News Framing: NYT vs. People's Daily on the 2001 Spy Plane Incident

Introduction and Background

On April 1, 2001, in the South China Sea, an unprecedented collision between a Chinese fighter jet and a U.S. spy plane triggered a month-long political and diplomatic standoff between two nations. Both parties paid a price for their mutual misperceptions and misjudgments during an intense process of blame and linguistic diplomacy. One month later, the once-heated debates and patriotic zeal on both sides faded away, leaving only a heroic story with two different versions — but more importantly, a news frame in people's memory. When a country's mainstream media presents such events in a biased manner, the people of that nation are denied the objective news reporting that is required for an informed citizenry in a modern society.

To determine to what extent, if any, the events of April 1, 2001 were reported in a non-objective fashion by the mainstream press in China and the United States, this study examines the coverage provided by the People's Daily and the New York Times according to their respective content. An analysis of the statistical data will be followed by a discussion of the findings, and a summary of the research will be provided in the conclusion.

According to a report from the International Journal on World Peace (2001), "On April 1, during what the U.S. described as a routine surveillance flight through international airspace, a Chinese fighter jet and the American EP-3E Aries II surveillance plane collided with one another, causing serious damage to the American plane and fatal damage to the Chinese fighter jet" (China-U.S. Relations, 2001, p. 99). Not surprisingly, the Chinese and American versions of the events were similar yet differed on key points. In fact, after the incident, the only thing the two sides could agree on initially was that after the collision, the fighter jet and its pilot disappeared into the South China Sea and the American plane and its crew of 24 made a successful emergency landing on the Chinese island of Hainan (China-U.S. Relations, 2001).

Media Response

From the very beginning of the incident, the mass media on both sides — taking advantage of the lack of direct communication between the two governments — played a major role as vital catalysts, active participants, and sometimes designers of public diplomacy. Whether serving as government watchdog or as the ruling party's mouthpiece, the mass media demonstrated their influential power in international conflict and foreign politics. From this viewpoint, the selection of news events is not merely a reflexive action, but rather a socially determined construction of reality. This perspective suggests that journalistic choices are intentional and not merely the effects of certain causes resulting from inherent news values.

Viewed separately, the mass media on both sides seemed to be describing two different occurrences. Perhaps the Chinese pilot misjudged the distance, perhaps the American pilot rocked his wings, or perhaps air turbulence caused the collision. However, what really happened that morning paled in comparison to crucial questions such as: in what frame did journalists view it, in what frame did editors understand it, and finally, in what frame did the audience interpret it? All in all, the media frame matters.

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: For the Bush administration, this diplomatic standoff with its newly defined "strategic competitor" provided a crucial test of Bush's widely-doubted ability and experience in handling foreign affairs. The result of his debut on the international stage could shape domestic public opinion and world views in the aftermath of the election controversy.

For China's part, even before the tragic incident, the Chinese people and their leaders had already felt the hostile rhetoric from the newly elected Bush administration and had painfully refreshed their memories of the embassy bombing in Yugoslavia two years earlier. Moreover, such a direct military conflict between two nuclear powers had not occurred since the end of the Cold War.

From a political-importance perspective, the mainstream media on both sides should have focused on one location during that time span — Hainan Island. The New York Times and the People's Daily would likely have arrived at a similar judgment regarding the political importance of every step of this event. As a result, the visual framing strategy utilized by the two newspapers would reflect this tendency.

Hypothesis 2: Contextual framing works through deliberately choosing opinion-loaded words or authoritative sources to define responsibility and moral basis. For example: How should an event be named (accident or incident)? How should the involved action be characterized (spy mission or routine reconnaissance)? How should the actors be treated (spy, detainee, hero, or top gun)? And where should the facts be sought (from one's own government or from the other side)? The answers to all these questions build up not only piles of news discourse, but also judgmental frames for readers. One contextual tool widely manipulated in international events by both sides is language translation and mistranslation. Due to the language barrier between the Chinese and American publics, audiences on each side can only hear the other party's voice through media translations, which are by no means immune to contextual framing.

Given the sensitive timing, location, and nature of this collision, both parties would have adopted all kinds of contextual framing techniques to occupy the moral high ground and accuse the other side of wrongdoing. Since foreign policy reporting in China is strictly controlled by the Communist Party, the news event portrayed by the Chinese media would be more homogenous and one-sided.

H2a: By adopting similar contextual framing techniques, both mainstream newspapers tend to depict their own side as morally superior while portraying the other party as the wrongdoer. As to the degree of such inclination, the Chinese media will outscore their American counterparts. Furthermore, because of the strict control of information gathering and dissemination in China, it is assumed that the Chinese newspaper would publicize only the official government version of the event. As to the relevant foreign policy assessment and outcome evaluation, there would be only one interpretation in the Chinese newspaper. In contrast, the American newspaper would be more likely to quote sources from both sides, though not objectively either.

H2b: Although both sides rely on their own government sources as their prime news sources, the Chinese newspaper is less likely to quote sources from the other side than is the American newspaper.

Hypothesis 3: The blocking of the free flow of information, though weakened by Internet expansion in recent years, has still been carefully and successfully executed in international news coverage — either under direct government pressure or through the influence of certain interest groups. Such intentional omission creates either a time lag or an information lag in people's reasoning. As a result, the audience's logical judgment may be distorted in a preferred direction.

To frame this sensitive international standoff into a certain stereotype and to support this frame with persuasive evidence, the mass media on both sides would emphasize some favorable elements and downplay or neglect unfavorable evidence or developments. Similarly, the order in which events were published by the mass media would differ from the actual chronological order of the events.

H3a: Both sides will deliberately ignore or withhold some unfavorable evidence and alter the actual time order of key elements during their news coverage. Since the Chinese media face more direct pressure from the government and the ruling party to serve established foreign policy, it would be common for them to curtail or distort the existing truth. As for the American side, fierce competition in the information market reduces the possibility of completely withholding certain facts. However, downplaying one side's argument while highlighting the other's was the most frequently utilized tactic.

H3b: With regard to the extent and degree of such maneuvering, Chinese newspapers more frequently withheld unfavorable messages than did their U.S. counterparts.

References

China-U.S. Relations. (2001). International Journal on World Peace, 18(1), 99.

Eckholm, E. (April 27, 2001). Beijing Journal; A Pilot Is Lost, and a Communist Titan Is Found. New York Times, A2.

Harland, B. (2001). The Hainan Incident. New Zealand International Review, 26(4), 27.

Paez, D., Pennebaker, J. W., & Rimé, B. (Eds.). (1997). Collective memory of political events: Social psychological perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Perlmutter, D. D. (1998). Photojournalism and foreign policy: Icons of outrage in international crises. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Peterson, M. A. (October 2001). Getting to the story: Unwriteable discourse and interpretive practice in American journalism. Anthropological Quarterly, 74(4), 201.

Picco, G. (2003). New Entente after September 11? The United States, Russia, China, and India. Global Governance, 9(1), 15.

Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: Free Press. In Perlmutter, 1998, 7.

White, D. M. (1950). The "gatekeepers": A case study in the selection of news. Journalism Quarterly, 41, 384–390.

Worf, R. (2002). Out: The Internet in China. Harvard International Review, 23(4), 7.