Drawing on Fairclough’s model of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and intertextuality, this study examines how Chinese and Western media represent TikTok migrants in response to US digital platform restrictions. Through a comparative analysis of news coverage from Chinese outlets (China Daily, Xinhua, and Global Times) and Western outlets (BBC, CNN, Reuters, and Associated Press), this study identifies divergent discursive strategies and underlying ideological functions. Chinese media represent TikTok migrants as victimized refugees, welcomed guests, or cultural participants, reinforcing a narrative of inclusivity and cross-cultural engagement. However, Western media depict them as naive digital consumers, censored subjects, or rebellious libertarians, aligning their representation with discourses on digital sovereignty and ideological control. The contrasting portrayals underscore the broader geopolitical tensions between China and the West concerning platform governance and information sovereignty. Our findings contribute to critical media discourse analysis by revealing how news discourse functions as a site of ideological struggle in the context of global platform politics.
BakerPMcEneryT (2005) A corpus-based approach to discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in UN and newspaper texts. Journal of Language and Politics4(2): 197–226.
2.
BakhtinMM (1984) Rabelais and His World. Indiana University Press.
3.
BaumMAGroelingT (2008) New media and the polarization of American political discourse. Political Communication25(4): 345–365.
4.
BrownPLevinsonSC (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.
5.
BuzanBWæverODe WildeJ (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
6.
CampionAS (2020) From CNOOC to Huawei: securitization, the China threat, and critical infrastructure. Asian Journal of Political Science28(1): 47–66.
ChouliarakiLZaborowskiR (2017) Voice and community in the 2015 refugee crisis: a content analysis of news coverage in eight European countries. International Communication Gazette79(6–7): 613–635.
9.
CouldryN (2010) Why Voice Matters: Culture and Politics After Neoliberalism. Sage Publications Ltd.
10.
CouldryNMejiasUA (2019) Data colonialism: rethinking big data’s relation to the contemporary subject. Television & New Media20(4): 336–349.
11.
CreemersR (2017) Cyber-Leninism: the political culture of the Chinese internet. In: PriceMStremlauN (eds) Speech and Society in Turbulent Times: Freedom of Expression in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge University Press, pp. 255–273.
12.
CushionS (2022) Are public service media distinctive from the market? interpreting the political information environments of BBC and commercial news in the United Kingdom. European Journal of Communication37(1): 3–20.
13.
DeNardisL (2014) The Global War for Internet Governance. Yale University Press.
14.
DonZMLeeC (2014) Representing immigrants as illegals, threats and victims in Malaysia: elite voices in the media. Discourse & Society25(6): 687–705.
15.
ElmasryMH (2024) Images of the Israel-Gaza war on Instagram: a content analysis of Western broadcast news posts. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly102(3): 695–721.
16.
FaircloughN (1992) Critical Language Awareness. Longman.
17.
FaircloughN (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Longman.
18.
FaircloughN (2003) ‘Political correctness’: the politics of culture and language. Discourse & Society14(1): 17–28.
19.
FaircloughN (2013) Language and Power. Routledge.
20.
FaircloughNWodakR (2011) Critical discourse analysis. In: Van DijkT (ed) Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Sage Publications Ltd, pp. 357–378.
21.
FlewTMartinFSuzorN (2019) Internet regulation as media policy: rethinking the question of digital communication platform governance. Journal of Digital Media & Policy10(1): 33–50.
22.
FoucaultM (2013) Archaeology of Knowledge. Routledge.
23.
FuchsC (2022) Digital Fascism: Media, Communication and Society. Routledge.
24.
GillespieT (2018) Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions that Shape Social Media. Yale University Press.
25.
GrayMLSuriS (2019) Ghost Work: How to Stop Silicon Valley from Building a New Global Underclass. Harper Collins.
26.
HallinDCManciniP (2004) Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge University Press.
HanitzschTVosTP (2018) Journalism beyond democracy: a new look into journalistic roles in political and everyday life. Journalism19(2): 146–164.
29.
HashmiUMAlmekhlafySSAHashemME, et al. (2023) Making it internally persuasive: analysis of the conspiratorial discourse on COVID-19. Discourse & Society34(1): 120–141.
30.
HeylenK (2024) Enforcing platform sovereignty: a case study of platform responses to Australia’s news media bargaining code. New Media & Society26(12): 7277–7294.
31.
JontesDVehovarV (2024) From criticism to anger and hate: the vulgarisation of digital anti-press criticism on news outlets’ Facebook pages. Digital Journalism13(8): 1–19.
32.
KristevaJ (1980) Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Blackwell.
33.
KuangX (2020) Self-caging or playing with the edge? news selection autonomy in authoritarian China. Sage Open10(2): 1–11.
34.
KumarAThussuD (2023) Media, digital sovereignty and geopolitics: the case of the TikTok ban in India. Media, Culture & Society45(8): 1583–1599.
35.
LeursKSmetsK (2018) Five questions for digital migration studies: learning from digital connectivity and forced migration in(to) Europe. Social Media + Society4(1): 1–16.
36.
LiJ (2009) Intertextuality and national identity: discourse of national conflicts in daily newspapers in the United States and China. Discourse & Society20(1): 85–121.
37.
LiuMLiC (2017) Competing discursive constructions of China’s smog in Chinese and Anglo-American English-language newspapers: a corpus-assisted discourse study. Discourse & Communication11(4): 386–403.
38.
MartinJRWhitePR (2005) The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
39.
NyeJS (2004) Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. Public Affairs.
40.
PhanthaphoommeeNDoungphummesN (2025) Leniency toward the disadvantaged: representations of Myanmar workers and the Thai government in the public communicative discourse. Communication and the Public1–16.
41.
PruittLJ (2019) Closed due to ‘flooding’? UK media representations of refugees and migrants in 2015–2016 – creating a crisis of borders. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations21(2): 383–402.
42.
ReeseSDShoemakerPJ (2016) A media sociology for the networked public sphere: the hierarchy of influences model. Mass Communication & Society19(4): 389–410.
43.
RolfSSchindlerS (2023) The US–China rivalry and the emergence of state platform capitalism. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space55(5): 1255–1280.
44.
SobolevaE (2025) International migration framing in the Global Times (2012–2022): constructing identity narrative about the self and the other. Journal of Current Chines Affairs54(1): 25–47.
45.
Van DijkTA (2008) Critical discourse analysis and nominalization: problem or pseudo-problem?Discourse & Society19(6): 821–828.
46.
Van LeeuwenT (1996) The representation of social actors. In: Caldas-CoulthardCRCoulthardM (eds) Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. Routledge, pp. 32–70.
47.
Van LeeuwenT (2008) Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford University Press.
48.
WassermanH (2016) China’s “soft power” and its influence on editorial agendas in South Africa. Chinese Journal of Communication9(1): 8–20.
49.
YangH (2024) Securitization, frame alignment, and the legitimation of US chip export controls on China. The Pacific Review37(5): 961–984.
50.
YılmazFElmasTErözB (2023) Twitter-based analysis of anti-refugee discourses in Türkiye. Discourse & Communication17(3): 298–318.
51.
YoongDKoonTHMinNC (2013) ‘This is not gambling but gaming’: methods of promoting a lottery gaming company in a Malaysian daily. Discourse & Society24(2): 229–247.
52.
ZengWSparksC (2020) Popular nationalism: Global Times and the US–China trade war. International Communication Gazette82(1): 26–41.
53.
ZuboffS (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. Public Affairs.
