The Representation Of China-US Trade War In Domestic And International News Outlets
Court witnesses, celebrity paparazzi, and political journalists all have one thing in common: they tell a story based on their own interpretations. The tone and focus in which events are reported often depends on the content and perspective behind it. While court witnesses are called upon to build and maintain cases, political journalists also play a role in building and perpetuating public awareness of political agendas and issues. In similar fashion, celebrity photographers notoriously share a biased viewpoint much in the same way that some political reporters express their convictions through their work. Although mainstream and international news outlets often cover the same events, their accounts tend to differ in the specific media tone, reporting style, and focal point that is disposed.
In the United States, major media outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, and CNN offer a seemingly fair minded stance on the 2018 trade dispute between China and the United States. Likewise, international news sources such as BBC News and AP News also maintain a purposeful level of impartiality by providing substantial information about both sides of the trade war. However, some articles continue to carry undertones that assert a certain degree of bias towards President Trump’s leadership. For example, the NY Times and Fox News shared articles with obvious focus on justifying Trump’s aggressive approach while WSJ characterized China as the weaker opponent. The NY Times failed to give sufficient information about China’s Commerce Ministry’s comments on the issue yet strategically emphasized how China’s retaliation plans would affect American companies, despite President Trump initiating the trade war to begin with. Overall, both domestic and international media outlets demonstrate mostly neoliberal influences.
News media outlets are inherently influenced by their origin’s political stance. In an effort to gather an accurate and comprehensive view of the China-US Trade War, several news outlets from different regions such as North America, the Caribbean, Africa, South America, Asia, Europe, and Australia were collected. Interestingly enough, the United States seems to be the most self-involved when it comes to reporting all of the ways in which this trade dispute affects the rest of the world. Upon analyzing a myriad of US news articles, an existing pattern of neoliberal influences was detected in media outlets such as the New York Times, Fox News, and the Wall Street Journal.
Neoliberalism is an international relations theory that supports the free market economy whilst also believing that the state has the right and obligation to intervene should the market fault to work properly as it should. Neoliberalism focuses on regulating monopolies, creating an equal opportunity for all participants in the global market, lessening the blow of shifting business cycles, and ensuring all liberties are protected. In general, liberalism in the media refers to a focus on mutual benefits attained through cooperation among the nations. Moreover, it places an emphasis on the government’s duty in protecting its citizens while understanding that giving the government too much power can also become a threat to liberty. While Trump’s approach of imposing tariffs on $34 billion worth of Chinese goods seems abrasive, there is evidence to support that it will facilitate China’s ability to become independent in the long term. CNN, in particular, presents a strong case for how the trade war would actually benefit China. Trump is essentially acting in for the best interests of the American people as he intends to put an end to the unfair trading policies that have been more advantageous to China than the United States. This theory is the most appropriate for the domestic response of the US because it makes sense of their state-centric style of reporting about the China-US Trade dispute.
President Trump is seeking out a method of intervening in the free market by imposing hefty tariffs with the intention of leveling the playing field so that the free market will work the way it should. He is using influence to create a consumer preference for American goods. The US, in its media and actions, is mostly concerned with discussing how the United States and China will be directly impacted by the costly tariffs proposed by President Trump. It is apparent that the focal point of US media outlets is to report China’s response to the tariffs while providing information about how both nations will be affected by the incoming tariffs in the future. This aligns well with the neoliberal objective of protecting the interests of a free market, despite the irony of Trump’s strategy. In contrast, international outlets share a less aggressive perspective that fully supports a free market and worries about the potential consequences of the tariffs being imposed. In addition, these international states are generally concerned about avoiding violent conflicts between two major nations in the global economy. Foreign nations present a more liberal-centered attitude in which power politics are rejected in favor of a mutually beneficial relationship between the states.
International trade is supported because it serves a dual purpose as both beneficial and a good preventative measure against war due to the fact that it causes two nations to depend on one another through exports and imports of their goods. The liberal ideology essentially claims that interdependence between the states is mutually beneficial while neoliberal ideals emphasize the importance of maintaining the integrity of the free market. Overall, the presentation of news differs considerably between one source to another. A total of fifteen news articles were collected, with eight being directly from the United States and the remanding seven coming from newspapers from Chile, China, the UK, Australia, Africa, the Caribbean, and Mexico. The NY Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, and Fox news were among the most influential, subjective, and biased. The New York times set the tone for the article by calling the trade dispute between China and the United States “Trump’s Trade War With China”, abandoning impartiality in favor of characterizing Trump as the sole decision-maker and actor in the issue. Likewise, the Wall Street Journal and Fox News portrayed China as a weak opponent that would either lose soon or resort to a engaging in nuclear war with the United States. The latter article by Fox News was speculative, unreliable, and based on a sensationalized theory rather than concrete reasoning based on facts. The neutral video provided by MSNBC over who would win the trade war was also speculative yet contained sufficient information to back up the political opinions of the journalists.
In contrast, BBC News and AP News were both able to provide informative, neutral, and objective presentations of what the trade war between China and the United States entailed through facts, statistics, and verified official statements. These were the most trustworthy and informative articles among the fifteen. Other international news outlets such as Chile’s La Tercera and Caribbean News Now remained impartial and informative in their own assessments and reports of the trade dispute. The latter, however, chose to make the Caribbean’s affected economy a focal point while Chile kept their article completely unbiased and focused on just the two nations involved in the dispute. South China Morning Post curiously published an article detailing how the Brazilian economy was set to flourish as a direct result of the costly tariffs imposed upon the Chinese and American trade markets. This article was objective in its presentation and value-laden with factorial evidence to support its content.
Similarly, Express, a UK newspaper, also reported about the effects that the trade was would have on a foreign nation. The article persuasively explained why the trade war would hit Germany next. While some good points were made about the likelihood of Germany’s economy experiencing substantial losses in its corporate revenues, the article remained subjective and highly speculative. The Sydney Morning Herald expressed similar sentiments about the detrimental impact that the trade dispute could have on Australia’s economy. According to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Australia would continue to lobby for free trade out of fear that the ongoing trade war would hinder the nation’s ability to grow.
A simple comparison between US news sources and those from abroad would be quick to identify various differences. For instance, Africa News, Mexico’s El Día, and Caribbean News Now are exceptionally focused on a state-centric means of reporting in which educative and subjective reports were provided about how Africa, Mexico, and the Caribbean respectively would either benefit or face economic losses as a result of the trade dispute. These nations, as well as a few that are mentioned above, are more concerned with what will happen in their own economies should this trade war continue. I believe this to be reflective of how much other nations depend on the goods that the US and China provide to the rest of the world. In contrast, the US news outlets seem to be mostly interested in discussing only how the China-US political dispute affects American workers and the national economy. China’s quick retaliation of equal value to each sizable tariff that the US imposes shows how prepared, sharp, and willing the nation is to respond to the US. While a few media outlets from the European and North American channels have reported that China is struggling and blaming the US for initiating the “largest trade war in economic history”, the US continue to double down on proposing tariffs on Chinese goods. According to President Trump, these tariffs are strictly in the best interest of the United States’ economy by leveling the playing field in which China has the most advanta. The main objective of the President is to attract American consumers to purchasing American goods over its foreign competitors.
Personally, I think President Trump has offered up enough of a track record so reasonably conclude that he will not back down from threats against China. In this instance, the US has a simple goal in mind. T he China-US trade war is likely to end when China decided to yield to Trump’s administration. It seems unlikely that the President of the United States would set out to start the most aggressive tariff demand in economic history only to withdraw all threats. Through the evaluation of both domestic and international articles, it quickly became apparent that the United States reports news a little differently than other regions of the world. While still a reliable source, the US has the tendency to retain a certain bias over debating its own wellbeing and consequences more so than discussing how US government actions may affect other nations. Readings can be used to further our understanding and ability to predict the outcome of trade war. For example, the potential crisis in Germany and Australia, which were reported by international sources, have not yet made its way into US news media outlets. This leads me to believe that any future domestic response will be restricted only to the United States’ unique perspective while international responses would be most accurate and dependable for seeking out a comprehensive and global understanding of the trade dispute.
