Headlines wary of China's rise

A quick Googling of "China" under the news tab generated some very interesting headlines and clearly showed wariness of China's rise.  The diction used in headlines were, as expected, quite dramatized (note: boldings are mine).  The first one reads "China Unicom to take on Apple and Google with OS" (http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20037421-266.html), followed by "US irked by China's shrimp duty challenge at WTO" (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/28/us-usa-china-trade-idUSTRE71R77W20110228).  Another news item reads "Morgan Stanley hacked in China-based attacks that hit Google" (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-28/morgan-stanley-network-hacked-in-same-china-based-attacks-that-hit-google.html).  The words used in the headlines were very much active and menacing.

The first headline by CNET, a technology blog, makes it sound like China Unicom is on a head-to-head clash with Apple and Google.  The article itself, however, merely says that China Unicom is developing a new smartphone platform (it hasn't even been released yet).  The article cites the Wall Street Journal as their source, whose headline is much less dramatic: "China Unicom Plans Mobile Operating System" (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704615504576172130423279992.html?mod=WSJ_Tech_LEFTTopNews).  Unfortunately WSJ is only accessible to paid subscribers.

The second headline is of particular interest to me given my economics training.  The first few paragraphs of the article generates a negative image of China, using phrases such as "would complicate efforts to resolve", "deeply disappointed in China's decision", etc.  The article requires knowledge of economics and trade policy to fully grasp the picture, and for someone with that background it is easy to read through such emotion and value-laden word choices.  For the average Reuter reader, however, they may miss the fact that US trade policies and "antidumping" measurements are highly controversial.  Very little explanation is given in the article about how the US determines whether a product is sold at an "unfair" value, what is considered a "fair" value, and there is in general a lack of explanation for the trade dispute apart from painting China in a negative light.  The article repeatedly portrays China as digging up legalities and being a general, for lack of better word, pest.  In a marked contrast, the WSJ's headline merely reads "China Min: Submitted US antidumping measures for WTO resolution" (http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110228-714684.html).

The third headline is perhaps one that evokes the most fear in readers.  The US generally prides its financial sector as being advanced and a huge revenue generator (until that dip -- or crash -- in 2008).  Online security for the financial sector is of vital importance, the here the article portrays the security infringement as a "hack" that can be linked to "Politburo Standing Committee level” of China's government".  Again, very interesting word choices and framing that evoke Cold War era images and contrasts.  


- Satomi