This study explored a comparative analysis of how the South Korean and United States media framed the Samsung–Apple patent lawsuit. The South Korean and U.S. media have a tendency to report Samsung–Apple patent disputes in a completely different angle. While framing in favor of Samsung was frequent in South Korea, neutral frames were dominant in the United States. The South Korean newspapers showed a stronger nationalism in favor of Samsung, whereas the U.S. newspapers portrayed the business conflict in the market logic. The South Korean and U.S. newspapers also showed differences in framing according to the ideological characteristics of the newspaper. In South Korea, the main conservative newspaper (Chosun Ilbo) framed the issue in favor of Samsung and the largest liberal newspaper (Hankyoreh) revealed a tendency to frame it in favor of Apple. However, in the United States, only the main business newspaper (Wall Street Journal) favored Apple. This study contributes to news framing research in that socio-cultural divergences, framing pool (e.g., generic frames vs. issue-specific frames), and journalistic contexts considered systematically.
AdaySLivingstonSHebertM (2005) Embedding the truth: A cross-cultural analysis of objectivity and television coverage of the Iraq War. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics10(1): 3–21.
2.
Akhavan-MajidRRamaprasadJ (2000) Framing Beijing: Dominant ideological influences on the American press coverage of the fourth UN conference on women and the NGO forum. Gazette, the International Journal for Communication Studies62(1): 45–59.
3.
BlumlerJGGurevitchM (1975) Towards a comparative framework for political communication research. In: ChaffeeSH (ed.) Political Communication: Issues and Strategies for Research, Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE, pp. 165–193.
4.
Borah P (2016) Framing campaigns in US presidential elections: What has been done so far and a future agenda. In: Praeger Handbook of Political Campaigning in the United States [2 volumes]. p. 63.
5.
Carani CV (2013) Apple v. Samsung design patents take center stage. Landslide 5(3).
6.
CobbRWElderCD (1972) Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda Building, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
7.
CrawleyCE (2007) Localized debates of agricultural of biotechnology in community newspapers: A quantitative contents analysis of media frames and sources. Science Communication28(3): 314–346.
8.
CusumanoMA (2013) Technology strategy and management: The Apple-Samsung lawsuits. Communications of the ACM55(1): 28–31.
9.
DarAAliS (2015) How Pakistani and the US elite print media painted issue of drone attacks: Framing analysis of the News International and the New York Times. Global Media Journal: Pakistan Edition8(2): 8, 1–17.
10.
de VreeseCH (2002) Framing Europe: Television News and European Integration, Amsterdam, Netherlands: Aksant Academic.
11.
de Vreese CH (2005). News framing: theory and typology. Information Design Journal+Document Design 13(1): 51–62.
12.
de Vreese CH and Lecheler S (2016) Framing theory. The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication. doi: 10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc121.
13.
de VreeseCHPeterJSemetkoHA (2001) Framing politics at the launch of the euro: A cross-national comparative study of frames in the news. Political Communication18(2): 107–122.
EcklerPKalyangoY (2012) Cross-national content analysis of the coverage of the 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict. Journal of Media and Communication Studies43(3): 35–45.
16.
EntmanRM (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43(4): 51–58.
17.
GansHJ (1979) Deciding What’s News, New York: Pantheon Book.
18.
GaryantesDMMurphyPJ (2010) Success or chaos: Framing and ideology in news coverage of the Iraqi national election. International Communication Gazette72(2): 51–170.
19.
GleissnerMde VreeseCH (2005) News about the EU constitution: Journalistic challenges and media portrayal of the European Union constitution. Journalism6(2): 221–242.
20.
GodefroidtABerbersAd’HaenensL (2016) What’s in a frame? A comparative content analysis of American, British, French, and Russian news articles. International Communication Gazette78(8): 777–801.
21.
GoodJ (2008) The framing of climate change in Canadian, American and international newspapers: A media propaganda model analysis. Canadian Journal of Communication33(2): 233–255.
22.
Graber DA (1992) News and Democracy: Are Their Paths Diverging? (No. 3). Roy W. Howard Chair, School of Journalism, Indiana University.
23.
GuoLHoltonAJeongSH (2012) Transnational comparative framing: A model for an emerging framing approach. International Journal of Communication6: 1918–1941.
24.
JaspersonAEShahDVWattsMet al.(1998) Framing the public agenda: Media effects on the importance of the federal budget deficit. Political Communication15(2): 205–224.
25.
KimYSKellyJD (2008) A matter of culture: A comparative study of photojournalism in American and Korean Newspapers. International Communication Gazette70(2): 155–173.
26.
KostadinovaPDimitrovaDV (2012) Communicating policy change: Media framing of economic news in post-communist Bulgaria. European Journal of Communication27(2): 171–186.
27.
KuypersJA (2002) Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues, Westport, CT: Praeger.
28.
KwonKHMoonSI (2009) The bad guy is one of us: Framing comparison between the US and Korean newspaper and blogs about the Virgina Tech shooting. Asian Journal of Communication19(3): 270–288.
29.
LimBSLeeWSLeeMK (2014) Covert cohabitation of news and advertisement: News frame towards advertisers of the media. Korean Association for Communication and Information Studies66: 133–156.
30.
MatthesJ (2012) Framing politics: An integrative approach. American Behavioral Scientist6(3): 247–259.
31.
MendelsohnM (1993) Television frames in the 1988 Canadian election. Canadian Journal of Communication18(2): 149–171.
32.
NeumanWRJustMRCriglerAN (1992) Common Knowledge: News and the Construction of Political Meaning, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33.
Oh D and Choi M (2016) News aspect of health issue in Korea newspaper: Focusing on differences between daily newspaper and economic newspaper. Journal of Communication Science 16(2): 101–144.
34.
RheeseSDBuckalewB (1995) The militarism of local television: The routine framing of the Persian Gulf War. Critical Studies in Media Communication12(1): 40–59.
35.
SaardchomN (2014) Design patent war: Apple versus Samsung. South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases3(2): 221–228.
36.
SalzmanR (2014) News or noticias: A social identity approach to understanding Latinos’ preferred language for news consumption in the United States. Mass Communication and Society17: 54–73.
37.
ScheufeleDA (1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication49(1): 103–122.
38.
SemetkoHAValkenburgPM (2000) Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication50(2): 93–109.
39.
SheetsPRowlingCMJonesTM (2015) The view from above (and below): A comparison of American, British, and Arab news coverage of US drones. Media, War and Conflict8(3): 289–311.
40.
ShoemakerPJReeseSD (1996) Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content, New York: Longman.
41.
SimonAXenosM (2000) Media framing and effective public deliberation. Political Communication17: 373–376.
42.
The Wall Street Journal (2012) B1.
43.
van DalenAde VreeseCHAlbaekE (2012) Different roles, different content? A four-country comparison of the role conceptions and reporting style of political journalists. Journalism13(7): 903–922.
44.
van CauwenbergeAGeldersDJorisW (2009) Covering the European Union: From an intergovernmental towards a supranational perspective?Javnost – The Public16(4): 41–54.
45.
YanYKimY (2015) Framing the crisis by one's seat: A comparative study of newspaper frames of the Asiana crash in the USA, Korea, and China. Asian Journal of Communication25(5): 486–506.
46.
Zhou, Y and Moy P (2007). Parsing framing processes: the interplay between online public opinion and media coverage. Journal of Communication 57(1): 79–98.
