Risk definers and social discourse of GM foods–a comparative analysis of the People's Daily and the New York Times

Abstract

Abstract Consumers’ understanding of genetic modified foods (GM foods)’s risk and benefits is influenced by the media. Literature on GM foods reports often examined article tones in general, omitting the differences of various social actors’ attitudes. To explore such differences, we conducted a comparative framing analysis of news reports on genetically modified (GM) foods in the United States and China, two large markets of GM foods, to examine (1) the use of frames on GM foods; (2) who has more power in defining the risks of GM foods and (3) the tones towards GM foods in each country. By content analyzing 230 news articles on GM foods from 2014–2019, including 109 from the People’s Daily and 121 from the New York Times, we identified the frames, sources, and tones of each article. We also identified 1,297 sources and their corresponding 1,288 assertions from the 230 news articles to examine the tones of each source. Results showed that the People’s Daily used more treatment responsibility and information frames than the New York Times, while the latter used more conflict, human impact, and causal responsibility frames than the former. While both newspapers published predominantly neutral articles, the New York Times was more likely to publish anti-GM food articles, while the People’s Daily were more likely to publish pro-GM food articles. The New York Times used more diverse sources than the People’s Daily. The former used more anti-GM food sources, while the latter cited more neutral sources.