Foreign news, regime type, and framing of China: comparing the world’s media interpretations of the Hong Kong National Security Law

Abstract

The existing literature has recognized that democratic regimes tend to allow pluralistic media content, whereas authoritarian regimes mostly permit pro-regime media content. This discussion has long focused on domestic news at the national level. However, the implications of foreign news have seldom been explored. By examining the Hong Kong National Security Law, this article compares the world’s media interpretations of China. The findings show that (1) democratic regimes mainly reported negatively, but authoritarian regimes reported pluralistically, (2) democratic regimes largely framed the Security Law as China’s intervention and the justification of foreign assistance, but authoritarian regimes framed it as a matter of China’s internal affairs and countersanctions against foreign intervention in Hong Kong, and (3) both democratic and authoritarian regimes covered Western sanctions on China more than Chinese countersanctions on the West. The conclusion strongly supports the thesis that regime type is the most significant determiner of the reporting style adopted by foreign news organizations. This article focuses on an internationally controversial case study to understand the literature on perceptions of China and regime type.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.