MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Political connections and media bias: Evidence from China

2025· article· en· W4410954505 on OpenAlex
Denis Schweizer, Xinjie Wang, Ge Wu, Aoran Zhang

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Corporate Finance · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Influence and Politics
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityConcordia University
FundersSouthwestern University of Finance and EconomicsNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaSouthern University of Science and TechnologyUniversity of AberdeenUniversity of Nottingham
KeywordsPoliticsChinaPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines how political connections shape media bias and contribute to regulatory noncompliance in China's capital markets. Using a large sample of news articles on publicly listed non-state-owned enterprises (non-SOEs), we find that politically connected firms receive significantly more favorable media coverage than their unconnected peers. A difference-in-differences analysis exploiting a regulatory shock—China's Rule 18 anti-corruption regulation—that forced politically connected directors to resign confirms the link between political ties and biased reporting. Around corporate scandals, politically connected firms face softer media scrutiny, weakening reputational penalties. Critically, we show that this media shielding effect increases the likelihood of repeated regulatory violations. These findings highlight the social costs of the “scandal-covering” role of political connections, which not only distort the information environment but also undermine regulatory deterrence and market discipline.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it