English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

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