AALBORG UNIVERSITET, MAJ 2014
Media Discourses and their
role in the Sino-American
relation
A Contemporary Analysis
Mikkel B. M. Lund
5/28/2014
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
Abstrakt
Denne opgave har i fokus at undersøge og forstå hvordan forholdet mellem Kina og USA bliver beskrevet i
landenes respektive medier. Relationen mellem USA og Kina bliver af mange eksperter betegnet som et af
de vigtigste internationale forhold i nyere tid og derfor er det vigtigt at overvåge landenes interne relation
til hinanden. Denne opgave har det centrale sysnpunkt at medierne besider en forholdsvis magt over den
måde hvorpå vi alle relaterer til dette forhold. Derfor er det interessant at undersøge hvorvidt medierne
forsøger at skabe en bestemt dagsorden ved at diskutere og omtale forholdet mellem Kina og USA på en
bestemt måde med henblik på at overtale os som læsere til at have en betsemt holdning. Min opgave tager
udgangspunkt i President Barack Obamas besøg i Asian i foråret 2014. Dette besøg havde ikke til formål at
styrke USA's forhold til Kina, tvært imod tager nogle medier den holdning at besøget havde til formål at
indelukke Kina ved at styrke forholdet til de omkringliggende lande.
Jeg har benyttet mig af den krisike diskurs analyse af Norman Fairclough til at analysere én aftikel fra
henholdsvis Kina, Hong Kong og USA med hendblik på at forstå hvilke virkemidler de hver især bruger til at
vedligeholde eller ændre måden hvorpå vi opfatter forholdet mellem Kina og USA efter Obamas besøg i
Asien. Efterølgede undersøger jeg kvalitative information i form af internationale spørgeundersøgelser for
at give en karakteristik af den kinesiske og amerikanske befolknings mening om udsigterne til et kinesiskamerikansk samarbejde. Jeg relaterer min undersøgelse til Samuel P. Huntingtons teori ”Civilisationernes
Sammenstød” samt klasisk international relations forståelser for på den måde at drage parralleller mellem
mine data.
1
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
Contents
Abstrakt ............................................................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
Problem formulation ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
Philosophy of science .................................................................................................................................... 4
Research Methodology.................................................................................................................................. 5
Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis ..................................................................................................... 5
Methodological approach to analysis ........................................................................................................... 5
Empirical data ................................................................................................................................................ 7
Theory ................................................................................................................................................................ 7
Samuel P. Huntington: “Clash of Civilizations” .............................................................................................. 7
The concept of universal civilization ......................................................................................................... 8
Western Power: Dominance and decline .................................................................................................. 8
International Relation Perspectives .............................................................................................................. 9
Liberalist Perspective............................................................................................................................... 10
Realist Perspective................................................................................................................................... 10
Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................ 10
Background information.............................................................................................................................. 10
Critical Discourse Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 11
Description: the formal properties of the texts ...................................................................................... 11
Interpretation: text and interaction ........................................................................................................ 13
Explanation: interaction and social context ............................................................................................ 16
Public Opinion on the Sino-American relation ................................................................................................ 20
Discussion ........................................................................................................................................................ 25
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 27
Reference list ................................................................................................................................................... 29
Literature ..................................................................................................................................................... 29
Website articles ........................................................................................................................................... 29
Definitions ................................................................................................................................................... 30
Appendix .......................................................................................................................................................... 31
Appendix 1: US shows its true colors by China Daily .................................................................................. 31
Appendix 2: US Should Learn To “Enjoy Cooperation” by China-US Focus ................................................. 32
2
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
Appendix 3: On a Trip That Avoids Beijing, Obama Keeps His Eye on China by the New York Times ......... 34
Introduction
I have chosen to concentrate this thesis around the United States’ President Barack Obama and his Asian
tour on April 23 2014. The tour was first and foremost to nurture international relations with United States’
allies Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and the Philippines. And while the tour marked Obama’s first visit to
Asia since 2012, China was not a part of the President’s schedule. The aftermath in the media implies that
the Sino-American relation has been subjected to strain as a consequence. There have been various
examples of how the media have covered the controversy the event has stimulated. I want to understand
how and why the media portray the Sino-American relation in their discourses after the Asian tour. Are
they in favor of different ideological affinities?
So this thesis emphasizes on the different media discourses and their respective roles in this predicament.
Though the media may not have the power to dictate what people are to think and how to act, I believe
that it is perhaps the most influential actor when it comes to engaging the public in a particular social
agenda by asserting different ideological value to information. To contribute to a debate that seems to be
one of the most discussed in contemporary world affairs, the thesis will concentrate on the way the SinoAmerican relation is represented in the Chinese, Hong Kong and American media and how they each reflect
different perspectives on the Sino-American relation.
Furthermore, it is interesting to understand if there is coherence between what the different media
discourses seek to implement, their attitudes towards in the Sino-American relation, and how it is actually
perceived by the public. It is interesting to analyze if the public opinion of Americans and Chinese reflect
some sort of concern or enthusiasm for the contemporary prospect of Sino-American relation. According to
Samuel P. Huntington it would be interesting to see if his theory “Clash of Civilization” can provide an
explanation or insight to some of the main causes for the tendencies that can be observed from the
Chinese and American public opinions.
Problem formulation
•
How do media from China, Hong Kong and the United States assert the Sino-American relation in
their discourses, and what are the different social and cultural incitements for a particular media
discourse? Is it possible to draw parallels between media discourses and the public opinion?
3
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
Methodology
First it is important for the reader to understand that I do not intent to portray a general image of the
entire Sino-American relation: I intent the thesis to have a narrow focus and cover a small aspect of the
Sino-American relation. It would be too comprehensive to focus on the wider perspective. I will restrict my
focus to some particular cultural and social determinants of the Sino-American relation in the sense that I
focus on a single aspect of the public text media discourse, as stated in the introduction. In the appendix
section I have made the three articles I analyze available. These represent different media but concern the
same topic of the Sino-American relation. The first is from China Daily website, the second is from China-US
Focus website and the last is the New York Times website. In the following sections, I elaborate on my
choices of philosophy of science, research methodology and empirical data. Afterwards there will be a
theory section where I describe some of the concepts and theories I use in the analysis.
Philosophy of science
The main philosophy of science lies in the field of humanities as my assignment on the contemporary SinoAmerican relation concentrates its focus on the media discourses within the Chinese and American media.
The thesis emphasizes on communication and the way the media discourse can be used to promote certain
affiliations towards the Sino-American relation, and be perceived in different social practices by the public.
In order for me to do this my methodological approach is Norman Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis
(CDA) which will be applied on the three different articles. The articles all have different perspectives,
motivations and emphasis in their respective discourses but with the same topical focus which
concentrates on the reactions since President Obama’s Asian tour in April 2014. How these discourse seek
to dominate the social setting and affect the contemporary Sino-American relation through the way they
are perceived by the public.
I want to use two classic perspectives from international relation theory; the liberalist and realist
perspectives in my analysis. I think it’s a good idea to provide the reader with a fundamental understand of
the nature and basics of the Sino-American relation. The perspectives are both elaborated in the theory
section. These perspectives will work as analytic concepts to compliment the CDA to relate the findings to
international relations.
The second part of the thesis will seek to provide a common thread. I want to analyze the American and the
Chinese public opinion respectively. I use public opinion polls from Pew Research Center and Gallup to
make a characteristic of the Sino-American relation from some quantitative data. Moreover, it is my
4
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
objective to find reason behind the information by using Samuel P. Huntington’s theory “Clash of
Civilization” in order to see if he can provide any reason to the conclusions I draw.
Research Methodology
Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis
Aforementioned the method I will use to extract my data and place my arguments on is Norman
Fairclough’s “Critical Discourse Analysis”. I see this as the well suited methodological approach to apply to
the articles I have found because it provides a three-dimensional analytical framework to extract
information from the media discourses. Norman Fairclough is professor of Linguistics at Lancaster
University and is one of the founders of the CDA.
I will focus on analyzing different levels in each article I have chosen. Fairclough describes them as
such: ”the level of the social situation; the level of the social institution; and the level of the society as a
whole”. These three levels concern micro and macro themes such as the interaction, interpretation and the
reproduction of the discourses. The different micro themes I will focus on is lexical, vocabulary, genre and
cohesive choices while also applying macro level themes to the concepts of access, power and ideology
which are indirect influences on the media discourses. There are other themes that could be interesting to
look at as well as Fairclough’s model can be applied to almost any communication.
The social practices which operate within the Chinese and American society respectively are tied to some
specific historical, social or cultural context. In that sense, CDA is a matter of understanding how discourses
are seen in relation to power within the social structure. The critical discourse analysis consists of three
dimensions. Fairclough asserts these dimensions as such: “Firstly, language is a part of society and not
somehow external to it. Secondly, language is a social process. And thirdly, that language is socially
conditioned process”. I assert the three dimensions as an analytical framework1:
1. Description (The formal prosperities of the text)
2. Interpretation (Relation between text and interaction)
3. Explanation (The relationship between interaction and social context)
Methodological approach to analysis
As seen above, the analysis will take on three different articles from different media websites. Recently,
Barack Obama held an Asian tour where he visited four nations with the intention to strengthen the
international relation between the United States and the Asian-Pacific region. There is a lot of tension in
1
Norman Fairclough “Language and power: Second Edition” Routhledge, 2001. s. 18-19
5
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
the region because of North Korea’s nuclear program that continues to threaten the stability in the region,
while there are territorial disputes in the South China Sea.2 Needless to say, Obama’s present was seen as a
major indicator as to how these conflicts were to be resolved.
However, Obama’s visit was meet with a lot of criticism afterwards, especially from the Chinese media, as
these felt like the only real objective of the Asian tour was to constrain China and its interest in the region
and not to strengthen the Sino-American relation. There were also speculations within the American media
as to the real purpose of the visit. Maybe it was a United States’ way of reassuring the world of its
dominance, maybe it was the Japanese taking advantage of the United States prowess or maybe a
completely other reason. As my analysis draws its points from Fairclough’s Critical discourse analysis, I will
focus on the Description, Interpretation and Explanation for different media discourses.
(Fairclough3)
Aforementioned, I will try and understand the micro and macro themes that are going on directly and
indirectly in the text using the theoretical framework of Fairclough’s CDA. In the Description I will make a
textual analysis in order to make observations to the title and language structure in three articles. This is
done in order to establish which context the participants act in, and the interaction between the
participants.
In the Interpretation I will go on to make a more discursive practice analysis where I will analyze the words
and sentence choices in order to understand how the media discourses process a certain interpretation and
production of its participants. Finally, in the Explanation I will make a sociocultural practice analysis to
2
“China Tells US To Butt Out On North Korea And Contested Islands,” Accessed February 14, 2014,
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-china-pushes-back-on-north-korea-south-china-sea-as-kerry-visits-201414#ixzz32vOXkdkI
3
Norman Fairclough: “Language and power: Second Edition”. Routledge, 2001. S. 21
6
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
discuss the widest context or the macro level themes related to some of the social conditions of
interpretation and production the three articles. I have chosen to focus on access, power and ideology.
Empirical data
As mentioned my curiosity lies in how the media is able to use language as a social practice to secure or
implement a certain attitude towards the Sino-American relation within the public sphere, and to what
extent the attitude differs in each respective domestic media and compared to each other.
Therefore, the empirical data I apply to the critical discourse analysis will consist of articles from wellregarded news websites from China and America respectively: China Daily, China-US Focus and the New
York Times. I realize that the amount of readers they each have differs quite a lot, and therefore it is not on
a power level they are related. Their messages do not reach the same amount of participants so this would
be pointless. However, the reason for the articles I have chosen are because of their common focus on the
topic; the Asian tour in regard to the contemporary Sino-American relation. A part of the data process has
been to select them on their domestic origin but also to reflect interest and difference of opinion. I could
have chosen a larger representation of the media, and that would only improve the legitimacy, but I feel
like three articles are suitable for this particular thesis.
The second part of the data processing will be to select information which represents different public
opinions from quantitative research polls from Pew Research Center and Gallup. This is a choice I have
made in order to draw some conclusions from the generalizable data of the opinions poll, and seen in
relation to the media discourses. It is my believe that this will provide the most interesting analysis and
discussion on the Sino-American relation, while also providing an objectivity in the sense that the thesis will
take different opinions into account and not favor, or steer the conclusion towards a certain outcome.
I realize that the empirical data does not offer an analysis of every article concerning Sino-American
relation, and so, the quantitative amount of data is unsatisfactory. However, I will provide a certain
quantitative value as I will use poll statistics concerning the Chinese’s and Americans’ attitudes on the
prospect of cooperation.
Theory
Samuel P. Huntington: “Clash of Civilizations”
I will use Huntington’s theory of “Clash of Civilizations” because it offers one suggestion as to how
international relations are constructed between nations, and how these are either successful or harmful
7
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
due to different variables. The thesis only touch upon some aspects of the theory, as it is somewhat
comprehensive. I will restrict his theory to central themes I deem relevant to the Sino-American relation
and my CDA.
I will base some of my research on his fourth understanding of the concept “universal civilization” as it
states that the western power is a product of the western media interest; the concept “western power” as
it describes the relative state of western dominance in the world compared to Islamic and Sinic nations,
with China being my focus.
Huntington’s theory represents a hypothesis and so the fundamental assumptions or my point of departure.
It is however important to state that I do not take “Clash of Civilization” at face value and the objective of
this thesis is not to prove Huntington’s statements but to work from them as an essential part to make a
discussion on the different themes elaborated in the following section.
The concept of universal civilization
Huntington concentrates on the concept “universal civilization”. The idea of universal civilization implies in
general the cultural coming together of humanity and the increasing acceptance of common values, beliefs,
orientations, practices and institutions by people throughout the world.4
I will focus on the forth idea of the concept of universal civilization which holds that the spread of Western
consumption patterns and popular culture around the world is creating a Westernized, universal civilization.
Huntington does not find this idea satisfying as he argues that cultural fads have been transmitted from
civilization to civilization throughout history. However, the phenomenon of a universal popular culture does
not only sprout from consumerism alone. Huntington aligns the American media industry as an influential
player in the matter of a perceived universal civilization.5
People interpret communications in terms of their own preexisting values and perceptions. Huntington
states that global communications are one of the most important contemporary manifestations of Western
power. However, Western hegemony will be perceived by non-Western societies as insensitive towards
other cultures and encourage the denunciation of Western cultural imperialism in an attempt to preserve
indigenous cultures. In sum, the Western media, because of its influence, is not only broadcasting what
Western viewers favor, they are also broadcasting what non-Western societies despise.6
Western Power: Dominance and decline
4
Samuel P. Huntington: “The Clash of Civilization and the remaking of World Order” Simon & Schuster, 1996. S. 56
Ibid. 58
6
Ibid.
5
8
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
Huntington describes that in the post-Cold War world there exists two different perceptions of Western
civilization dominance on the global scene. The first view concerns the idea that after the disintegration of
the Soviet Union there was no true rivalry between any major civilizations. The West stood alone,
victorious. The West is the only civilization which has substantial interests in every other civilization in the
world, while also having the ability to interfere and affect foreign affairs in their favor.7
However, in reflection to this, Huntington presents another picture of a Western power in decline. Western
military power is decreasing relative to that of other civilizations, especially China. The general applause for
the success in the Cold War has blinded folded the Western civilization to see the exhaustion the conflict
caused. Huntington presents the view that economic, political influence and military power all are rapidly
shifting towards the East-Asian region. Other civilizations are no longer willing to accept imposed Western
dictations, and the self-confidence and will to dominate among Western societies is fading8.
Huntington argues that the Muslim and Asian societies will push the Western societies in order to gain
influence hence expediting their priorities. While the relative power of the Islamic and Sinic societies
increase compared to Western societies, the idea of a Western universalism is being reviewed with much
more skepticism. The tendency will alienate Western civilizations further from the two abovementioned,
and other nations will be more inclined to pursue their own indigenous cultures and interests.9
International Relation Perspectives
Aforementioned, the articles I have chosen to analyze in my critical discourse analysis are chosen on traits
which represent two perspectives of international relations. In the following I will give a short description of
the two perspectives’ differences and why they each are important to the representation of my analysis.
The liberalist and realist perspectives are interesting for the Sino-American relation because they both offer
a way of analyzing the different attitude for different approaches to the cooperation or competition
between China and America.
The two perspectives do not take many common stands. However, what they do share is that the liberalist
and realist perspectives both can be used to explain the historical context of the media discourses
independent behavior. The common objective is to understand the central interest of why Sino-American
relation behave the way it does. Both perspectives see the state as the central actor and accept that states
are sovereign. But that is where the similarities end.
7
Ibid. 81
Ibid. 82
9
Ibid.
8
9
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
Liberalist Perspective
Liberalism holds a rather optimistic perspective on international relations. As the liberal thought has high
regard for the power of human reason, the approach to war is that it is not the natural condition of
international relations. However, peace is ideal and normal because it is more reasonable. Human beings
are perfectible with the ability to unlock an inner true potential and learn by mistake.10
The liberalist perspective asserts that democracy is a necessity for the developing of perfectibility.
Liberalists believe that progress is possible through modernization of economics, technology, human
morality and the communication between states. Rational thinking gives humans the ability to interact
across state lines, independent of language barriers, traditions, histories and political structures. The
interdependence between states is a key feature of international relations. Sino-American relation from the
liberalist perspective holds an attitude that believes that cooperation between the two nations is the only
reasonable state, and that the two countries should embrace the prospect of interdependence in order for
them both to modernize.11
Realist Perspective
As opposed to the liberalist perspective, the realist perspective takes on quite a different view. The realist
perspective has a somewhat pessimistic approach to international relations. While liberalism sees peace as
rational and assumes that people by their very nature do not wish to fight each other, realism does not see
human goodness as an inalterable characteristic. The realist theory takes the more animalistic view on
human nature, and assumes that humans are aggressive and territorial creatures that will not hesitate to
act if threatened. Thomas Hobbes describes this as a “state of nature” where no one can feel safe from the
potential harm of others. The Hobbesian view argues that security is an illusion in the sense that nations
founded on the principle of peace is only replacing fear on a domestic level, with fear on a n international
level, the classic realist security dilemma. When living in this state of nature or a state existing in the
international state of nature it is obviously useful to have “power”. If not to protect the state from outside
harm, then enable it to extract power from other states.12
Analysis
Background information
10
Oliver Daddow: “International Relation Theory” Sage Publication 2009. S. 69
Ibid. 71-72
12
Ibid. 81
11
10
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
The relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China is referred to as the SinoAmerican relation. And the Sino-American relation is a complex matter. In the early days of Chairman Mao
Zedong’s reign, the relation between the two countries was overwrought in the sense that it was more of a
confrontation than a relation. Basically, both countries were convinced that they each offered the best
future and hope for mankind, while having strong discontent for the competing ideology. They saw each
other as their biggest rivals to their respective visions for the world, and felt a need to eliminate the
competition.13 Since Mao Zedong led the Communist Party to power in China, there have been many
changes to the Sino-American relation. Some have strengthened the relation while others have weakened
it.
Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the United States has arguably only been one superpower in the
world. This is partly due to the general assertion that capitalism won the battle against communism. The
liberal ideology was victorious and socialism failed.14 Now, in the post-Cold War world, Samuel P.
Huntington argues that the world community has fallen victim to a western hegemony dominated by the
United States’ trends an interests, which are particular directed by western media.15
The United States may be considered to be the only superpower in the world, but it is foreseen that by
2020, China will be the single largest economy in the world with the United States trailing second. This
suggests that these nations will arguably dominate the international agenda for years to come, and this is
the reason why the state of the Sino-American relation will be hugely important for the future.16
Critical Discourse Analysis
The primary objective of the media is to make the public interact and engage in what is going on around
the world. But there is a power struggle within the different media discourses or a competition, as in all
branches, to attract the demand to their particular product or media discourse. Therefore, the media will
do its best to supply an attractive context for the reader by making an interesting title or headline. The title
is the reader’s first meeting with the text, and my point of departure.
Description: the formal properties of the texts
The Chinese news provider China Daily has written an Opinion on April 29 which titles: “US shows its true
colors”.17 [Appendix 1] This is a very accusing title that suggests that the United States has been acting in
13
Robert Garson: “The United States and China since 1949: A Troubled Affair” Associated University Presses, 1994. S. 1
Ibid. s. 207
15
Samuel P. Huntington: “The Clash of Civilization and the remaking of World Order” Simon & Schuster, 1996. S. 56
16
“China to have world's biggest economy by 2020,” last edited August 21, 2010,: http://rt.com/news/chinaeconomy-world-biggest/
17
“US shows its true colors” : http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2014-04/29/content_17472568.htm
14
11
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
secrecy. “True colors” is a phrase that is used to describe or to let others know how someone is really like
and is used in a declarative sentence that US is not what they seem to be.18 This is am exclamatory title
that expresses strong feelings against the United States’ Asian tour. The appealing effect is to provoke the
readers in order to make them continue reading. People who are American biased will arguably feel a
certain discontent to the article and seek to disprove it, while the Chinese biased will be curious to compare
the article statements to their own convictions.
The American news provider, The New York Times wrote on April 26 the headline: “On a trip that avoids
Beijing, Obama keeps his eyes on China”.19 [Appendix 2] This title is a declarative sentence that uses the
word “avoids” and phrases like “keeps his eyes on China” to appeal to the American readers. The sentence
in itself does not express an opinion, it is more a declaration or announcement of Obama and the Asian
tour, but the word choice suggest that the objective is to distance the reader to China by implying that
Obama deliberately has chosen not to visit Beijing to nurture the Sino-American relation but instead to
contain it. This can be views as a way for the sender to suggest that Obama throws suspicion on China and
its interests. The American biased would be encouraged to follow Obama’s Asian tour with the same
skepticism towards China.
The Sino-American news provider, China-US Focus published on May 9 the title: “US should learn to “enjoy
cooperation””.20 [Appendix 3] This title does not seek to split the waters or force the reader to choose a
side; instead it uses an imperative sentence to advise the United States to embrace the prospect of
cooperation. The fact that the title writes “should learn” does implies a minor critic that the United States
has yet to learn to cooperate with others. The word choice “US” might be target the American readers as
opposed to a “China and US” which would imply equal participation, neglecting China from the title
suggests that the sender wants the reader to get the impression that China is fully willing to cooperate with
US.
As it has become apparent the three articles all represent different affiliations towards the Sino-American
relation. The titles in the articles are trying to create different contexts for the reader to engage in: China
Daily creates a very serious and accusing context where the author urges the reader to acknowledge the
impurity of US and its intentions; The New York Times title creates an isolative context that seeks to
18
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/show+true+colors
“On a trip that avoids Beijing, Obama keeps his eyes on China.” Accesses April 26,2014,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/world/asia/on-a-trip-that-avoids-beijing-obamas-eye-remains-onchina.html?_r=0
20
“US should learn to “enjoy cooperation.” Accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/usshould-learn-to-enjoy-cooperation/
19
12
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
distances the reader to China by portraying China as an apprehensive actor that is being avoided by
America; and lastly, China-US Focus creates a cross-cultural, optimistic context where the American reader
is being encouraged to relate and discuss the fruit of cooperation with China instead of the opposite.
In sum, the three texts represent different actors within the media discourse and power struggle. Therefore,
they all try to incite their respective motivations within the social relation, being in this case the SinoAmerican relation. In order to do so, they take on specific genres to structure their argument from:
Persuasion, declaration and discussion.
Interpretation: text and interaction
The China Daily article’s structure does not encourage the reader to contribute to the news personally or to
reflect criticism on the statements. The structure is organized so the reader is guided through the beginning,
middle and end without being supported by quotations or other literate means. Instead, the reader is being
persuaded to take the writers arguments as face value.
In comparison, the New York Times article is more informative; it seeks to educate the reader and to
provide information on Obama’s Asian Tour with a logical order that gives the reader a clear overview of
the situation while quoting several sources throughout.
In the last article, from China-US Focus is structured in a way that is supposed to get the reader to relate to
the Sino-American relation and review the situation by offering an alternative opinion. The writer wants the
participants to engage in the text by asking the reader question a question: “Then why shouldn’t the US
increase its bet on the positive prospects of Sino-US relations?”
The following will focus on the sentence and vocabulary choices of the relationship between the text and
interaction. The sentences are the main components of the texts, and it is within these the writer tries to
alter the interpretation of the reader by asserting different values to the chosen vocabulary.
In the China Daily article, the writer has arranged the sentence structure of the article to persuade the
reader. The persuasion becomes very clear from the first line that the objective is to represent the opinion
of the majority as the sender writes “as many has observed”. As the reader we need to question the
legitimacy of source, who are these “many”? But that is not something a biased mind would bother with,
and instead it encourages the reader to follow the popular opinion. There are also other rhetoric tools
being used in the article; the writer starts the article arguments with the phrases “increasingly obvious”;
and “it is now clear”, to further cement the seemingly indisputable facts that do not need reflection from
the reader.
13
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
It stands to reason that the target participant of the China Daily article is the Chinese segment as the
expressional values might have positive value for Chinese, while negative value for, say Americans. There
are implications that the writer does not intent the text to have any significant meaning for Americans,
other than provoke perhaps. There are certain word choices in the sentences that have a relational value
which suggests a common ground between the participants.21 I make the observation from the sentence:
“The US-Japan statement, for instance, is a dangerous license for the increasingly rightist Japanese Prime
Minister Shinzo Abe to provoke more trouble”, the amount of experiential values in this sentence is
substantial and is evident throughout the article; “dangerous license”; “to provoke more trouble” are just a
few vocabulary choices to imply an ideological affiliation.
Additionally, another interesting thing here is that the experiential values in the phrases such as; “Beijing as
an opponent”; “targeted against China”, appear alongside the phrase “Increasingly rightist” which suggests
an ideological contest. Now, there is nothing wrong with being rightist, that is just a political choice, but
here, it is used in a context that makes it seem very negative. The relational value to the participants only
becomes more apparent in the sentence: “His [Obama] sweet promises of a new type of major-country
relationship should not blind us to the grim geopolitical reality” The writer is aiming to establish a relation
to the reader and create some common ground, in this case by a first-person perspective, using the plural
personal pronoun “us”. In sum, the article arguably leans towards propaganda more than anything, but
then again, it is important to remember that it is an Opinion; it is supposed to express a strong belief. The
reader is presented with a subjective opinion that is persuasive because it seeks to influence the participant
through arguments disguised as factual information.
In contrast, the New York Times article does not express the same ideological contest in its context as the
former. Then again it does separate itself from the China Daily texts in the way that it is not an Opinion but
a News Analysis which gives it a more natural perspective, however, that that does not mean that the
participant is not being affected by its discourse. If we are to look at the experiential values the New York
Times use vocabulary phrases like “The balancing act”; “a carefully calibrated message”; “discouraging the
Chinese”; “there was lingering uneasiness“, to name a few, suggest that the writer aims to assert a
different experiential value that is more downplayed and less critical to the Sino-American relation,
compared to the former. It makes the reader interpret the social context in a different way that softens the
dramatics of the China Daily. Because it is targeted the American reader and not the Chinese, it is within
the writer’s interest to providing a perspective which is favorable to the social discourse in America. This is
21
Norman Fairclough: ”Language and Power: Second Edition”, Routledge, 2001. S. 97
14
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
also somewhat apparent in the sentence: “Mr. Obama seemed to be saying to Chinese officials who might
be contemplating closer ties with Moscow: Stick with a winning team”.
It is interesting to see in relation to the statement in the beginning of the article: “Perhaps no country has
more to gain from a new Cold War than China, which has historically benefited from periods of conflict
between the United States and Russia”. This suggests that the ideological contest is also very much present
in this particular media discourse. The phrase “a winning team” gives the text a relational value between
the participants, provided they are American. It stands to reason that it would be hard to find a Chinese
news article citing that America is a winning team and that China benefits from conflict, because a Chinese
reader might interpret that as condescending. It also implies a certain historical context that again
emphasizes the ideological contest in the media discourse. The expressive values are asserted positive
meanings towards the American ideology which suggest the writer wants the reader to remember the
historical supremacy of America, should a new Cold war be on the rise in Ukraine.
The third text, China-US Focus article, with its cross-cultural affinity, does not seek to persuade the reader
to choose a side in the ideological struggle, quite the opposite it seeks to unite. But there are implications
in the text that makes an ideological struggle present: “In the eyes of the idealists of American neoconservatism, China is obviously the no.1 “imaginary enemy”, which implies that the writer wants the
reader to renounce this image of China.
It has a mutual Sino-American emphasis which lies in its media discourse objective to encourage the reader
to welcome the prospect of Sino-American cooperation. The experiential value does not imply ideological
similarities to either of the two former texts, but it does criticize and question the American Asian Tour
initiative, describing it as “illusive”. It addresses the predicament Obama put himself in by “walking a tight
rope between allies and China”. That the United States are “self-contradictory” as it seems to be both
making “harsh remarks” about international rules and conventions, while “constantly clarifying” that it
does not intent to contain China.
Its relational value does not disown the American readers by subjecting them to provocations or soothe the
Chinese readers. However, American readers’ interpretation of the text should be to understand the
necessity of strong Sino-American relations: “with economic interdependence with China deepening, it has
to seek Chinese collaboration, because without engaging China, the resolution of any major international
security issue is out of the question”. The American readers will be encouraged to review their standpoint
on the United States’ international relations and be more skeptical towards its allies as the article strongly
advises against cooperation with Japan stating: “The American public, who has been through Pearl Harbor
15
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
and the Pacific Wars, know very well that Japan is now taking advantage of American prowess, and
someday it may very likely become the “negative energy” that hurts the US”. While the writer makes sure
to voice criticism towards the United States current Asian-Pacific policies, the writer also assert very
positive expressive values such as; proposed to build; making concrete efforts, to describe the Chinese
effort to improve the Sino-American relation.
What this somewhat confined sentence analysis shows is that the experiential, relational and expressive
values in each text are different from each other and part of an ideological struggle because of different
opinions on the matter of Sino-American relations. The participants in media discourses interpret the social
setting differently as they are seen and interpreted from different perspectives. The reader is not only
influenced by the writer’s own conviction, but also by their own background and ideological affiliation. The
following section will focus more on the macro issues connected to the three texts.
Explanation: interaction and social context
In the following, and last chapter of the Critical Discourse Analysis, I will concern the explanation of the
different media discourses. And so, I analyze the relationship between interaction and social context. All
three articles are seen in relation to broader social conditions. Whereas the first two parts of the analysis
have been very close to the texts, this section will look to the different power relations shape the social
settings on a societal level.
All three media discourses that I concern my CDA with, all portray their respective discourses as part of a
social process, as a social practice each determined by their different social structures. Now the interesting
thing is to observe some of the reproductive effects the discourses make use of to reproduce or sustain the
social structure. As I understand, the social structures shape the process of production, the production
shape the media discourses; the discourses change or sustain the process of interpretation; which changes
or sustains the social structure.22
In regard to the three articles they have each been produced in different social settings. The China Daily
article has been produced in the Chinese social setting, which means that it has been through the process
mentioned in the above, but from a Chinese perspective. It means that it is a part of a large social setting
that has been changed or sustained according to the sociocultural practice in China. Likewise, the article
from the New York Times is a product of the social setting; the United States, and therefore the particular
media discourse is seen from an American perspective. However, I argue that the China-US Focus is more
22
Ibid. s. 136.
16
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
atypical because it is of Hong Kong origin and because of its Sino-American focus makes its social setting
mostly Chinese but also partly American.
But who determine the social setting, who is it that dominates the power struggle within the social practice:
A crucial element of understanding this power struggle is to look at the access to the discourse. The
relationship between the reader and the writer is not equal in the sense that the reader does not have any
say in the production of the media discourse but can only interpret it from an individual perspective.
The characteristics of contemporary media discourses do suggest that not everyone takes part in producing
the social setting. From a Chinese perspective, the media discourse in regard to the production of the social
setting is dominated by the Chinese government. China’s constitution does offer the public the freedom of
speech and press as long as it is regulation to the Law on Guarding State Secrets. What it means is that the
Chinese media regulation allows the Chinese government to censor sensitive material that is deemed
harmful to the country.23 This is arguably done in order to avoid subversion of the authority of the oneparty rule that exists in China; the Communist Party.
In contrast the first Amendment of the United States constitution protects the right to freedom of speech
and press, among others.24 This means that the social setting is not being dominated absolutely by the
State but is also an ideological struggle between every media discourse in the entire nation. That is not to
assume that the State does not seek to dominate the American public opinion on the Sino-American
relation but the contest is far more diverse than it is in China.
Hong Kong is a part of China, but it is not under the same governmental restrictions as the rest of China.
Hong Kong’s freedoms of speech, press and of publication are protected under Article 27 of the Hong Kong
Basic Law.25 This means that the article from China-US Focus does not replicate the Chinese social practice.
However, on the Press Freedom Index of 2013, none of the three above mentioned (China, the United
States and Hong Kong) rate very high. Hong Kong is placed at 54, the United States at 57, while China is
alarmingly low at 174.26
There are several other determinants in the media discourse. The social related perspective that not all
sections of the public have access to the internet, and even though this is arguably becoming more and
23
“Media Censorship in China.” Last modified February 12, 2014 http://www.cfr.org/china/media-censorshipchina/p11515
24
“First Amendment: An overview.” http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment
25
“Chapter III : Fundamental Rights and Duties of the Residents.”
http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/chapter_3.html
26
“2013 WORLD PRESS FREEDOM INDEX: DASHED HOPES AFTER SPRING.”
http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1054
17
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
more uncommon not to have internet access in some form, it is a variable to consider. There is also the
matter of the public education level; if the public is not properly educated it would be reasonable to
assume that the Sino-American relation would not provide much interest to the public as it is a complex,
often political matter to discuss. These are subjects I will not touch too much upon, but they are also
relevant when asserting the change and sustain of media discourses.
At this point of the analysis, we are aware that each article somehow illustrates the power struggle there
exist in the media discourse with regard to the Sino-American relation. China and America are both
extremely important on the international scene and the interdependence between the two is a much
discussed topic in contemporary world affairs. Moreover, the three articles are not to be seen in direct
relation to each other in the way that they are not responses to each other’s articles and so, they are not
trying to dominate each other in a power struggle directly, however they do share the same topical value
but represents different ideologies.
The China Daily exerts the power to China and defends the Chinese interests in the matter of Obama’s
Asian Tour while trying to take power away from the United States by neglecting American interests and
being somehow pessimistic about the American integrity. In that sense China Daily is very overt in trying to
change the social setting in China towards a more negative interpretation of the United States in the public.
It is important to bear in mind that this article has been “allowed” publishing by the Chinese government,
which suggests that they approve of its message and tries to sustain the existing power relations. If the
objective is to rally Chinese sentiment while alienating the United States in the Chinese social setting, this is
one way to use the media.
Aforementioned, the New York Times article is not a response to the China Daily, but it does try to exert the
power to the United States as it does not seek to change the social setting but sustain it by suggesting that
Obama’s Asian Tour might have received critic from China, but the criticism is nothing the United States
cannot comprehend. It stands to reason that the end: “Except for a little turbulence, the plane passed
through the area smoothly” could be figurative speak suggesting that the United States is still superior in
world affairs and pay little attention to the trivial assertions that the Sino-American relation is under strain.
The New York Times engage the power struggle rather calmly by appearing objective in order to sustain this
particular power relation by making the struggle appear covert.
The Chins-US Focus does not exert power exclusively to China or the United States. The article seeks to
change the social setting in both China and the United States by challenging their respective social settings.
So the power struggle lies not to exclude opposing interpretations of the Sino-American relation, but
18
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
instead to make them cooperate. Although this seems very admirable it is also worth noticing that the
China-US Focus is strongly challenging the social setting in the interpretation of United States’ allies. The
main objective is to transform the power relations within the Sino-American relation by making Americans
reevaluate their stand on the United States’ foreign policy in the Asian-Pacific region.
From an ideological standpoint, the three texts are also very different from each other. Ideological values
are but another mean to analyze the explanation of the societal relation in the broader context. The China
Daily article is, as we have established, run by the Chinese government. The Chinese government is a oneparty-rule, and has been since Mao Zedong led the Chinese Communist Party to victory during the Chinese
Revolution in 1949.27 What this means for the China Daily and the news it provides, is that it arguably seeks
to promote the Communist ideology. China has a very state-centric view of the world; the relationship
between states is the most important for the Chinese, and so, neglects other forms of relationships. China
emphasizes the protection of its sovereignty, and the promotion of its national interests is at the core of
Chinese international relations. As such the Chinese school of thought takes a Realist perspective in its
assumption that power is superlative. However, China keeps this covert to the international world as they
do not wish to give the impression that they a pursuing power. The Chinese dislike hegemony, as they have
suffered heavily under Western imperialism in the recent past.28
On the contrary, the New York Times is perhaps the most popular news media in the United States. The
proportion of readers targeted is enormous. This gives them a substantial influence on the media discourse
in America. The New York Times is but one of many news media in the United States, and it is generally
practiced to place ideological value in support of either conservatism and the Republican Party, or
liberalism and the Democratic Party. New York is one of the ten most liberal states in America,29 and the
public editor of the New York Times also confirms the newspaper’s liberal affiliation.30 President Barack
Obama is member of the Democratic Party and therefore arguably holds a liberalist perspective which
favors an inter-state cooperation. The New York Times article does not place heavy criticism on Obama or
his actions in regard to the Sino-American relation. The societal determinant of the media discourse is
affected by the assumption that the New York Times has their colors painted to the mast hence seeks to
reflect their ideological affiliation and support to Obama and the Asian-Pacific policy he practices. That may
27
Robert Garson: “The United States and China since 1949: A Troubled Affair” Associated University Presses 1994, s.22
Gerald Chan: ”Chinese Perspective on International Relations: A Framework for Analysis”, MacMillan Press LTD 1999,
s.13
29
“Alabama, North Dakota, Wyoming Most Conservative States” accessed February 1, 2013,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160196/alabama-north-dakota-wyoming-conservative-states.aspx
30
“THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?.” Accessed July 25, 2004,
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/opinion/the-public-editor-is-the-new-york-times-a-liberal-newspaper.html
28
19
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
serve to explain why it is seemingly tedious compared to the other two. It does not wish to challenge the
social setting, but sustain it by appearing as if it’s all business as usual.
The China-US Focus is not a traditional newspaper in the sense that their sole objective is to provide
different opinions and perspectives on what they assert as the “most important bilateral relationship in the
world”, the Sino-American relation. According to their website they seek to portray and represent views
from experts on both sides of the Pacific. It is also stated that they wish to “disseminate informed opinions,
stimulate debate, and enhance the understanding between the two nations” and hold that they do not
publish incendiary or extreme articles.31 This goes well in hand with analysis as it states their cooperative
intent on the Sino-American relation. It stands to reason that the China-US Focus in that regard holds a
Liberalist perspective that seeks to move the Sino-American relation forward.
And these are just three examples of media discourses that I have chosen to work with in this content
limited thesis. There are a substantial amount of articles on the matter, many I have come across in my
data process. Mine do only reflect a tiny minority of the overall power struggle that is ongoing in different
media discourses. However, they provide an example that portrays how this tug-of-war is being fought in
the media. When it comes to the Sino-American relation there is no sign of a universal civilization with the
United States setting the agenda. The Chinese media is prepared to fight back and criticize the western
power in order to promote the China’s interest.
Public Opinion on the Sino-American relation
In the following section, I will touch upon quantitative findings from Pew Research Center32 and Gallup33 in
order to reflect my findings from the media discourses to the public opinion as it has been constructed by
Pew and Gallup analysis. These numbers will reflect the social setting, or the public opinion on the
contemporary Sino-American relation. The polls will be portraying the Sino-American relation as it is
perceived by Americans Chinese. The data will be related to the “Clash of Civilizations” theory in order to
explain the reason behind the numbers, or at least Huntington’s reasons.
31
About Us: http://www.chinausfocus.com/about/
“U.S.-China Relations: Key Data Points from Pew Research.” Accessed January 27, 2014,
http://www.pewresearch.org/key-data-points/u-s-china-relations-key-data-points-from-pew-research
33
”Americans View China Mostly Unfavorably.” Accessed February 20, 2014,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167498/americans-view-china-mostly-unfavorably.aspx
32
20
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
What is interesting to notice is just how low China actually rates compared to other states. If we look to
some of the nations which surround China; Russia and Saudi Arabia are the only ones rating lower. Canada,
Great Britain and Japan are the nations which are most favorable. Huntington would assert this
construction of relations to the cultural affiliation the United States share with its Western allies and the
attempt to persevere western hegemony. Moreover, the low rating of China is maybe a consequence of the
two countries’ cultural heritages being radically different from each other. I wonder if the low Chinese
rating is a sign of US concern because of China’s economic strength or military power, or maybe both.
Huntington argues that they are in close relation: “the economic development enables Asian states to
expand their military capabilities”34
34
Samuel P. Huntington: ”The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World Order” Simon and Schuster 1996, S. 218
21
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
Gallup observe that Americans view China as very or mostly unfavorable as slightly more than half of the
represented votes are sharing this opinion (53%). It stands to reason that this tendency is a product of a
perceived Sino-American rivalry. Because Americans see China as a serious competition for the domination
on the global scene they are less inclined to have a very or mostly favorable view, though it should be said
that slightly more than two out of every five Americans have positive opinion on China (43%). Americans
arguable tend to hold a Realist perspective on the Sino-American relation. They seem to be less optimistic
about China and more pessimistic at the future prospect of interdependence. Huntington explains the
rivalry as such: “economic development increases the intensity of conflicts between Asian societies and the
West, primarily the United States, and strengthens the ability of Asian societies to prevail in those
struggles”.35
Huntington’s observation does go well in hand with the statistic above. More than half of every American
asked rate China as the world’s leading economic power (52%) while only three out of ten Americans asked
see the United States as the leading economic power in the world (31%). If we are to assume Huntington’s
position this will only worsen the Sino-American relation in the future. Huntington’s concept of Western
power and its decline suggests that Americans are observing a relative decline in American dominance in
comparison to China.
35
Ibid.
22
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
However, the Americans only view this relative decline in terms of economic power, it seems. The Pew
survey agrees with Gallup. In 2013, the American saw China as the leading economic power (48%), but the
survey also states that American still see the United States as the leading military power (68%) and more
importantly, though China’s economic power public perception has grown, so has American military power
public perception. This suggests that Huntington’s statement that economic growth equals military power
growth is not necessarily correct.
However, the survey above shows that more than half of the asked Americans assert China’s economic
power as a critical threat to US interests (53%), which is more than the critical threat China’s military power
23
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
impose, which is still pretty considerable (46%). As a question of American influence and it interest in the
Asian-Pacific region, Huntington argues that: “the economic growth of Asia’s largest power increases
Chinese influence in the region and the likelihood of China reasserting its traditional hegemony in East
Asia”.36 Huntington suggests that Obama’s Asian tour, which was perceived as either ignoring or containing
the Sino-American relation is a bold move from the United States, as China is likely to dominate that region
of the world. However, it could also be seen as the continuity of Western hegemony as the United States
shows little intention to downgrade its international affairs in that region, one could argue that they are
upgrading. But there is cause for the assumption that western power is in relative decline compared to
China.
While the section has more emphasis on the American relation to China, it is also interesting to take a brief
look at how the Chinese assert the United States. The survey above is from 2012, and is in that regard not
as up-to-date. However, it is interesting to observe that the Chinese opinion on US favorability has
decreased from 2010 to 2012. Almost half of the asked Chinese hold a negative view on the United States
(48%) while the favorable view dropped from 58% in 2010 to 43% in 2012. The Sino-American relation is
likewise being viewed with increased hostility from 8% in 2010 to 26% in 2012. Even though the majority of
the Chinese holds a liberalist perspective and see that the Sino-American relation as one of cooperation,
the number is decreasing at a high pace from 68% in 2010 to 39% in 2012.
What the numbers suggests is that both nations assert the Sino-American relation great importance. The
Americans tend to see the Sino-American relation as conflicting with American interests and do not hold a
36
Ibid.
24
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
very positive view on China. Meanwhile, the majority of the Chinese saw the Sino-American relation as
cooperative in 2012 even though the number had decreased in favor of a more hostile view, (the number is
arguably even lower as per 2014). If we only look at the surveys, the future looks tough for the two
superpowers, and it is cause for concern that the interdependence between the two is increasingly
important to the rest of the world. It is still too farfetched to provide any concrete prediction on the future
of Sino-American relations as the topic is very comprehensive and there are other variables to take into
consideration.
Discussion
Writing this thesis has taught me that the objective I went into the writing process with has provide me
with some challenging and fresh perspective in many ways. I wanted to understand and explain how
communication in the media is being used to translate the acts of an historical event into different opinions
in media discourses, all with each their own perspective.
Communication is not just for the simple sake of sending and receiving different messages. Communication
is a powerful tool that can be used with different purposes in mind there is nothing revolutionary about
that, not to me at least. What does come as quite a surprise is that I have always had the belief that the
media was shaping me and my identity in some relative form: that I was subjected to the agenda of the
media sphere in which I move in, being the Danish media. But what I have come to understand is that I am
changing the media agenda in just as many ways as the media is changing me.
With this particular thesis, I have come to understand that the Sino-American relation is a tremendous
difficult topic to cover. A part of Fairclough’s argumentation is that any communication is a product of an
ongoing power struggle in the broader social context. I am not a variable in this particular equation. I am
not a Chinese citizen, nor am I an American. Therefore, it has been challenging, as well as interesting to
take on President Obama’s Asian tour, and to analyze the media discourses that followed it from different
perspectives, produced in social settings which I did not feel part of. I could have chosen many other
contemporary occasions with just as much relevance to the Sino-American relation. I chose Obama’s Asian
tour because it felt like the most controversial topic I came across in my empirical process. It satisfied my
curiosity and I felt like it had the depth to provide an interesting analysis.
Hopefully the empirical data I have chosen and the points I have extracted from them have been mutual
insightful to the Asian tour and media discourse. Additionally, my objective was to reflect my own neutral
relationship to the Sino-American relation and make my arguments as transparent as possible. The point
25
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
has not been to ostensibly sympathize with any of the two, or to promote one opinion over the other. But I
have felt a certain estrangement from the thesis analysis, as I have not had any personal social position to
engage it from. The Sino-American relation is not of huge topical value in Europe, at least not from my
experience. But then again it was never my mission to give Europe any particular relevance. My point being
that I, in my reflection, have come to realize that I was not a relevant participant in either of the discourses
and that made it harder for me to relate to the topic. Even given my personal interest in China and America
it was a revelation to me how important it is for me to feel a personal relationship to the discourses I
engage in.
On another note, I am convinced that Fairclough was the right methodological approach to the thesis. The
three stages of his approach to critical discourse analysis felt like a natural and reasonable way to make
sense of the articles from the very nearest level to the broadest. I feel like there is a common thread in the
analysis in the sense that the observations have a natural relation to each other, there does not seem to be
any contradicting information. However, I feel like there is a clear distinction between the three articles in
the way that they each offer unique perspectives to the problem formulation. However, one critique of the
way I have chosen to approach this thesis’ methodology is that it would have been an entirely different
thesis had I chosen three other articles. My empirical process was never to randomly select my material. It
would not have changed the approach to represent three media from different domestic origins, but it
would have changed the text analysis. It goes without saying that the empirical data of a thesis has a huge
say in answering to the problem formulation, but in my case it shows just how paramount the task of
portraying the media discourse can be. It is constantly changing.
I feel like the capital restriction to the size of the thesis has provided me with the suitable amount of space
to work with. The danger of having too much space to work with is that it tends to blur the focus. At least
that is what I have learned from previous assignments. I feel like my analysis and the empirical choices I
have made provide the reader with enough evidence to call it a genuine explanation to the problem
formulation stated. But had I chosen more articles to back the conclusion it would have increased
representation and the legitimacy to some extent. However, I knew that it would be fairly comprehensive
to go down that road. I realized that I had to focus on providing an argumentation on qualitative empirical
data by making a more in-depth analysis of those three particular articles and the information they could
contribute independently.
Moreover, my idea of using Samuel P. Huntington’s “Clash of Civilization” theory as a point of reference in
the thesis has provided me with some interesting insight. However, it would have been more satisfactory to
stimulate the analysis with some competing argument from another theorist with another opinion. I hope
26
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
that the thesis reflect complete objectivity on Huntington’s statements, aforementioned, it was never a
matter of proving his theory. But Huntington is perhaps the biggest realist I have encountered in my short
and very modest experience with international relations. I was aware of the potential tunnel vision my
argumentation could be subjected to, had I come to take “Clash of Civilization” at face value. In hindsight, I
feel like it would have been a good, and logic choice to supplement Huntington with a more liberalist
theorist to provide some different perspective to the analysis. Additionally, international relation theory is
not as present in the thesis as I initially had expected it to be. Originally, my plan was to use international
relation theory in a factual analysis of the history between China and the United States, but this focus was
ultimately removed from my agenda. However, I still feel the need to keep it in the thesis as I believe it to
provide the reader with some important insight to the realist and liberalist way of understanding
nationalism, interdependence and international relations.
Finally, I chose to implement qualitative data into my analysis in order to give it a more functionalist
perspective. My idea has been to use Pew Research Center and Gallup to make the contemporary SinoAmerican relation more generalizable and manageable. I felt like solely relying on the critical discourse
analysis would be a bit too narrow, and I had the space to broaden the view a bit without losing focus.
Furthermore, I felt like it complemented the discourse analysis well in the sense that it described the social
setting in raw numbers. It made the public opinion polls gave me some data I could work with and put in
relation to the media discourses. In that sense, I feel like the conclusion is well structured and has a
common thread between the different sections of my analysis.
Conclusion
In the contemporary media discourse, the Sino-American relation is under as much influence from the
media as one would expect. One of the main reasons for completing this thesis was to understand how
media with different cultural and social backgrounds would portray the Sino-American relation from
different journalist perspectives. I wanted to make an in-depth analysis of internet articles from genuine
media websites from China, Hong Kong and the United States respectively. I found that each article had its
own focus and affiliation towards the Sino-American relation. The Chinese article from China Daily put
much emphasis on portraying the United States as mischievous and opaque in their way of handling the
Sino-American relation; the broader context revealed that the strong Chinese nationalism perhaps was the
reason for this seemingly realist attitude. Hong Kong article from China-US Focus had another focus entirely;
they saw the opportunity from cooperation with the United States and put much emphasis on betting on a
prosperous future Sino-America relation. Not being under the same political strain from the Communist
Party rule of mainland China, China-US Focus could hold a more liberalist attitude. Finally, the American
27
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
article from The New York Times revealed a much more relaxed attitude; the United States was not under
any pressure in the Asian-Pacific region from China, quite the contrary, Obama had strengthened the
relation of many of the United States allies. The context revealed that The New York Times’ political
affiliation to the Democrat Party might be the reason behind their seemingly pro-Obama politics. In
conclusion, I found that the social setting is very much affected by an ongoing agenda from different media
to push the public demand in favor of their supply. The supply often portrayed in a particular ideological
affiliation from different societal determinants. In that sense, it is not only the media who is producing the
social setting, as participants in the media discourses we are just as influential on the media discourse in
our way of interpreting.
Another main reason for completing the thesis was to take the analysis from the different media and
compare them to public opinion polls concerning the Sino-American relation. Pew Research Center and
Gallup each did their own respective polls on the subject and the results show that the Sino-American
relation is not as good as one might think, given the increasingly interdependence between the two as they
both play important roles in the future. The Americans see China more as a competitive force than a
cooperative force and assert China’s economic strength as a relative threat to the United States. In that
way I have found a more realist and less liberalist attitude from the public towards the Sino-American
relation, though the Chinese still see the future Sino-American relation as one of cooperation that view is
steadily changing. Huntington argues that this economic strength of China is one of the reasons for an
increased chance of conflict and strain in the Sino-American relation and the public opinion reflects that.
28
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
Reference list
Literature
Chan, Gerald. Chinese Perspective on International Relations: A Framework for Analysis. MacMillan Press
LTD, 1999
Daddow, Oliver. International Relation Theory. Sage Publication, 2009
Fairclough, Norman. Language and Power: Second Edition. Routledge, 2001
Garson, Robert. The United States and China since 1949: A Troubled Affair. Associated University Presses,
1994
Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Simon & Shuster, 1996
Website articles
Basic Law. “Chapter III : Fundamental Rights and Duties of the Residents”
http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/chapter_3.html
Business Insider. “China Tells US To Butt Out On North Korea And Contested Islands.” Accessed February 14,
2014, http://www.businessinsider.com/r-china-pushes-back-on-north-korea-south-china-sea-as-kerryvisits-2014-14#ixzz32vOXkdkI
The China Daily. “US show its true colors.” Last modified April 29, 2014,
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2014-04/29/content_17472568.htm
China-US Focus. “About Us.” http://www.chinausfocus.com/about/
China-US Focus. “US should learn to “enjoy cooperation”.” Accessed May 9, 2014,
http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/us-should-learn-to-enjoy-cooperation/
Council on Foreign Relations. “Media Censorship in China.” Last modified February 12, 2014,
http://www.cfr.org/china/media-censorship-china/p11515
Gallup. “Alabama, North Dakota, Wyoming Most Conservative States.” Accessed February 1, 2013,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160196/alabama-north-dakota-wyoming-conservative-states.aspx
Gallup. ”Americans View China Mostly Unfavorably.” Accessed February 20, 2014,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167498/americans-view-china-mostly-unfavorably.aspx
Legal Information Institute. “First Amendment: An overview.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment
The New York Times. “On a trip that avoids Beijing, Obama keeps his eyes on China.” Accessed April 26,
2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/world/asia/on-a-trip-that-avoids-beijing-obamas-eyeremains-on-china.html?_r=0
29
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
The New York Times. “THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?.” Accessed July 25,
2004, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/opinion/the-public-editor-is-the-new-york-times-a-liberalnewspaper.html
Pew Research Center. “U.S.-China Relations: Key Data Points from Pew Research.” Accessed January 27,
2014, http://www.pewresearch.org/key-data-points/u-s-china-relations-key-data-points-from-pewresearch/
Reporters Without Borders. “2013 WORLD PRESS FREEDOM INDEX: DASHED HOPES AFTER SPRING.”
http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1054
RT. “China to have the world biggest economy by 2020.” Last modified August 21, 2010,
http://rt.com/news/china-economy-world-biggest/
Definitions
“True Colors.” http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/show+true+colors
30
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
Appendix
Appendix 1: US shows its true colors by China Daily
Just as many have observed, united States President Barack Obama's Asia visit is essentially about
Washington's and its allies' unease about a rising China.
From Tokyo to Manila, Obama has tried to pick his words so as not to antagonize Beijing. But from the USJapan joint statement to the new US-Philippines defense agreement, it is increasingly obvious that
Washington is taking Beijing as an opponent. With Obama reassuring the US' allies of protection in any
conflict with China, it is now clear that Washington is no longer bothering to conceal its attempt to contain
China's influence in the region. It is even less convincing to say the US pivot to the Asia-Pacific is not
targeted against China.
Obama's rhetoric about peace and international law sounds hollow because it contradicts what Washington
and himself have been up to. The US-Japan statement, for instance, is a dangerous license for the
increasingly rightist Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to provoke more trouble. Its shameless disregard
of historical facts and endorsement of Abe's rightist inclinations will only cause further instability.
For a considerably long period, Chinese have cherished the naive thought that Washington will rein in its
unruly allies when they go too far.
Obama's current trip should be a wake-up call that this is just wishful thinking. His sweet promises of a new
type of major-country relationship should not blind us to the grim geopolitical reality: Ganging up with its
troublemaking allies, the US is presenting itself as a security threat to China.
The foremost threat is not the disputes that estrange China from its neighbors such as Japan and the
Philippines. It is rather the threatening image of China that is being projected and marketed by these
malicious neighbors and their backstage supporter.
Washington's biased portrayal of China and its legitimate territorial claims is conducive to the US' pivot and
stronger bonds with its allies. But if the US wants to benefit from the thriving Asia-Pacific, it should
promote good-neighborliness.
The further prosperity of the region calls for closer intra-regional connectivity, to which the current
tensions are a threat. Washington should try to ease those tensions, instead of fanning them.
Most important of all, Washington must come to terms with the reality that China will continue to grow,
though it will not follow the US' hegemonic path.
Washington's best bet lies in collaborating with, not standing against, Beijing before it is too late.
31
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
Appendix 2: US Should Learn To “Enjoy Cooperation” by China-US Focus
Many days after Barack Obama’s four-nation Asia trip, the American media are continuing to discuss it.
Some people believe he “successfully” demonstrated US authority as “the boss;” some think he appeared
weak and was “duped” by the Japanese; others feel he stepped into the dangerous “containment trap.”
The apparent initiative was illusive, and China’s shadow was simply inescapable.
The most interesting part was that mainstream American media repeatedly highlighted that Obama wanted
to both confront and please China, walking a tight rope between allies and China. On one hand, Obama
himself and some high-ranking American officials made harsh remarks, stating that the US wants to make
sure international rules and conventions are observed, including in regards to “maritime disputes;” and on
the other hand, they constantly clarified that the US’ goal is not to confront, or contain China, making the
gesture of releasing “goodwill” to China. This is unprecedented in the history of Sino-US relations. While
apparently self-contradictory, it reflects the US’ bet hedging strategy under new circumstances, as well as
the strategic need of the US “rebalancing” to the Asia-Pacific.
To preserve and consolidate the “strategic rebalancing,” where it maintains an absolute superiority, the US
will inevitably make every effort to eliminate various “negative energies” it perceives. In the eyes of the
idealists of American neo-conservatism, China is obviously the no.1 “imaginary enemy.” Therefore, it
cannot help but contain and encircle China, and to take advantage of allies to provoke China, especially
Japan. Yet with economic interdependence with China deepening, it has to seek Chinese collaboration,
because without engaging China, the resolution of any major international security issue is out of the
question.
Anyone with knowledge about gambling knows that bet hedging is expediency under certain circumstances.
It is both highly risky and unsustainable. The current US bet hedging is not 50:50; it’s 60-70:40-30, or even
80:20. While betting heavily on Japan and allies, the US anticipates that at the same time its “small bet” on
China can also receive huge dividends by enticing China to abide by what it calls “international rules and
conventions.” This is wishful thinking in the first place, which misjudges the conditions and China’s
commitment to its independent diplomacy. Secondly, it mistakes China, as a “positive energy” (who can be
a cooperative partner and even friend) for a “negative energy,” the result of which could be, in American
scholar Joseph Nye’s words, “creating an enemy” in itself. Thirdly, it takes Japan, which is dedicated to
returning to a military path, as a “positive energy,” the hazardous consequences of which are evident. The
American public, who has been through Pearl Harbor and the Pacific Wars, know very well that Japan is
now taking advantage of American prowess, and someday it may very likely become the “negative energy”
that hurts the US. China isn’t a gullible country. What about the US? Never be fooled by the Japanese!
Like it or not, time changes; so do countries’ comparative strengths. Even some pragmatic Americans at
decision-making levels also acknowledge that the US can no longer order the world around. Professor
Meghnad Desai, a member of the British House of Lords, once advised that the US should “enjoy decline”
(which is relative currently). My suggestion is that the US should conform to the trend of history and “enjoy
cooperation.”
China has proposed to build a “new-type major-country relationship” together with the US. Such a show of
goodwill is based on serious deliberation, and China has been making concrete efforts toward that goal.
President Obama has also stated on many occasions that the US side is willing to work with China and build
32
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
a “new-type major-country relationship.” Then why shouldn’t the US increase its bet on the positive
prospects of Sino-US relations? Let the “less-than-comfortable interdependence” become a little more
comfortable, and hence gradually become true “cooperative partners,” and enjoy the fine wine of win-win
cooperation, instead of the bitterness of regret.
Wang Yusheng is the Executive Director at China Foundation for International Studies.
33
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
Appendix 3: On a Trip That Avoids Beijing, Obama Keeps His Eye on China by the
New York Times
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — On every stop of his Asian journey in the past week, President Obama has
spoken to two audiences: America’s allies and China. The balancing act has become even trickier because of
the sharp deterioration in America’s relations with Russia.
Perhaps no country has more to gain from a new Cold War than China, which has historically benefited
from periods of conflict between the United States and Russia and, analysts say, could exploit these latest
tensions to lean even harder on its neighbors in the region.
As Mr. Obama has traveled from Japan to South Korea and, now, Malaysia, he has delivered a carefully
calibrated message to reassure America’s friends of its support while discouraging the Chinese from any
thoughts of opening a second front on the Pacific Rim. In Tokyo on Thursday, Mr. Obama vowed to defend
Japan in a territorial dispute with China, but urged the Japanese to show restraint and insisted that he
wanted solid relations with Beijing. The next day in Seoul, the South Korean capital, he pledged to defend
South Korea from the renegade North, a Chinese ally, but went out of his way to enlist Beijing in that effort.
“We’re not interested in containing China,” Mr. Obama said, even as he embarked on what some experts
said could be portrayed as a “containment tour,” visiting four countries that worry about Chinese
expansionism while skipping Beijing itself. “We’re interested in China’s peaceful rise and it being a
responsible and powerful proponent of the rule of law,” Mr. Obama insisted. But he added, “In that role, it
has to abide by certain norms.”
The president laid out a vivid case for why China should not mimic Russia’s adventurism. The escalating
sanctions against Russia for its threats to Ukraine, he said, will weaken an economy already challenged by
its reliance on oil and gas. The portrait Mr. Obama painted of Russia was withering. Speaking in Tokyo, he
said Russia “needs to diversify its economy, because the rest of the world is moving further and further off
the fossil fuels that are the primary way that Russia is able to bankroll itself.”
By playing up Russia’s weaknesses and predicting that they will worsen because of President Vladimir V.
Putin’s aggression, Mr. Obama seemed to be saying to Chinese officials who might be contemplating closer
ties with Moscow: Stick with a winning team. “The message is: ‘Don’t think that what Putin is doing in
eastern Ukraine is so brilliant that you should be inspired by it. Don’t think that this is a model that could
work for you,’ ” said Jeffrey A. Bader, who was the senior China adviser on the National Security Council
until 2011.
Mr. Bader warned last week that a few poorly chosen phrases could turn Mr. Obama’s trip into a
containment tour. But he said the president had gotten the balance right in Japan and South Korea,
robustly reaffirming America’s support for its treaty allies while avoiding statements that would isolate or
antagonize China. So far, China’s reaction has been muted. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a
perfunctory objection to Mr. Obama’s assertion that the American security treaty with Japan obligates the
United States to protect a clump of islands in the East China Sea that are administered by Japan but claimed
by both Japan and China.
34
Mikkel B. M. Lund
6. Semester
Aalborg University
Maj 2014
But it has been silent since then, much as it abstained from the debates in the United Nations over Russia’s
actions in Crimea. China, some analysts said, is content not to pick a fight with the United States at a time
when events, in Asia and elsewhere, seem to be going in its favor.
Leaders in Japan and South Korea said they were reassured by Mr. Obama’s words. But among experts in
both countries, there was lingering uneasiness about the depth of American resolve. “The wording of his
statements was O.K., but if you look at his demeanor and tone, he was very nuanced and trying not to get
entangled in disputes with China,” said Narushige Michishita, an expert on security policy at the National
Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo.
Lee Geun, a professor of international studies at Seoul National University, said the situation in Ukraine
raised inevitable questions. “What if North Korea tries something, or what if China tries to do something
with North Korea?” he said. “Would the U.S. come to South Korea’s defense?” Administration officials say
the United States is better placed in Asia than it has been for years. Malaysia, which once had an openly
anti-American government, is now cautiously looking to work with the United States. Myanmar, after
decades of isolation during which it became heavily dependent on China, is also eager to engage.
But none of this will spare Mr. Obama from his balancing act. In Malaysia, where he arrived on Saturday, he
will meet with government officials who have come under fierce criticism from the Chinese authorities for
their handling of the search for the missing Malaysian airliner. Many of the passengers on the plane were
Chinese. Malaysia has its own territorial disputes with China, in the South China Sea, on which it would
welcome American support. Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, said Mr. Obama’s
position was that “big nations should not be able to coerce smaller nations.”
That issue will be even more pointed in the Philippines, where Mr. Obama will travel on Monday. The
country has been locked in an increasingly tense standoff with China over the Scarborough Shoal, a popular
fishing ground now occupied by Chinese ships. The United States hopes to announce an agreement to
expand access for American warships and planes to bases in the Philippines, giving the United States a
visible military presence there for the first time since it relinquished the Subic Bay Naval Base in 1992. That
would also send an unmistakable message to China, though last-minute legal issues in the Philippines have
raised questions about whether the deal will be ready for the president to sign.
As Mr. Obama traveled from South Korea to Malaysia, even his route attested to the perils of the new Asia:
Air Force One flew through an air defense zone over the East China Sea that China announced last year to
reinforce its territorial claims, provoking protests from Japan. At the time, the United States brushed aside
China’s requirement that planes identify themselves when flying into the zone, dispatching two B-52
bombers to prove its point. On Saturday, an administration official said, Air Force One filed only a routine
flight plan. Except for a little turbulence, the plane passed through the area smoothly
35