Conceptualization of “Othering”: An Analysis of Western Media’s Mechanism for Constructing the Discourse of Beijing Winter Olympics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the Olympic movement is to maintain separation of sports from politics. However, international politics has played a significant role in the survival and development of the Olympic Games throughout its history. Recently, Western media's politicization of Olympic organizers has been on the rise. This research paper aims to examine the role of mainstream media outlets in the United States, Canada, Britain, and Germany. It analyzes carefully selected samples of texts published during the Beijing Winter Olympics, employing critical discourse analysis as the primary methodology. The study aims to uncover the discourse strategies employed by Western media in covering Beijing Winter Olympics, the ideologies behind them, and their constructed image of global governance. The paper also examines the historical and realistic conditions in which this image has been formed and analyzes the discourse mechanism of Western media system. Western media’s narrative of the Olympic Games host is not primarily about China but rather a reflection of the West’s self-construction needs and embodiment. In this context, China is portrayed as a systemic competitor that challenges Europe, "subverts" international rules, and promotes alternative modes of governance. Through a critical analysis of the political implications underlying Western media coverage during the Beijing Winter Olympics, this study exposes the inherent limitations of the Western "othering" framework. In doing so, it provides invaluable insights that contribute to the development of Chinese discourse and narrative systems, ultimately strengthening the Chinese subjectivity framework in the realm of international communication.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".