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

Based on frame theory, this study analyzed the characteristics of China Daily and New York Times when reporting the "Occupy Central" incident in Hong Kong. The study found that there were differences in the length and types between the two media. China Daily give priority to the short comments while the New York Times preferred the news and features. In the choice of news sources, China Daily took priority to Hong Kong local residents and officials, but it did not refer to a different point of view; The New York Times was imbalanced since frequently citing the utterance of dissidents .On the present of theme, China Daily pointed out the illegality and the harmfulness of "Occupy Central" rally by adopting the consequences-effect frame and the rule of law frame while the New York Times used process frame more often to describe the rallies of the protesters. The study showed that the two newspapers reported the "Occupy Central" incident for their respective interests. The New York Times presented the opposite side of the conflict unilaterally while China Daily always serviced for the national core interests by safeguarding national sovereignty, security, development interests and Hong Kong's prosperity and stability through a lot of comments.

A content analysis of Chinese and American media's report on qOccupy Centralq incident in Hong Kong