]
Herman and Chomsky (1988) assume that media serve the dominant elite. They
argue that this is just as true when the media are privately owned without
formal censorship, as when they are directly controlled by the state.[22]
In recommending media routine approach, Paul Hirsh (1977) says that the
mass media may serve different functions, but they share many organizational
similarities that outweigh many of the differences.[23]
It is easy to perceive that the media speak for the group who finances
them. Here the organizational perspective reveals some hidden fact: even though
the media are not financed by the government, they are in many ways controlled
by the state. On the national level, the private newspaper such as The New York
Times serves the dominant elite and preserves the best long-term interest of the
capitalist system.
National Interest and Coverage of U.S.-China Relations
Allison (1971) proposed rational actor model for explaining and predicting
a nation's foreign policy. This model essentially assumes that a nation is a
rational, goal-seeking, and unitary decisionmaker. It assumes there is some
shared goal or national interest for the decisionmaker to obtain. The rational
actor will develop alternatives from which the most effective means will be
selected to maximize the goal.[24]
The rational actor can be defined here as those key politicians and
bureaucrats in the executive branch, including the president, who, on the whole,
are more likely to make a national view as they respond to the parochial
concerns of either social groups or particular governmental institutions.
Krasner (1978) maintained that because high-level decisionmakers perceive their
roles as protecting and promoting national security interest, they act upon
their autonomous set of preferences. [25]
Tan observed that the United States would define U.S. China policies
primarily according to shifting strategic balance of power while maximizing
other foreign policy interests. Policymakers have certain parameters identifying
policy objectives. In the conduct of national foreign policy, national survival
and strategic interests, either military or economic, preempt other policy
objectives. [26]
Gregor observed, national interests of China are not often comparable with
the national and foreign policy interests of the United States, and many of the
interests China shares with the big powers are transient..[27]
Zweig (1991) observed that for many years, the strategic imperative has
protected Sino-American relations. The positive images of China after 1978
pushed human rights far down the list of issues in Sino-American relations.[28]
Mower, Jr. (1987) also noted that Both Carter and Reagan subordinated human
rights to national security and national interest.[29]
The literature on national interest and U.S.-China relations asserts that both
United States and China pursuit their respective national interest in the
bilateral relationship, and national interest shifts as their strategic
partnership changes. U.S.-China trade and human rights in China remain to be the
major source of conflict in U.S.-China relations. While advocating human rights
is the ultimate goal of the United States, American policy on human rights in
China has been inconsistent, and has been altered either by the strategic
imperative and the pulse of economic gain in trade with China.
While there is an argument about whether media play an active role in foreign
policy process, researchers tend to agree that in international news coverage,
media focus more on the events and issues that represent the national
interest,[30] especially the elite newspapers that are read by policy makers.
Chang's survey of American newspaper editors suggested that their primary
concerns centered on coverage of U.S. interests and involvements abroad and
threats to world peace.[31]
According to Herbert Gans (1979), foreign news in the U.S. media covers
stories relevant to Americans and American interests. Gans found that
international news concentrates on American activities in a foreign country, and
foreign activities affecting Americans and American policy.[32]
Paletz and Entman (1981) argued that international reporting tends to be
monolithic and consistent with US foreign policy because they rely almost
exclusively on sources sympathetic to representing the American interest.
America's diplomatic aims are honorable: American corporate profits and
investments must be protected when threatened. [33]
Kern et al. (1983)[34] and Goodman (1996)[35] found that The New York Times is
among the media that are most independent of government. When the government
gave limited to great attention to specific China policy issues, the press did
not follow suit.
Lee and Yang (1995) used national interest as a predictor of coverage of the
Chinese student movement by the U.S. and Japanese press from April to June in
1989. They argued that the vital interest of the United States was winning
ideological victories in the Cold war, whereas Japan's paramount concern was
economic gain. These distinctive national interests led to different treatments
of the Chinese student movement in the Japanese and U.S. press coverage.[36]
De Sola Pool (1952) points out that the elite press speaks for the
interests of its own country, regardless of the nature of the political system.
The "prestige paper" is always in some way tied to the government, the degree of
intimacy being a function of the politization of the particular elite.[37]
Although few studies looked at the effect of national interest on the
coverage of international news, the scholars agreed upon that national interest
is one of the factors that guides media in their news coverage, and the vital
national interest may distinguish the media in their coverage of international
events, which explains the phenomenon in international reporting: elite press
speaks for the nation.
Hypotheses
The literature review on factors that influence news content suggests that
factors outside and inside media influence news content in a hierarchical order.
The literature on national interest and U.S.-China relations reveals that the
decision-makers act upon situations in international relations according to
their perceived national interest. Despite that many studies found that
government is one of the most powerful factors in influencing the coverage of
international news, few studies have looked at how national interest perceived
by the key players in international relations and represented through political
and economic events affects news coverage.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of factors
associated with national interest on the news content. We propose use real-time
indictors of the national interest in U.S.-China relations, namely, U.S.
investment in China, U.S.-China trade status, and related concerns raised by the
U.S. president and China's government on U.S.-China economic trade and non-trade
political issues, to test the notion that news content has been driven by
national interest.
National Interest is defined as the basis upon which a country makes its
decision in international relations to minimize the cost and maximize the
benefit. National Interest in the context of news coverage of U.S.-China
relations refers to the verbal denotations of a concern or a stand regarding a
nation's benefit or loss in its relationship with the other country. Reference
to National Interest is categorized into Trade interest and Non-Trade interest.
The selection of national interest as an indicator of news coverage of
U.S.-China relations serves a second purpose: to test whether the priority
national interest in trade related issues will transcend the interest contained
in the dominant ideology as indicated in the literature of political science and
Lee and Young's study. The underlying assumption would be: the national interest
embedded in U.S.-China trade could surpass the dominant ideology in directing
the news coverage of U.S.-China relations by The New York Times at the time when
trade interest was dominant. In the case of People's Daily, it could also be
true as what has already been observed in the process of China's economic
development in recent years.[38]
Based on the theoretical framework, two groups of hypotheses were derived.
Each group containing several hypotheses which apply to both newspapers. The
following hypotheses groups corresponding respectively to The New York Times and
People's Daily were tested.
HG1. Relationship between Extramedia Variables and News Content
The New York Times
People's Daily
Independent var
Dependent var
Independent var
Dependent var
1) U.S. investment in China increases
Emphasis on national trade interest increases
1) U.S. investment in China increases
Emphasis on national trade interest increases
2) U.S. trade deficit with China increases
Negative reference to trade increases
2) China trade surplus with U.S. increases
Positive reference to trade increases
3) U.S.- China trade increases
Reference to trade increases
3) U.S.-China trade increases
Reference to trade increases
4) More U.S.-China trade issues in Presidential Papers
More emphasis on national trade interest in coverage
4) More U.S.-China trade issues in Chinese government papers
More emphasis on national trade interest in coverage
5) More non-trade political issue in Presidential Papers
More reference to non-trade political issue
5) More non-trade political issue in government papers
More reference to non-trade political issue
Hypothesis group 1 tests the relationship between the real life indicators
of U.S. and China's national interests and the emphasis on national interest in
the news coverage. They explore to what degree respective government concerns
on U.S.-China relations were reflected in the coverage by the two newspapers.
The hypotheses are based on the assumptions 1) that the elite press speaks for
the interests of its own country, regardless of the nature of the political
system; 2) U.S.-China trade is considered an important issue in U.S.-China
relations, involving national interest of both countries. The common interest
involved in U.S.-China trade is likely to generate similar patterns in dealing
with the issues relating to trade in the coverage of U.S.-China relations by the
two newspapers.
HG2. Relationship between Intramedia Variables
The New York Times
People's Daily
Independent var
Dependent var
Independent var
Dependent var
6) More emphasis on national interest
More reference to trade
6) More emphasis on national interest
More reference to trade
7) More reference to trade
Fewer reference to non-trade political issue
7) More reference to trade
Fewer reference to non-trade political issue
8) More U.S. trade interest emphasis
Fewer reference to non-trade political issues
8) More China Trade Interest Emphasis
More reference to non-trade political issues
Hypothesis group 2 examines the relationship between the issues involving
national interest in the coverage of U.S.-China relations, including emphasis on
national interest, reference to trade and non-trade political issues, and
portrayal of U.S.-China relations. It is expected that emphasis on national
interest is associated with references to trade and non-trade political issues.
The issues relating to trade are entwined with non-trade political issues, and
the degree to which that trade issues are involved in the news coverage is
likely to affect the portrayal of U.S.-China relations.
Method
This study was conducted through a content analysis. A ten-year period
(1987-1996) U.S.-China relations coverage by The New York Times and People's
Daily was selected for analysis. The coverage of U.S.-China relations is
defined as hard news and feature stories reporting the current events,
institutional and personal experience relating to U.S.-China relations, such as
government actions, business activities, and personal adventures.
The study period was selected for the following reasons: U.S. and China
went through both a relatively stable relationship and turbulent relationship in
this period. On the U.S. side, 1) It covers three U.S. presidencies, and their
concerns relating to U.S.-China relations varied; 2) Some major issues
concerning U.S.-China relations arose during the period, such as Human Rights in
China and annual renewal of Most Favorite Nation status. On the Chinese side,
1) Transition of government leaders led to the changes in China's U.S. policy;
2) The major events such as Tiananmen Incident and Taiwanese President's visit
to U.S. drastically affected U.S.-China relations. The ten-year period also saw
a steady increase in U.S. investment in China, U.S.-China trade and the trade
deficit on the U.S. side. These are major influencing factors on U.S.-China
relations.
The New York Times was chosen because of its extensive coverage of foreign
policy news, and its prominence and influence on decision making.[39] It is
widely read by policy makers, journalists, and diplomatic community in and out
of Washington.[40]
People's Daily was chosen for its eminent status in China and its role as a
spokesperson for China's foreign policies.[41]
Edelstein (1982) noted that there is a world system of elite communication
as expressed by an "elite" or "prestige" press that speaks for these nations and
to elites in other nations.[42] The New York Times and People's Daily are
outstanding members of the world system of elite communication.
Presidential documents on U.S.-China relations during the ten-year period
were used to measure U.S. government concerns on U.S.-China relations. The
presidential documents included all the nonduplicate items listed in the Public
Papers of the Presidents of the United States and the Weekly Compilation of
Presidential Documents. These two sources cover all contemporary documents
released by the White House, including announcements, public speeches,
agreements, news conferences, messages to the Congress, and other materials.
For Chinese government concerns on U.S.-China relations, Chinese government
documents on U.S.-China relations during the ten-year period were used. The
Chinese government documents selected include all the nonduplicate items listed
in the Gazette of The State Council of The People's Republic of China. This
source covers all contemporary documents on domestic and international issues
released by the State Council of China, including issues regarding U.S.-China
relations.
The data regarding U.S. investment in China and U.S.-China trade during
1987-1996 ten-year period were obtained from Survey of Current Business
published by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. The periodical carries the
data on U.S. direct investment positions abroad and U.S. export, import and
merchandise trade balance by country.
To get a complete list of news stories on U.S.-China relations by The New
York Times and People's Daily during 1987 to 1996, the following sources were
consulted: Lexis-Nexis database, The New York Times Index, People's Daily Index
and People's Daily on microfilm.
All news items classified under the category "United States International
Relations - China" In The New York Times Index, beginning January 1, 1987,
ending December 31, 1996 are included. 427 stories were identified with a clear
theme of U.S.-China relations. Using "U.S. within 5 words China" and
"U.S.-China" as the key words, a total of 302 stories was identified through
Lexis-Nexis search. Combining the two lists of stories, and eliminate those that
appeared on both lists, we were left with 512 stories.
All news items classified under the category "China - United States" In The
People's Daily Index, beginning January 1, 1987, ending December 31, 1996 are
included. About 900 items were identified from People's Daily under the category
"China-United States" during the ten-year period. The search result from
People's Daily was double checked against People's Daily on the microfilm to
determine whether the news items matched the study purpose. A complete list of
the coverage of U.S.-China relations by People's Daily consists of 528 news
stories.
Forty percent of articles were selected for analysis annually from the
sampling frame, using systematic stratified sampling procedures. With the
adjustment to include at least ten stories for each year, 225 stories were
picked from The New York Times, and 230 stories were chosen from People's Daily
for content analysis.
The coding of news content was conducted according to the prescribed procedures
by Daniel Riffe et al (1998). [43] Three bilingual Chinese coders participated
in the coding. Scott's Pi was used to test the intercoder reliability for
nominal variables; Pearson's correlation coefficient was selected for ratio
variables. An intercoder reliability test result greater than .75 was deemed
satisfactory. For a 95 percent level of probability and an assumed 90 percent
agreement between the coders, 90 stories were selected for intercoder
reliability testing.[44] Each coder in the two groups was assigned respectively
a portion of The New York Times and People's Daily items of the remaining news
stories after satisfactory intercoder reliability was established. [45]
Findings
HG1. Relationship with Extramedia Variables
The New York Times
H1. The hypothesis that as U.S. investment in China increases, emphasis on
national trade interest increases is not supported. The correlation coefficient
between the extramedia variable U.S. investment growth in China and the emphasis
on national interest (trade) in The New York Times is .12. After controlling
for the variable U.S. trade with China, the partial correlation is reduced to
.11.
Table 1
Relationship between the Extramedia Variables and
The New York Times' coverage of U.S.-China Relations (1987-1996)
(N=225)
Variables
U.S. Investment in China
U.S. Trade
with China
U.S. Trade Deficit
U.S. Pres Trade Concern
U.S. Prest Non-Trade Concerns
U.S. Nat'l Interest
.14*
.08
.08
.12
-.02
U.S. Trade Interest
.12
.05
.05
.05
-.03
U.S. Non-Trade Intr
.07
.06
.06
.12
.01
Ref to Trade
.21**
.22**
.24**
.25**
-.15*
Ref to Trade Neg
.14*
.16*
.17**
.22**
-.11
Ref to Trade Pos
.21**
.20**
.22**
.15*
-.13
Ref to Non-Trade
.21**
.32**
.32**
.09
-.13
Ref to Non-Trade Neg
.12
.27**
.28**
.04
-.10
Ref Non- Trade Pos
.27**
.21**
.22**
.16*
-.10
** = p< 0.01 (2-tailed).
* = p< 0.05 (2-tailed).
H2. The hypothesis that as U.S. trade deficit with China increases,
negative reference to trade increases is not supported. The correlation
coefficient between the extramedia variable U.S. deficit in trade with China and
negative reference to trade in The New York Times is .17, which is statistically
significant. However, when controlling for U.S. investment growth in China, the
partial correlation is reduced to .12, which is statistically insignificant.
H3. The hypothesis that as U.S.-China trade increase, reference to trade
increases is partly supported. The correlation coefficient between U.S. trade
with China and references to trade is .22. When controlling for the variable
U.S. investment in China, the partial correlation is .14, which is statistically
significant.
H4. The hypothesis that more U.S.-China trade issues in presidential
papers, more emphasis on national trade interest in the coverage of U.S.-China
relations in The New York Times is not supported. The correlation coefficient
between the extramedia variable U.S. presidential concern on U.S.-China trade
and emphasis on national trade interest is .05, which is statistically
insignificant.
H5. The hypothesis that more non-trade political issues in presidential
papers, more reference to non-trade political issues in the coverage of
U.S.-China relations in The New York Times is not supported. The correlation
coefficient between the extramedia variable U.S. presidential concern on
non-trade political issues and references to non-trade political issues is -.13,
which is statistically insignificant.
People's Daily
H1. The hypothesis that as U.S. investment in China increases, emphasis on
national trade interest increases is not supported. The correlation coefficient
between the extramedia variable U.S. investment growth in China and the emphasis
on national trade interest in People's Daily is .09, which is statistically
insignificant.
Table 2
Relationship between the Extramedia Variables and
People's Daily's Coverage of U.S.-China Relations (1987-1996)
(N =230)
Variables
U.S. Investment in China
U.S. Trade
with China
China Trade Surplus
China Govnmt Trade
China Govnmt NonTrade
China Nat'l Intre
-.10
.14*
.13*
.04
.16*
China Trade Intre
-.09
.06
.06
.22**
.02
China Non Trade Intre
-.16*
.11
.10
-.09
.16*
Reference to Trade
.12
.02
.02
.25**
.07
Ref to Trade Neg
.01
-.01
-.01
.21*
.08
Ref to Trade Pos
.15*
.03
.03
.18**
.04
Ref to Non-Trade
-.05
.02
.01
-.12
.19**
Ref to Non-Trade Neg
-.19**
-.15*
-.15*
-.15
.09
Ref to Non-Trade Pos
.14*
.19**
.20**
-.01
.19**
** = p< 0.01 (2-tailed).
* = p< 0.05 (2-tailed).
H2. The hypothesis that as China surplus in trade with U.S. increases,
positive reference to trade increases is not supported. The correlation
coefficient between the extramedia variable China surplus in trade with U.S. and
positive reference to trade in People's Daily is .03, which is statistically
significant.
H3. The hypothesis that as U.S.-China trade increases, reference to trade
increases is not supported. The correlation between U.S.-China trade and
reference to trade in People's Daily is .02, which is statistically
insignificant.
H4. The hypothesis that more U.S.-China trade issues in China's government
document, more emphasis on national trade interest in the coverage of U.S.-China
relations in People's Daily is partly supported. The correlation coefficient
between the extramedia variable China's government concern on U.S.-China trade
and emphasis on national trade interest is .22. Controlling for the variable
China's government non-trade concern, the partial correlation is .22, which is
statistically significant.
H5. The hypothesis that more non-trade political issues in China's
government document, more reference to non-trade political issues in the
coverage of U.S.-China relations in People's Daily is partly supported. The
correlation coefficient between the extramedia variable China's government
concern on non-trade political issues and references to non-trade political
issues is.19. Controlling for the variable China's government concern on trade,
the partial correlation is .23, which is statistically significant.
HG2. Relationship between Intramedia Variables
The New York Times
H6. The hypothesis that the more emphasis on national interest in the news
coverage, the more reference to trade is supported. The correlation between
emphasis on national interest and reference to trade is .40.
H7. The hypothesis that the more reference to trade, fewer references to
non-trade political issues is not supported. The correlation between reference
to trade and reference to non-trade political issues is .13, which statistically
insignificant.
H8. The hypothesis that the more emphasis on U.S. trade interest, the fewer
references to non-trade political issues is not supported. The correlation
between emphasis on U.S. trade interest and reference to non-trade political
issues is -.03, which is statistically insignificant.
Table 3
Relationship between the Intramedia Variables (Issues) in
The New York Times' coverage of U.S.-China Relations (1987-1996)
(N=225)
Variables
Reference to Trade
Reference to Non-Trade
U.S. National Interest
U.S. Interest Trade
U.S. Interest Non-Trade
U.S. Nat'l Interest
.40**
.08
1.00
.80**
.60**
U.S. Intre Trade
.43**
-.03
.80**
1.00
.00
U.S. Intre Non-Trade
.08
.17*
.60**
.00
1.00
Reference to Trade
1.00
.13
.40**
.43**
.08
Ref to Trade Neg
.89**
.08
.28**
.33**
.03
Ref to Trade Pos
.69**
.15
.39**
.38**
.14*
Ref to Non-Trade
.13
1.00
.08
-.03
.17*
Ref to non-trade Neg
.12
.92**
.03
-.06
.15*
Ref to non-trade Pos
.07
.58**
.12
.06
.11
** = p< 0.01 (2-tailed).
* = p< 0.05 (2-tailed).
People's Daily
H6. The hypothesis that the more emphasis on national interest in the news
coverage, the more reference to trade is not supported. The correlation between
emphasis on national interest and reference to trade is .02, which is
statistically insignificant. However, relationship is found between emphasis on
national interest and reference to non-trade political issues. The correlation
between China national interest and reference to non-trade political issues is
.25 with negative reference to non-trade political issues contributing more to
the relationship.
H7. The hypothesis that the more reference to trade, fewer references to
non-trade political issues is weakly supported. The correlation between
reference to trade and reference to non-trade political issues is -.15, which is
statistically significant.
H8. The hypothesis that the more emphasis on China trade interest, the
fewer references to non-trade political issues is not supported. The
correlation between emphasis on China trade interest and reference to non-trade
political issues is .01.
Table 4
Relationship between the Intramedia Variables (Issues) in
People's Daily's Coverage of U.S.-China Relations (1987-1996)
(N=230)
Variables
Reference to Trade
Reference to Non-Trade
China. National Interest
China. Interest Trade
China Interest Non-Trade
China Nat'l Intre
.02
.25**
1.00
.44**
.85**
China Intre Trade
.23**
.00
.44**
1.00
-.09
China Intre Non-Trade
-.12
.27**
.85**
-.09
1.00
Reference to Trade
1.00
-.15*
.02
.23**
-.12
Ref to Trade Neg
.61**
-.08
.12
.22**
.01
Ref to Trade Pos
.87**
-.14*
-.05
.16*
-.15*
Ref to Non-Trade
-.15*
1.00
.25**
.01
.27**
Ref to non-trade Neg
-.19**
.77**
.24**
-.03
.29**
Ref to non-trade Pos
-.02
.66**
.11
.05
.09
** = p< 0.01 (2-tailed).
* = p< 0.05 (2-tailed).
The data analysis also reveals some important distinguished characteristics of
the two newspapers in their coverage of U.S.-China relations being affected by
national interest.
The New York Times emphasize U.S. trade interest more than China trade
interest. The mean of emphasis on U.S. trade interest is 6.0, while the mean of
emphasis on China trade interest is 1.10. The t value of the comparison of the
means is -2.58, which is statistically significant at the 99% level.
People's Daily emphasizes China non-trade interest more than U.S. non-trade
interest. The mean of reference to U.S. non-trade interest is 4.10, while the
mean of reference to China non-trade interest is 16.10. The t value of the
comparison of the means is 5.56, which is statistically significant at the 99%
level.
No difference is found in the emphasis on U.S. national interest and China
national interest as a whole in The New York Times, while People's Daily
emphasizes more China national interest than U.S. national interest as a whole.
The mean of reference to U.S. national interest is 10.10, while the mean of
reference to China national interest is 22.20. The t value of the comparison of
the means is 4.55, which is statistically significant at the 99% level.
Discussion
Overall, the three major extramedia variables, U.S. investment growth in China,
U.S.-China trade, and U.S. and China's government concerns on trade and
non-trade issues are weak predictors of news content, but each variable has its
specific influence under certain circumstances.
HG1. Relationship with Extramedia Variables
The New York Times.
The rejection of H1 indicates that U.S. investment growth is not a good
predictor of emphasis on national interest in the news coverage. U.S.
investment in China continued to grow during 1987 to 1996 at a relatively stable
rate, around 35% average a year. The emphasis on national interest varied
according to the news events covered. Except in those years with big issues
regarding U.S.-China relations going on, verbal emphasis on national interest is
not a regular occurrence in the news coverage.
The rejection of H2 is consistent with the result of H1. As U.S.-China trade
continued to growth, U.S. deficit continued to increase too. U.S. trade deficit
might have an overall negative impact on U.S.-China relations when it was an
issue on the table, but it may not have a clear negative impact on reference to
trade in the coverage of U.S.-China relations.
The weak support of H3 indicates that U.S.-China trade has some impact on the
news coverage and the finding supports the notion that real life indicator of
national interest such as U.S.-China trade could affect the news content. The
weak relationship is also close to the findings in the previous studies: The New
York Time set its own agenda in reporting U.S.-China relations, and it did not
follow what the government considered important in its coverage of U.S.-China
relations, such as issues regarding human rights in China.[46]
The rejection of H4 and H5 cast some doubt on the impact of presidential
concerns on the emphasis on national interest in the news coverage. It also
partly confirms the findings of Goodman[47] and Li and St. Cyr on presidential
agenda vs. The New York Times' agenda.[48] The presidential concerns of
national interest may not be the focus of The New York Time in reporting events
involving national interest.
People's Daily
The rejection of H1 indicates that U.S. investment growth in China is not a
good indicator of emphasis on national interest in People's Daily. Although
national interest is involved as China attracted more investment from the U.S.,
when comparing to the investment from other parts of the world, investment from
the U.S. weighted less. [49]
The rejection of H2 is consistent with the result of H1. U.S. trade deficit was
a problem in U.S.-China relations. Unless People's Daily neglects the negative
impact that trade surplus issues would bring to China, it is reasonable that
People's Daily avoid negative effect when covering U.S.-China trade, and choose
not to deal with U.S.-China trade issues corresponding to its trade surplus.
People Daily basically chose to cover the topic at its own pace, not
corresponding to U.S.-China trade. The finding of H3 suggests that as
U.S.-China trade continued to grow during the ten-years, People's Daily covered
trade issues only when trade became an issue in U.S.-China relations, and only
when it needed to advance China's national interest through news content.
The partly support of H4 (.22) and H5 (.19) is consistent with what we know as
the organizational goal of People's Daily. The results confirm the notion that
People's Daily performs as the government organ, and it follows what the
government identified as important in U.S.-China relations concerning trade and
non-trade political issues. It also shows that China's government concerns on
trade and non-trade issues are fairly good indicators of news coverage of
important issues in U.S.-China relations involving national interest in People
Daily.
The findings of both The New York Times and People's Daily confirm
shoemaker and Reese's model of news content influenced by extramedia factors.
The extramedia variables affect news content together with variables on all
other levels. The relatively weak influence of extramedia variables on the news
content may be explained by the proportional space that extramedia level
accounted in the hierarchical circle.
The findings of the impact of three extramedia variables from both The New
York Times and People's Daily support Ahern and Rosengren and Rikardsson's
findings that trade exerted influence on coverage of international news,
although this study indicates that the impact, whenever found, is less strong as
what was indicated in Ahern's study. The difference could be due to the
different dependent variables that each study looked at and the way that the
independent variables were operationlized.
HG2. Relationship between Intramedia Variables
It is found that for both The New York Times and People's Daily emphasis on
national interest are weak indicators of reference to trade and non-trade
political issues in the news coverage. The findings show that the issues
relating to trade are to some degree entwined with non-trade political issues.
The New York Times
The support of H6 provides the evidence that emphasis on national interest in
the news coverage is connected with trade related issues and confirms the notion
that emphasis on national interest is associated with reference to trade (.40).
The finding also indicates that the coverage of trade related issue were
presented as the area involving more national interest than the coverage of
non-trade political issues in The New York Times.
The rejection of H7 implies that in the news coverage of The New York Times,
the increase of reference to trade does not have the effect to suppress
reference to non-trade political issues. The finding fails to support the
notion that the national interest embedded in trade related issues will override
the concern on non-trade political issues in the news coverage. In the news
coverage of U.S.-China relations by The New York Times, trade related issues
were often found linked to non-trade political issues.
The rejection of H8 answers the question related to H7 more clearly. When
national trade interest is emphasized in the coverage of U.S.-China relations,
it does not lead to fewer references to non-trade political issues. The New York
Times failed to meet the expectation that it will put less attention to
non-trade political issues when it perceived that national interest was
involved.
People's Daily
The rejection of H6 fails to support the notion that emphasis on national
interest is associated with reference to trade (.02). Whenever People's Daily
considered that national interest was at stake, it did not refer more to trade
issues. Instead, it did refer to non-trade political issues (.25). To
People's Daily, emphasis on national interest in the news coverage was
implemented only when non-trade political issues were referred.
The weak support of H7 provides some directional indication of the relationship
between reference to trade and reference to non-trade political issues in the
news coverage (-.15). However, with the weak correlation between reference to
trade and non-trade political issues in People's Daily, the findings provide
little confidence to support the notion that the more concerns on trade related
issues will restrain the concerns on non-trade political issues in the coverage
of U.S.-China relations by People's Daily.
The rejection of H8 is a complement to the result of H6. It is found that
emphasis on national interest was related to reference to non-trade political
issues (.25). Only national interest on non-trade political issues was found
associated with reference to non-trade political issues (.27), which indicates
that relationship found between emphasis on national interest and reference to
non-trade political issues exclude the effect from emphasis on national trade
interest.
For The New York Times, Emphasis on national interest is associated only with
reference to trade, while in People's Daily, emphasis on national interest is
associated only with reference to non-trade political issues. Although the
associations went to the different directions in the two newspapers, it does
show that emphasis on national interest is connected with the reference to trade
or non-trade political issues in the news coverage. The different focus of
national interest in the two newspapers suggests that the effect of emphasis on
national interest on news content depends on which area that the newspaper
identifies to have the highest national interest at stake. For The New York
Times, trade related issues implied more national interest, while for People's
Daily, non-trade political issues involved utmost national interest.
Despite the use of real life indicators of national interest, this study
only employ figures on U.S.-China trade compiled by U.S. institution, U.S.
presidential document and China's State Council's document. It did not examine
the effect of other aspects of the national interest on news content. So the
significance of the findings is limited within the range that the selected real
life indicators cover.
This study looked at two elite newspapers of the U.S. and China. The
findings provide some understanding of how these two newspapers were affected by
national interest. The generability of the findings on the effect of national
interest on international news is limited without looking at a broader range of
media in the U.S. and China and without a more comprehensive comparison on how
news media in the two countries are affected by national interest.
To assess the effect of national interest, a broader scope of national
interest than what this study looked at might be considered as extramedia
variables in the future studies. Other research questions regarding effect of
national interest on coverage of international news may include: what are the
common issues and aspects of the coverage of international news that are most
likely to be identified by the media as the key components of national interest?
If the real life indicators of national interest were found to have effect on
the news content, does such effect remain active across the time, or is it for a
specific time frame? To what extend does shift of national interest influence
the emphasis on national interest in the news content?
Conclusion
National interest is tested in this study as a construct to evaluate how
newspaper content of international news was affected by extramedia and
intramedia variables. Its usefulness in studying the effect of news content is
reconfirmed by this study. As extramedia variables, the effect of national
interest was found present and its impact is not negligibly trivial. As
intramedia variables, the indicators of national interest served both as
references that demonstrated the effect of extramedia variables as well as the
factors that affected other issues and aspects of the coverage of international
news.
The findings of this study provide some support to the Shoemaker and
Reese's model of influences on news content. The notion that newspaper speaks
for the nation is supported by the findings. Overall, the three major
extramedia variables, U.S. investment growth in China, U.S.-China trade, and
government concerns on trade and non-trade issues are weak predictors of news
content. The distinction is clear in the relationship between emphasis on
national interest and reference to trade and non-trade political issues in The
New York Times and People's Daily. For The New York Times, Emphasis on national
interest is associated only with reference to trade, while in People's Daily,
emphasis on national interest is associated only with reference to non-trade
political issues. There is not much difference between The New York Times and
People's Daily that their coverage of U.S.-China relations being affected by
national interest.
[1] Chang, Tsan-Kuo, The press and China policy: the illusion of Sino-American
relations, 1950-1984, Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub. Corp., 1993.
[2] Galtung, Johan & Mari Holmboe Ruge, The Structure of Foreign News, in
Jeremy Tunstall (ed.) Media Sociology, London, Constable, 1970.
[3] Wang, Meiling, (1991) Who is Dominating Whose Ideology? New York Times
Reporting on China, Asian Journal of Communication, 2(1), 53.
[4] De Sola Pool, et al, Symbols of Democracy, Stanford University Press,
Stanford, 1952; The "Prestige Papers", A Survey of Their Editorials, Stanford
University Press, Stanford, 1952.
[5] Pamela J. Shoemaker and Stephen D. Reese, Mediating the Message, Theories
of Influences on Mass Media Content, 1991, p. 183.
[6] Pamela J. Shoemaker, Stephen D. Reese, p. 204.
[7] Gitlin, T. The Whole World is Watching, Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1980, p. 51.
[8] Williams, Raymond, Marxism and Literature, New York, oxford University
Press, 1977.
[9] Galtung, Johan & Mari Holmboe Ruge, The Structure of Foreign News, in
Jeremy Tunstall (ed.) Media Sociology, London, Constable, 1970.
[10] Pamela J. Shoemaker, Stephen D. Reese, Mediating the Message, Theories of
Influences on Mass Media Content, Longman, New York, 1991, pp. 147-177.
[11] Thomas Ahern, Determinants of Foreign Coverage in U.S. Newspapers, in
Robert L. Stevenson and Donald Lewis Shaw, eds., Foreign News and the News World
Information Order, The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 1984.
[12] Karl E, Rosengren and Gunnel Rikardsson, Middle East News in Sweden,
Gazette, 20 1974, 99-116.
[13] Dennis Wu, systemic Determinants of International News Coverage in Four
Developed Nations: Germany, Japan, New Zealand, and the U.S., paper presented to
the Association for Education in Journalism and mass Communication, Chicago,
August, 1997.
[14] Lacy, Chang and Lau, Impact of Allocation Decisions and Market Factors on
Foreign News Coverage, Newspaper Research Journal, 10, Spring 1989, 23-32.
[15] Tsan-Kuo Chang and Jae-Won Lee, Factors Affecting Gatekeepers, Selection
of Foreign News: A National Survey of Newspaper Editors, paper presented to the
Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, Minneapolis, August 1990.
[16] Catherine Cassara, International News in American Newspapers: Testing
International News Flow Theories, unpublished dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1992, 118-124.
[17] Zeidenstein, Harvey G., News Media Perceptions of White House News
Management, Presidential Quarterly, Vol. 14, 1984.
[18] Doris A. Graber, Mass Media and American Politics (Fourth Edition),
Washington, D.C.; Congressional Quarterly Press, 1993, 374.
[19] Parenti, Michael, Inventing Reality: The Politics of the mass Media, New
York: St. Martin's Press, 1986, p. 230.
[20] Welch, Susan, The American Press and Indochina, 1950-1956, in Richard, L.
Merritt (ed.) Communication in International Politics, University of Illinois
Press, Urbana, IL, 1972.
[21] Altschull, J., Agents of Power, New York: Longman, 1984.
[22] Herman, Edward, & Chomsky, Noam, Manufacturing Consent: The Political
Economy of the mass Media, New York: Pantheon, 1988, p. 2.
[23] Paul Hirsh, Occupational, Organizational and Institutional Models in mass
media Research: Toward an Integrated Framework, In P. M. Hirsch, P. V. Miller, &
F. G. Kline (Eds.), Strategies for Communication Research, Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage, 1977, pp. 13-40.
[24] Graham T. Allison, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile
Crisis, Little Brown, Boston, 1971.
[25] Stephen D, Krasner, Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials,
Investment, and United States Foreign Policy, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1978.
[26] Tan Qingshan, The Making of U.S. China Policy, from Normalization to the
Post-Cold War Era, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, Colorado, 1992, 13-14.
[27] A James Gregor, The China Connection, U.S. Policy and the People's
Republic of China, Hoover Institutions Press, Stanford University, Stanford,
California, 1986, pp. 187-193.
[28] David Zweig, Sino-American Relations and Human Rights, June 4 and the
Changing Nature of a Bilateral Relationship, in William T. Tow (ed.), Building
Sino-American Relations: an Analysis for the 1990s, Paragon House, New York,
1991, 57-86.
[29] A Glenn Mower, Jr., Human Rights and American Foreign Policy: The Carter
and Reagon Experiences, Greenwood Press, New York, 1987, p. 153.
[30] Pamela J. Shoemaker, Lucig H. Danielian and Nancy Brendlinger, Deviant
Acts, Risky Business and U.S. Interest: The Newsworthiness of World Events,
Journalism Quarterly, 68 (4), 1991, pp. 781-795; Herbert Gans, Decoding What's
News, New York: Random House, 1979.
[31] Tsan-Kuo Chang and Jae-Won Lee, Factors Affecting Gatekeepers, Selection
of Foreign News: A National Survey of Newspaper Editors, paper presented to the
Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, Minneapolis, August 1990.
[32] Herbert Gans, Decoding What's News, New York: Random House, 1979.
[33] Paletz, D. L. and R. M. Entman, Media, Power, Politics, New York: The Free
Press, 1981, p. 215.
[34] Kern, M., Levering, P. W., and Levering, R. B., The Kennedy Crisis: The
Press, The Presidency, and Foreign Policy, Chapel Hill, NC: The University of
North Carolina Press, 1983.
[35] Robyn Goodman, Prestige Press Coverage of Sino-American Relations from the
Cold War's Demise to the Post Cold War Period, Reagan's Final years to the
Clinton Administration, 1985 to 1993, unpublished dissertation.
[36] Chin-Chuan Lee and Junghye Yang, Foreign News and national Interest:
Comparing U.S. and Japanese coverage of a Chinese Student Movement, Gazette, 56:
1-8, 1995.
[37] De Sola Pool, et al, Symbols of Democracy, Stanford University Press,
Stanford, 1952; The "Prestige Papers", A Survey of Their Editorials, Stanford
University Press, Stanford, 1952.
[38] Warren Christopher, Shift from Communist Ideological orthodoxy to
Pragmatism, The New York Times, August 14, 1988, VI, 22:1.
[39] Modern Media Institute, The Adversary Press, St. Peterberg, FL, Modern
Media Institute, 1983, p. xi.
[40] Cohen, B. C., The Press and Foreign Policy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton,
University Press, 1963; Davision, W. P. M., Mass Communication and Diplomacy, in
J. N. Rosenau, K. W. Thompson, & G. Boyd (Eds.), World Politics, New York: The
Free Press, pp. 388-403; Rubin B., The Press in Its Own Image, Washington
Quarterly, 2, 1979, pp. 44-53.
[41] Wang, Geogette, The People's Daily and Nixon's Visit to China, in A. Armo
& W. Dissanayake (Eds.), The News Media in National and International Conflict,
New York, 1986, p. 144.
[42] Alex S. Edelstein, Comparative Communication Research, Sage Publications,
Beverly Hills, CA, 1982, p. 126.
[43] Daniel Riffe, Stephen Lacy and Fred Fico, Analyzing Media Messages: Using
Quantitative Content Analysis in Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah,
NJ, 1998.
[44] Steven Lacy and Denial Riffe, Sampling Error and Selecting Intercoder
Reliability Samples for Nominal Content Categories, Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 73(4), Winter 1996, 963-973. The formula for estimating
simple random sample sizes for reliability test is: n = (N-1) (SE)2 + PQN/(N-1)
(SE)2 + PQ. n = sample size for reliability check, N = the population size
(number of content unites in the study, P = the population level of agreement,
and Q = (1-P).
[45] Intercoder reliability for nominal variables at assumed 90 percent
agreement (using Lacy and Riffe's formula and Scott's Pi), P ( .05, dateline,
1.0; newspot, 1.0; newspeg, .87; .77; topic, .82; Ratio variables (using
Pearson's correlation coefficient), P ( .01, reference to national interest
(trade), .83 ( .02, reference to non-trade interest, .81 ( .02, reference to
trade, .79 ( .02, reference to non-trade issues, .77 ( .02, source, .79 ~ .84 (
.02, fairness and balance, .76 ~ .88 ( .02.
[46] Robyn Goodman, Prestige Press Coverage of Sino-American Relations from the
Cold War's Demise to the Post Cold War Period, Reagan's Final years to the
Clinton Administration, 1985 to 1993, unpublished dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1996; Xigen Li and Charles St. Cyr, Human Rights in China, A Pawn of
a Political Agenda, A Content Analysis of The New York Times (1987-1996),
Gazette, Vol. 60, No. 6, December 1998, 531-547.
[47] Robyn Goodman, 1996.
[48] Xigen Li and Charles St. Cyr, 1998.
[49] David E. Sanger, Study Shows Jump in Investing in China and Revival in
Mexico, The New York Times, March 24, 1997, Monday, Late Edition - Final,
Section D; Page 2; Column 1; Survey of Current Business, U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis, 1997.
|
