A Comparative Analysis of COVID-19 Coverage in the United States Mainstream Media—Based on the New York Times and Wall Street Journal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzes the news coverage of Covid-19 between 23rd Jan. to 29th Feb. in 2020 on The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Based on theories of news framing theory, this study employs the method of news discourse analysis to examine the virus news. The results of discourse analysis show that these two newspapers emphasize the criticism on China's political system and related policy through a western perspective of liberalism and democracy, rather than the epidemic itself. The major themes include the criticism on China's medical system, the Chinese government's media censorship, and the description of China as a threat to the world which could be seen as the macro-proposition behind all the other themes.During the one-month research period, there are very few coverage on the Chinese government's policy against the epidemic such as the official subsidy on virus test and treatment, nation-wide medical support to Wuhan, community isolation policy, or the mobile cabin hospitals. Furthermore, we seldom see the reporting of the cooperation between China and the World Health Organization. The exclusion of these themes in the reporting narrowly and negatively presents the country of China and further strengthens the negative image of the Chinese government as a dictator and global threat.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".