Identifying the frames across media
Through the hierarchical cluster analysis, we identified five frames for the NYT, two for DW and four for CD. Table 2 summarises the frames used by the three media outlets, with the Global Public Goods Frame receiving the highest proportion of coverage, accounting for 30.99% of the Chinese media’s coverage. However, both the US and German media considered Chinese vaccines to be a political or international threat. While the Chinese media highlights the safety of the Chinese vaccines and China’s leading role in research and development, the US and German media cast doubt on these vaccine’s safety and effectiveness. Vaccines should be a scientific or technological issue, but in the context of COVID-19, the media coverage of them was focused on political and international relations. Thus, the issue of COVID-19 vaccines, as discussed in the media, has gone far beyond a scientific or health-related agenda. Next, we will discuss the elements of each specific frame adopted by these three media outlets individually.
Table 2 Frame comparison between the New York Times, Die Welt and China Daily.
Chinese media frames
Table 3 shows the result for each variable for the four frames identified in CD’s coverage. Serving as a crucial foreign propaganda platform, the frames used in CD’s coverage represent the key aspects of China’s vaccine that the Chinese government desires to convey to the international community.
Table 3 Results on all variables of the four frames identified by China Daily.
Firstly, the Global Public Goods Frame is the most significant frame within CD’s coverage of the Chinese COVID-19 vaccine, thus, it is evident that CD’s reports are closely aligned with official Chinese discourses. Reviewing the results shown in Table 3, the mean value of the ‘Actor-Politics’ variable is high, at 0.98. This indicates that 98% of coverage within this frame pertains to political actors, highlighting the significant reliance of CD’s coverage on Chinese official sources. For example, CD’s reports frequently quote statements by the spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry of the PRC or the words of the director of the Development Center for Medical Science and Technology of the National Health Commission at related news conferences. In addition, 92% of articles that fit within this frame discuss China’s vaccines as benefits for global vaccine supply and distribution. As a result, the Global Public Goods Frame emerged as the dominant frame that both the official Chinese discourse and the media aim to emphasise to the international community. Within this frame, no articles mentioned the risk of the Chinese vaccine’s global supply chains, epidemic relief, and vaccination generally.
Associated with the Global Public Goods Frame, the second most covered frame is the Vaccination Promotion Frame (30.41%), which was mainly used to address the topic of vaccination (mean = 0.94, SD = 0.24) and emphasised the safety and effectiveness of the Chinese vaccines. Medical experts, such as academic Zhong Nanshan and Dr. Zhang Wenhong, were frequently quoted in this cluster of articles. This frame could also be seen as competing with frames questioning the Chinese vaccines’ safety and effectiveness within Western media. For example, CD criticised many Western media outlets for taking the efficacy rate of the Chinese vaccines in Brazil out of context and thus misleading the public (Zhang, 2021). Similarly, no article within this frame mentioned the risk of the Chinese vaccine for global supply chains, global vaccination, or vaccine research.
The third frame used by CD is the Leading Research and Development Frame, representing 28.07% of coverage and highlighting China’s leading role in vaccine research and development. In contrast with other frames that place higher mean values on political actors or political benefit attribution, this frame concentrates on scientific actors or scientific benefit attribution. It is also intriguing that no CD articles have addressed the risks associated with the Chinese vaccine.
Lastly, the Global Collaboration Frame highlights China’s attempts to enhance international collaboration in the field of global public health. This frame acknowledges both political factors (mean = 0.89, SD = 0.32) and scientific factors (mean = 0.78, SD = 0.43) when attributing benefits. Thus, CD’s reports aim to showcase the global recognition of the Chinese vaccines and China’s contribution to global anti-pandemic cooperation. As mentioned above, during Xi’s presidency, demonstrating China’s responsible great power identity also involves a domestic discourse, which advocates China to be a more proactive role on the global stage (Breslin, 2010). Remarkably, CD’s coverage of the COVID-19 vaccine does not mention any form of competition or negative judgements regarding the Chinese vaccines, emphasising China is not intentionally pursuing any competition with the other great powers but is, rather, attempting to cooperate and collaborate with them. Due to CD’s role as a ‘mouthpiece’ and in foreign propaganda, the issue of the Chinese COVID-19 vaccine has been highly politicised in its coverage.
Regarding frame variation, Fig. 2 compares the number of articles within each frame for CD’s coverage between 2020 and 2021. In 2020, the Leading Research and Development Frame is the most prominent frame in CD’s coverage. However, in 2021, the focus shifted to the Global Collaboration Frame and Vaccination Promotion Frame. Such frame variation is consistent with the Chinese domestic and foreign policy on the COVID-19 vaccines, as we have discussed above. Since the official launch of the Chinese COVID-19 vaccine on the last day of 2020 (State Council of PRC, 2020), the Chinese media’s discourse quickly followed the official narrative, presenting the vaccine as a crucial global public good. However, the frames used in CD’s reports stand in direct contrast to the frames observed in the US and German media, which illustrates the frame contestation between the Chinese media and Western media.
Fig. 2
Comparison of article numbers within each frame for CD’s coverage between. 2020 and 2021.
US media frames
Table 4 shows the clusters of the five media frames used by the NYT. The Safety Risks Frame is the most used frame regarding the issue of the Chinese vaccines, representing 38.73% of coverage. Within this frame, the potential safety risks of Chinese COVID-19 vaccines are the focus. The five variables with the highest mean values in this frame are (1) topic-vaccination (mean = 0.93, SD = 0.26), (2) actor-politics (mean = 0.98, SD = 0.14), (3) risks-health (mean = 0.95, SD = 0.23), (4) risks-vaccine allocation and vaccination (mean = 0.91, SD = 0.29) and (5) negative disposition (mean = 0.93, SD = 0.26). Therefore, one significant argument made by the articles in this frame is that the safety risks associated with the Chinese vaccines primarily stem from factors such as medical science and technology, the commercial personnel involved in vaccine development and promotion as well as the Chinese government’s control over the global supply chain and its participation in global vaccine distribution.
Table 4 Results on all variables of the five frames identified by the New York Times.
The second most-used frame in the NYT is the Vaccine Diplomacy Competition Frame (21.13%), which emphasises China’s ‘vaccine diplomacy’ and influence on other countries. Certain articles express concerns about the US falling behind in the global vaccine competition. For example, an article entitled ‘US Takes Step to Use Vaccine for Diplomacy’ urges the Biden Administration to expedite the distribution of American-made vaccines to foreign nations. The article argues that this is crucial because ‘while the Biden administration plans its strategy to counter China’s growing global clout, Beijing is burnishing its image by shipping vaccines to dozens of countries on several continents, including in Africa, Latin America and particularly in its Southeast Asian backyard’ (Stolberg and Crowley, 2021). Thus, the NYT’s articles criticise the political motives of the Chinese government in allocating COVID-19 vaccines to the global community while also underscoring the altruistic nature of the US’s vaccine distribution, emphasising that it does not seek any reciprocation from recipient countries.
Being very similar to the second frame but focusing more heavily on the vaccine’s research and development stage, the third frame—the Chinese Threats Frame—discusses the political threats posed by China’s vaccine technology in the global vaccine competition. This frame predominantly emerged during 2020, a period in which the Chinese vaccines had not yet entered the market. In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, several articles highlighted the proactive approach of the Chinese government and medical researchers in sharing viral genomic data. This sharing of data was seen as a significant contribution that laid the technical groundwork for collaborative vaccine research worldwide. However, as global competition in research and development intensified between China, Europe, and the US, the US media began to portray China as Europe and the US’s primary competitor. Consequently, China’s COVID-19 vaccine began to be framed as a potential threat, leading to escalating global political tensions and hindering international technological cooperation.
The fourth frame—the Global Cooperation Frame—and the fifth frame—the Effectiveness Problem Frame—both represented 11.97% of the NYT’s coverage. The Global Cooperation Frame is the only frame with a high mean value (mean = 0.94, SD = 0.24) in terms of positive judgements regarding the final frame element–treatment. This frame shows the recognition of China’s vaccine research and development technology and trust in scientific research cooperation. Thus, China’s vaccine is seen as a positive response to the COVID-19 outbreak. However, the Effectiveness Problem Frame indicates doubts about the effectiveness of China’s vaccine, questioning the lack of information about vaccine effectiveness.
Indeed, competing media frames can coexist within a single media outlet. This suggests that the NYT may have a nuanced and complex perspective on the issue of Chinese vaccines. On the one hand, their reports acknowledge and rely on the fact that China has shared crucial virus information and actively facilitated global cooperation on vaccine research and development. On the other hand, due to the limitations imposed by the US’s national interests, their reports may still present Chinese vaccines in a negative light.
It is important to note that these media frames can evolve over time. As the situation develops and new information emerges, the framing of the Chinese vaccines in the NYT’s reports may undergo changes. Figure 3 compares the number of articles within each frame for the NYT’s coverage between 2020 and 2021, based on which we can see that the Safety Risks Frame has dominated across these 2 years. While the Chinese Threats Frame and Global Cooperation Frame appear more often in 2020, the other two frames—the Vaccine Diplomacy Competition Frame and the Effectiveness Problem Frame—appear in 2021. The dynamic nature of media frames reflects the evolving understanding and context surrounding the topic. For example, when the US intensified its global vaccine competition, fewer articles in the NYT mentioned the Global Cooperation Frame. On the other hand, the media frames regarding the Chinese vaccines have become progressively more negative in the NYT’s second year of coverage.
Fig. 3
Comparison of article numbers within each frame for the NYT’s coverage between 2020 and 2021.
German media frames
Compared to the NYT’s complicated frames, DW has only two frames regarding the Chinese vaccine issue. One is the Political Risks Frame, and the other is the Potential Cooperation Frame. The first frame represents 71.4% of DW’s coverage, while the latter makes up only 28.6%. Table 5 summarises the results for all variables related to these two frames, as identified from DW’s reports. It is interesting to find that these two frames competed with one another.
Table 5 Results on all variables of the two frames identified from Die Welt.
The Political Risks Frame primarily focuses on the political intentions of the Chinese government concerning the global distribution of Chinese vaccines. The reports of DW view the international distribution of these vaccines as a potential threat to the global political structure and argue that accepting Chinese vaccines could pose health risks amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, DW follows a similar logic to that of the NYT when covering this issue but does so from a German or EU perspective. For example, an article published on August 5, 2020, asserts that ‘Europe is in danger of being crushed between the social-Darwinian laissez-faire of the USA and the paternalism of China.’ The article suggests that Europe should consider the global distribution of vaccines to be an ‘ethical-political project’ via which Europe can revive and export its own tradition of liberating liberalism (Mitscherlich-Schönherr, 2020). In this context, China’s COVID-19 vaccine is viewed as a tool for vaccine nationalism rather than a contribution to the supply of global public goods. Consequently, it is regarded as a risk factor that exacerbates global political tensions.
On the other hand, the Potential Cooperation Frame emphasises a more positive aspect of the Chinese vaccines’ development and distribution. Since 2016, economic and trade exchanges between China and Germany have deepened, and the German economic community has taken a relatively friendly attitude toward Chinese enterprises (Yao, 2018). One interview article with Mr. Helmut Jeggle, the chairman of the supervisory board of BioNTech, shows a very positive view of working with China on COVID-19 vaccine development (Boldt, 2020). Therefore, within this frame, cooperating with China is considered a way to help Germany play a dominant role in the global vaccine development competition. However, it is worth noting that the frame emphasising the threat posed by the Chinese vaccines takes up less of DW’s coverage. A greater portion of the coverage is directed towards highlighting the perceived threat rather than emphasising cooperation.
In terms of the frame variation in DW’s coverage, it is interesting to find that the number of articles on those two frames changed significantly between 2020 and 2021. In 2020, the two frames appeared at a similar frequency, with 10 articles fitting within the Political Risks Frame and 11 articles fitting within the Potential Cooperation Frame. However, in 2021, only one article fits within the Potential Cooperation Frame, while 20 articles emphasised the Political Risks Frame. In other words, the negative frame dominated DW’s coverage as China promoted its vaccines as global public goods in 2021.
Nevertheless, while DW and the NYT have similarities in their coverage of the Chinese vaccines, they also exhibit differences in emphasis. Both media outlets delve into the political aspects of the Chinese vaccines. However, the specific angles and focal points chosen vary between the two. Based on our calculations regarding the frame elements, the mean score for the global-cooperation-benefit variable in DW’s Potential Cooperation frame (see Table 5) is significantly higher than that in the NYT’s Global Cooperation frame (see Table 4). This indicates that DW may place a greater emphasis on cooperation between China and other countries, as well as the role of the Chinese vaccines in facilitating global collaboration, in comparison to coverage by US media outlets. Indeed, such an affirmation of China’s vaccine research and development technology also serves as an acknowledgment of the collaboration between Chinese and German companies.
