要避免危险还是不用担心?2016-2017年中国与韩国抗议活动

IF 1 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Sunghee Cho
{"title":"要避免危险还是不用担心?2016-2017年中国与韩国抗议活动","authors":"Sunghee Cho","doi":"10.1177/20578911221112462","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"“Diffusion-proofing” literature discusses the measures taken by authoritarian regimes to prevent the diffusion of protests from other authoritarian states. What about protests in a neighboring democracy? Do they also fear diffusion due to the proximity, or are they not concerned because of the difference in regime type? This study analyzes Chinese state-run news outlets’ portrayals of Korean protests calling for the president's impeachment from October 2016 to March 2017, based on the frequency and the focus of the reports as well as the descriptions of protests/protesters and the Korean government. The findings indicate that China did not fear the diffusion effect, as shown in their positive descriptions of the protests and protesters in frequent and detailed reports, although they adopted a cautious approach, with reports focusing more on the government side and emphasizing the public's frustration, low government support, and the president's wrongdoing. Overall, China appeared to be less concerned about the diffusion effect due to the regimes’ dissimilarity.","PeriodicalId":43694,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Comparative Politics","volume":"8 1","pages":"291 - 306"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A danger to avoid or nothing to worry about? China and the protests in Korea during 2016–2017\",\"authors\":\"Sunghee Cho\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20578911221112462\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"“Diffusion-proofing” literature discusses the measures taken by authoritarian regimes to prevent the diffusion of protests from other authoritarian states. What about protests in a neighboring democracy? Do they also fear diffusion due to the proximity, or are they not concerned because of the difference in regime type? This study analyzes Chinese state-run news outlets’ portrayals of Korean protests calling for the president's impeachment from October 2016 to March 2017, based on the frequency and the focus of the reports as well as the descriptions of protests/protesters and the Korean government. The findings indicate that China did not fear the diffusion effect, as shown in their positive descriptions of the protests and protesters in frequent and detailed reports, although they adopted a cautious approach, with reports focusing more on the government side and emphasizing the public's frustration, low government support, and the president's wrongdoing. Overall, China appeared to be less concerned about the diffusion effect due to the regimes’ dissimilarity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43694,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Journal of Comparative Politics\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"291 - 306\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Journal of Comparative Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20578911221112462\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Comparative Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20578911221112462","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

“防扩散”文献讨论了专制政权为防止来自其他专制国家的抗议扩散而采取的措施。邻国民主国家的抗议活动怎么办?他们是否也担心由于邻近而扩散,还是因为政权类型的不同而不担心?本研究分析了中国官方媒体在2016年10月至2017年3月期间对韩国要求弹劾总统的抗议活动的报道,根据报道的频率和重点,以及对抗议活动/抗议者和韩国政府的描述。研究结果表明,中国并不担心扩散效应,正如他们在频繁和详细的报道中对抗议和抗议者的积极描述所显示的那样,尽管他们采取了谨慎的方法,报道更多地关注政府方面,强调公众的沮丧,政府的低支持率和总统的不法行为。总体而言,由于两国政权的不同,中国似乎不太关心扩散效应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A danger to avoid or nothing to worry about? China and the protests in Korea during 2016–2017
“Diffusion-proofing” literature discusses the measures taken by authoritarian regimes to prevent the diffusion of protests from other authoritarian states. What about protests in a neighboring democracy? Do they also fear diffusion due to the proximity, or are they not concerned because of the difference in regime type? This study analyzes Chinese state-run news outlets’ portrayals of Korean protests calling for the president's impeachment from October 2016 to March 2017, based on the frequency and the focus of the reports as well as the descriptions of protests/protesters and the Korean government. The findings indicate that China did not fear the diffusion effect, as shown in their positive descriptions of the protests and protesters in frequent and detailed reports, although they adopted a cautious approach, with reports focusing more on the government side and emphasizing the public's frustration, low government support, and the president's wrongdoing. Overall, China appeared to be less concerned about the diffusion effect due to the regimes’ dissimilarity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信