A Comparative Study of News Framing of COVID-19 Crisis Management in South Korea and China

Abstract

This study examines how major newspapers in South Korea and China portrayed national crisis management during the COVID-19 pandemic. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative content analysis with qualitative interpretation, this study systematically analyzes news frames and editorial tones across various phases. The qualitative analysis further clarifies the quantitative results. Editorials from The Chosun Daily, Hankyoreh, People’s Daily, and Ming Pao covering the period from 1 January 2020, to 31 March 2023, were reviewed. The research categorizes the pandemic into three distinct phases: the global spread of COVID-19, vaccine rollout, and living with the virus. It applies three news frames: crisis response, international relations, and responsibility attribution. In the initial phase, most newspapers focused on the crisis response frame, highlighting national mobilization and social solidarity. Notably, The Chosun Daily emphasized the international relations frame with the strongest critical tone. The crisis response frame continued to dominate in the second phase, accompanied by an increasingly critical tone. In the final phase, as the pandemic began to stabilize, the international relations frame significantly declined due to fewer global differences in pandemic responses. The results suggest that the media’s portrayal is influenced by political orientation and approaches to crisis management perspectives.

1. Introduction

Following the first reported case of pneumonia in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic in March 2020 (Madabhavi et al., 2020; Cucinotta & Vanelli, 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic provided a crucial opportunity to compare how countries respond to infectious disease outbreaks. South Korea established a rapid national crisis response system that emphasized transparent information sharing, proactive testing, and contact tracing. In contrast, China implemented a centralized lockdown strategy grounded in strong administrative control and activation of its epidemic prevention system.

The media plays a critical role in the effective functioning of a country’s COVID-19 response system. During infectious disease crises, media coverage significantly influences public perceptions, vaccine uptake, and broader public health issues (B. Y. Kim & Kang, 2024). As a key information source in modern society, the media enables informed decision-making (Westerman et al., 2014). The news media is produced within social, political, and cultural contexts, shaping reality through specific perspectives and narrative construction. As a result, even when covering the same issue during the same period, different news media outlets may present it in different ways—their selective coverage and framing shape public perception and guide individuals’ decision-making in specific directions.

News framing refers to the structure or perspective that guides readers to interpret news in a specific way. Tuchman (1978) compared the concept of news framing to a “window,” arguing that the media does not reflect reality like a mirror but instead presents only the portions it deems permissible. The crux of the matter is that news framing significantly influences how audiences perceive and interpret the news.

How did the news media in South Korea and China, two representative East Asian countries, frame their coverage of COVID-19? During the initial outbreak, South Korea experienced a rapid increase in confirmed cases but successfully developed and globally promoted its systematic “K-quarantine” strategy. Meanwhile, China enforced strict control measures as the virus spread rapidly from Wuhan. South Korea, as a representative democracy, fosters public discourse that includes active scrutiny and criticism of government policies. In contrast, China’s centralized political system concentrates power within the Communist Party, limiting public criticism and government oversight. By comparing the framing of COVID-19 by newspapers in the two countries, this study conducts a content analysis of news framing related to pandemic crisis management and examines how different political systems influenced the media coverage of COVID-19. This study examined news framing in major daily newspaper editorials in South Korea and China between January 2020, when COVID-19 began spreading in both countries, and March 2023, when the disease was declared endemic. Editorials are suitable materials for news-framing analyses because they reflect the official stance of newspapers. For South Korea, this study selected The Chosun Daily, representing a conservative perspective, and Hankyoreh, representing a progressive perspective. The Chosun Daily has politically supported conservative parties, such as the People Power Party, and has focused on corporate interests in its reporting. In contrast, Hankyoreh has supported progressive parties, such as the Democratic Party of Korea, and has emphasized workers’ interests in its coverage. In China, this study examined People’s Daily and Hong Kong’s Ming Pao. As the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China, People’s Daily serves to disseminate and justify government policies, while Ming Pao has provided independent commentary on major political issues (Xu, 2015).

2. Literature Review

2.1. Characteristics of COVID-19 Prevention and Control Systems in South Korea, China, and Hong Kong

The South Korean government typically responds to major disasters through the Central Disaster and Safety Countermeasures Headquarters. However, in the case of COVID-19, the role of the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) was particularly emphasized. To strengthen the national response to the outbreak, President Moon Jae-in elevated the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) to the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) on 11 September 2020 (Moon Jae-in, Presidential Address, 11 September 2020). From January 2020 onward, KDCA Commissioner Jeong Eun-kyeong held regular press briefings, gaining widespread public trust due to her dedicated and transparent approach (Speech by President Moon Jae-in, 2020; S. A. Kim, 2024).

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chinese government implemented centralized epidemic prevention and control measures. The National Health Commission (NHC) oversaw the overall response, while the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was responsible for implementing prevention measures. The State Council’s joint prevention and control mechanism coordinated national policies (Guo, 2020). In contrast, Hong Kong maintained a certain degree of autonomy in its public health policies under the “One Country, Two Systems” framework (Lin, 2017). Unlike the central government’s “zero-COVID” approach, the Hong Kong government adopted a more flexible strategy, adjusting its prevention measures in response to the number of confirmed cases. In December 2022, the Hong Kong government announced the abolition of the “vaccine pass” system to promote economic recovery and reinvigorate global trade. The government planned to actively facilitate smooth travel between mainland China, Hong Kong, and international destinations unless there was a significant surge in cases (Ye, 2022).

South Korea’s COVID-19 control system focused on expert-led decision-making under the leadership of the KDCA. The government held daily press briefings to enhance policy transparency through communication with the media. In contrast, China’s COVID-19 control system was not disclosed as transparently as in South Korea. Unlike China, South Korea’s control system was more likely to become a subject of public debate due to the country’s parliamentary democracy and the presence of politically polarized media outlets. As the official propaganda outlet of the Communist Party, China’s People’s Daily was unlikely to criticize the government’s COVID-19 control measures. On the other hand, Hong Kong maintained a certain degree of independence from China’s epidemic control system, which allowed Hong Kongese media to take a somewhat critical stance. In this context, the four selected news media outlets likely adopted different news frames and tones in their coverage of their respective countries’ COVID-19 control systems.

In times of national crisis, the media play a pivotal role in unifying society and rallying public solidarity to overcome adversity. This represents one of the most well-established theoretical claims in the field of communication studies. Classic instances of national crises include wars and economic standstill situations such as moratoriums (Herman & Chomsky, 1988; Hall et al., 1978). The worldwide spread of COVID-19 also represented a significant national crisis. In this context, it is essential to analyze how mainstream media in South Korea and China contributed to national cohesion during the pandemic by steering public opinion, ensuring social stability, and fostering consensus.

From the perspective of framing theory, the political systems and media structures of different countries fundamentally shape the types of news frames available and the boundaries of discourse during times of crisis. In real-world crises, the media’s role often shifts from being a watchdog of power to a megaphone of authority—a phenomenon particularly evident in certain political regimes. This shift highlights the importance of considering the institutional relationship between media and state power when applying framing theory (Scherling & Foltz, 2023). In centralized political systems, the media are often aligned with the state’s communication apparatus, serving as tools for official messaging. Their content tends to reflect uniform narratives with a predominantly positive tone. In contrast, in liberal democratic systems, media organizations are institutionally protected regarding their autonomy and pluralism. This enables journalists to use more diverse frames and maintain critical perspectives—even during national emergencies (Engler et al., 2021; Maniou, 2022). Such institutional differences not only determine the level of press freedom and the space for critical discourse but also act as a key explanatory variable in understanding the differing patterns of news reporting across countries.

2.2. News Frame

News framing refers to the linguistic and nonlinguistic mechanisms used by the media to shape audiences perceive specific events or issues. Research on news framing has generally developed along two main theoretical traditions. First, drawing on the agenda-setting theory, news frames have been utilized to examine the media’s effects on audiences, particularly how framing influences public perceptions, attitudes, and interpretations of issues (Sotirovic, 2000). Second, news framing has been viewed as a method of reconstructing reality, concentrating on the hidden meanings embedded in news texts and how media discourses symbolically shape social reality (Carter, 2013). Early scholars such as Tuchman (1978) and Gitlin (1980) applied the concept of news framing to analyze how news reconstructs reality. Tuchman (1978) likened news framing to a window, arguing that the media does not present reality as it is but selectively highlights certain aspects of it. Gitlin (1980) defined news framing as a set of recurring patterns in the construction of verbal and visual discourse, including recognition, interpretation, presentation, selection, emphasis, and exclusion. News framing is significant because it influences how audiences interpret news content. Entman (1993) asserted that news frames shape public perception by selecting specific elements and emphasizing their salience. By highlighting particular perspectives, news frames influence how audiences define issues, assess their severity, and consider potential solutions (Nae, 1998). Thus, exposure to different news frames can lead to variations in audience attitudes and behaviors regarding the same event.

Editorials are particularly suitable for news-framing analysis because they represent the official stance of a newspaper (Yun & Kim, 2017). The news frames embedded in editorials often reflect the political orientation of the newspaper (Ko & Lee, 2022). A comparative study of editorials from East Asian countries during the COVID-19 pandemic found that newspapers in China and Taiwan tended to politicize the pandemic, whereas South Korean newspapers frequently published editorials advocating pro-business economic reforms (Fox, 2021).

To conduct the content analysis, this study reviewed previous research on COVID-19 news framing. H. Kim (2022) classified South Korea’s COVID-19 news frames into three categories: social, crisis response, and responsibility attribution. Ko and Lee (2022) analyzed Chinese editorials on COVID-19 and identified criticism of China, government responsibility, and cooperation as key frames. Although not directly related to COVID-19, Zhang (2020) examined news framing in Chinese national crises and categorized the frames into international conflict, recognition, and responsibility attribution.

Drawing from these studies (H. Kim, 2022; Ko & Lee, 2022; Zhang, 2020), this study adopts three primary news frames for the content analysis of COVID-19 news coverage:

• Crisis response frame—examines how the government and institutions handled the pandemic.
• Responsibility attribution frame—analyzes whether the media assigned blame to specific entities.
• International relations frame—assesses how the media portrayed COVID-19 in the context of global interactions.

Furthermore, this study includes an analysis of editorial tone that categorizes newspaper positions on COVID-19 policies as supportive, neutral, or opposing in order to evaluate attitudes toward pandemic response measures. Editorial tone is defined as the evaluative stance expressed in the editorial—whether it supports, criticizes, or remains neutral toward the subject of discussion (W. Kim et al., 2015). While framing identifies the thematic focus or angle of the coverage, tone captures the attitude toward that focus. The integration of both dimensions facilitates a more comprehensive understanding of how newspapers construct and assess crisis management.

The specific research question is as follows: “How do the news frames and tones of editorials in major daily newspapers in South Korea and China differ across different phases of the COVID-19 response?”

3. Materials and Methods

The news-framing research method employed in this study analyzes news frames using a deductive approach. News frames can be categorized using inductive and deductive approaches. The inductive approach involves deriving the types of news frames inherent in the news, whereas the deductive approach entails deriving frames from existing research and subsequently classifying and analyzing these frames (De Vreese, 2005).

3.1. Data Collection

The researchers selected editorials related to COVID-19 published between 1 January 2020, and 31 March 2023, from four major newspapers: The Chosun Daily, Hankyoreh, People’s Daily, and Ming Pao. The Chosun Daily, founded in 1920, is a leading conservative daily newspaper in South Korea and is currently known as the most widely circulated newspaper in the country. Hankyoreh is a progressive daily newspaper founded in 1988 through a public investment model during South Korea’s democratization process. People’s Daily serves as the official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party, representing the party’s position, and it is one of the most influential central media outlets in China. Ming Pao, founded in 1959 in Hong Kong, is a centrist daily known for its relatively independent perspectives and critical editorial stance. In terms of extracting crisis management discourses, it is more effective to examine editorials compared to general news articles (Hong, 2004).

For the collection of analytical data, editorials from The Chosun Daily and Hankyoreh were obtained from Big Kinds “www.bigkinds.or.kr (accessed on 9 July 2023)”, a comprehensive article database operated by the Korea Press Foundation that ensures consistency and reduces potential technical errors. Editorials from People’s Daily and Ming Pao were retrieved from their respective official websites, People’s Daily Online “www.people.com.cn (accessed on 9 July 2023)” and Ming Pao Online “www.mingpao.com (accessed on 9 July 2023)”. The primary search keywords included “COVID-19,” “coronavirus,” “SARS-CoV-2,” “Wuhan virus,” and other related terms.

Editorials with little relevance to COVID-19 prevention policies were excluded, resulting in a final selection of 73 articles from The Chosun Daily, 129 from Hankyoreh, 145 from The People’s Daily, and 231 from Ming Pao (

Table 1. Number of articles and editorials by newspaper.

Newspaper	Number of News Articles	Number of Editorials	%
The Chosun Daily	4527	73	1.61
Hankyoreh	3215	129	4.01
People’s Daily	6746	145	2.15
Ming Pao	8782	231	2.63
Total	23,270	578	2.48

).

3.2. Data Analysis

This study utilized both quantitative and qualitative content analysis. For the quantitative analysis, a coding scheme was systematically developed, focusing primarily on country, newspaper, period classification, editorial tone, and news frames (

Table 2. Content analysis index.

Variable Name	Detailed Classification	Consistency Index
v1 Country	① South Korea ② China	1
v2 Newspaper	① The Chosun Daily ② Hankyoreh ③ People’s Daily ④ Ming Pao	1
v3 Period classification	① Phase 1 ② Phase 2 ③ Phase 3	1
v4 Tone	① Positive ② Neutral ③ Critical	0.9
v5 News frame	① Crisis response ② International relations ③ Responsibility attribution	0.93

). The period classification was divided into three phases based on the COVID-19 response timeline of the WHO and the situation in South Korea and China, as follows:

Phase 1 (January 2020–April 2020): The initial outbreak of “viral pneumonia” in Wuhan, China, led the WHO to activate its Incident Management Support Team (IMST) for emergency response. Both countries implemented early containment measures. South Korea sought to suppress the spread primarily through “social distancing,” while China emphasized “strict epidemic control measures.” Hong Kong adopted a combination of social restrictions.

Phase 2 (May 2020–October 2021): With vaccine development underway, South Korea introduced the structured “K-Quarantine” model, while China reinforced its vaccination management through the “Health Code” system. Social restrictions remained in place in Hong Kong. The 73rd World Health Assembly adopted a landmark resolution urging global unity to combat the pandemic. Additionally, on 29 May 2020, 30 countries and institutions launched the COVID-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP) to ensure equitable access to vaccines, tests, treatments, and other public health technologies.

Phase 3 (November 2021–March 2023): South Korea entered the “With COVID-19” phase, attempting to balance infection control with a return to normal life. Meanwhile, China implemented the “Dynamic Zero-COVID” policy to control the spread of infections, while Hong Kong gradually eased restrictions through vaccine distribution. Each phase clearly demonstrated the policy characteristics and differences between South Korea and China.

The news frames for analysis were categorized into three frames—“crisis response frame,” “international relations frame,” and “responsibility attribution frame”—based on the frames suggested in previous studies (H. Kim, 2022; Ko & Lee, 2022; Zhang, 2020). In addition, to analyze the editorial stance, the selected editorials were categorized not only by news frames but also by phase, tone, and main topic. Quantitative content analysis was conducted through a process that included coding, statistical analysis, and interpretation of the results. Statistical processing was conducted using SPSS version 26.0. A Ph.D. student specializing in mass communication conducted the coding process for this study. To ensure intercoder reliability, the researcher and the coder performed an agreement test using a stratified sampling method. Specifically, 10 editorials were randomly selected from each of the four newspapers—The Chosun Daily, Hankyoreh, People’s Daily, and Ming Pao—resulting in a total of 40 samples. Stratified sampling was employed to ensure that each newspaper was proportionally represented in the reliability check, thereby enhancing the representativeness and comparability of the analysis across various media outlets. The results of the reliability test were presented using Holsti’s intercoder reliability index. Since all agreement scores exceeded 90%, the classification scheme for content analysis was considered reliable (Table 2). To investigate whether the distribution of news frames and editorial tones varied significantly across media contexts, a series of chi-square tests were conducted. These analyses were performed at three levels: (1) South Korea and China, (2) across the four newspapers (The Chosun Daily, Hankyoreh, People’s Daily, and Ming Pao), and (3) across the three pandemic response phases (Phase 1: January–April 2020; Phase 2: May 2020–October 2021; Phase 3: November 2021–March 2023). Each chi-square test was conducted separately for the types of news frames and editorial tones. The results revealed statistically significant differences across both national contexts and temporal phases.

To complement the quantitative content analysis, the research team conducted a qualitative analysis of the content. Based on the results of the quantitative analysis, representative editorials were selected from each of the four newspapers according to various news frame types to explore the core meanings and underlying messages conveyed by these editorials within their specific contexts.

4. Results

4.1. Phase 1 (January 2020–April 2020)

In Phase 1, both South Korean and Chinese daily newspapers predominantly featured the crisis response frame, followed by the responsibility attribution and international relations frames. In Chinese newspapers, the proportion of crisis response frames (64.8%) is significantly higher than that in South Korean newspapers (42.6%). The proportions of responsibility attribution and international relations frames were higher in South Korean newspapers than in Chinese newspapers (p < 0.05) (

Table 3. News frames in Phase 1 in South Korea and China.

Phase 1	News Frame			Total	x2 (p-Value)
	Crisis Response	International Relations	Responsibility Attribution
South Korea	20 (42.6%)	13 (27.7%)	14 (29.8%)	47 (100%)	6.913
China	79 (64.8%)	20 (16.4%)	23 (18.9%)	122 (100%)	(<0.05)
Total	99 (58.6%)	33 (19.5%)	37 (21.9%)	169 (100%)

).

When examined by newspaper, South Korea’s Hankyoreh and China’s People’s Daily displayed similar patterns in their news frames, as did South Korea’s The Chosun Daily and China’s Ming Pao. The government-leaning Hankyoreh and People’s Daily actively employed crisis response and responsibility attribution frames in their editorials. In contrast, The Chosun Daily and Ming Pao placed greater emphasis on the international relations frame (p < 0.01) (

Table 4. News frames of Korean and Chinese newspapers in Phase 1 of the COVID-19 response.

Phase	Frame	South Korea		China		Total	x2 (p-Value)
		The Chosun Daily	Hankyoreh	People’s Daily	Ming Pao
1	Crisis response	5 (27.8%)	15 (51.7%)	44 (75.9%)	35 (54.7%)	99 (58.6%)	31.373
	International relations	9 (50.0%)	4 (13.8%)	1 (1.7%)	19 (29.7%)	33 (19.5%)	(<0.01)
	Responsibility attribution	4 (22.2%)	10 (34.5%)	13 (22.4%)	10 (15.6%)	37 (21.9%)
	Total	18 (100%)	29 (100%)	58 (100%)	64 (100%)	169 (100%)

).

In Phase 1, government-leaning newspapers such as Hankyoreh and People’s Daily published more positive editorials. Hankyoreh published five positive editorials (17.2%), while People’s Daily published (25.9%). In contrast, The Chosun Daily and Ming Pao published more critical editorials. In Phase 1, The Chosun Daily published nine critical editorials (50.0%), and Ming Pao published (29.7%) (p < 0.01) (

Table 5. Stance of Korean and Chinese newspapers in Phase 1 of the COVID-19 response.

Phase	Editorial Tone	South Korea		China		Total	x2 (p-Value)
		The Chosun Daily	Hankyoreh	People’s Daily	Ming Pao
1	Positive	1 (5.6%)	5 (17.2%)	15 (25.9%)	1 (1.6%)	22 (13.0%)	41.236
	Neutral	8 (44.4%)	20 (69%))	43 (74.1%)	44 (68.8%)	115 (68.0%)	(<0.01)
	Critical	9 (50.0%)	4 (13.8%)	0 (0.0%)	19 (29.7%)	32 (18.9%)
	Total	18 (100%)	29 (100%)	58 (100%)	64 (100%)	169 (100%)

).

In Phase 1, South Korea and China showed distinct differences in their crisis response frames. In South Korea, both Hankyoreh and The Chosun Daily emphasized the economic crisis that could result from COVID-19 and called for active governmental intervention. In contrast, Chinese newspapers emphasized the importance of national unity. The Chosun Daily continually published editorials highlighting the government’s incompetence in responding to the crisis. For example, it criticized the government for the decline of the stock market despite the implementation of large-scale financial support measures. On the other hand, Hankyoreh viewed the rapid spread of COVID-19 as exceeding the government’s capacity to respond and offered a more understanding assessment of the situation. The Chosun Daily consistently published editorials criticizing the government’s inadequate response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It highlighted that despite significant financial support measures being implemented, the stock market still faced a decline, showcasing the ineffectiveness of the government’s actions and casting doubt on its overall competence. Conversely, Hankyoreh contended that the swift transmission of the virus surpassed the government’s ability to respond, stressing that the gravity of the situation originated more from the unanticipated and intricate nature of the pandemic itself.

“The COVID-19 economic crisis is just beginning; without treating underlying conditions, survival in the long run will be impossible.

On the 19th, President Moon Jae-in chaired the first emergency economic meeting, where a 50 trillion won financial support plan was announced, yet the financial market continues to face shocks, with the KOSPI index dropping by 8%. The economic crisis triggered by COVID-19 is likely to become a prolonged battle.”

(The Chosun Daily, 27 March 2020)

“Emergency supplementary budget for COVID-19 response: The sooner, the better.

On the 23rd, the Democratic Party requested the government to prepare a supplementary budget to address the economic impact of COVID-19. …It seems that the current situation has exceeded the range that can be managed with the measures at hand.”

(Hankyoreh, 23 February 2020)

People’s Daily defined the COVID-19 pandemic as a severe challenge to the people and emphasized that the entire nation must unite under the strong leadership of the Central Committee of the Communist Party to overcome the crisis. The editorials in People’s Daily often used uplifting language to highlight the country’s mobilization capacity and institutional strengths. They conveyed a positive tone, urging the public to remain confident and united in the fight against the virus. In contrast, Ming Pao also stressed the importance of social solidarity and collaborative efforts in combating the pandemic, but its reporting and editorials placed greater emphasis on rationality and objectivity. Ming Pao argued that the pandemic response should focus on scientific prevention and the implementation of public health policies, rather than turning the crisis into a political issue. In its commentaries, the newspaper adopted a cautious attitude toward government measures, advocating for social stability, civic responsibility, and institutional improvement. This relatively balanced and critical stance reflects Hong Kongese media’s efforts to navigate political pressures and the pursuit of journalistic freedom.

“A great force of unity from the entire nation to overcome COVID-19.

Unity is the crucial guarantee for the Chinese people and the Chinese nation to overcome all dangerous challenges and continuously move from one victory to the next. While COVID-19 requires physical distancing, it brings people closer together emotionally.”

(People’s Daily, 3 February 2020)

“Unity in Epidemic Prevention: Avoiding Internal Confusion.

With the continued spread of COVID-19 in mainland China and concerns for the new year, Hong Kong faces a pessimistic outlook for its economy and livelihoods. In the face of the COVID-19 threat, Hong Kong must unite to tackle the epidemic. Prevention measures should be based on science, avoiding the politicization of the situation.”

(Ming Pao, 27 January 2020)

The international relations news frames indicated more significant differences based on each newspaper’s editorial stance rather than national affiliation. In South Korea, The Chosun Daily referred to COVID-19 as the “Wuhan virus” and called on the government to implement measures such as border closures and a ban on travelers from China. In contrast, Hankyoreh criticized The Chosun Daily’s position, expressing concern over its inflammatory rhetoric.

“Spreading COVID-19: Explain the Reason for Ignoring the Influx of Infected People from China.

The South Korean government neglected the influx of infected people from China. While countries around the world, seeing the catastrophic situation in China, implemented measures such as banning visitors from China and closing borders, we kept ignoring the situation, looking to China for guidance.”

(The Chosun Daily, 20 February 2020)

“We are concerned about the ‘fake news’ and ‘hate speech’ that fuel the fear of the novel coronavirus.

The flood of baseless fake news and distorted information, along with the emergence of Sinophobia, is concerning. The spread of hatred towards Wuhan, the epicenter of the outbreak, and China as a whole, is an undesirable development.”

(Hankyoreh, 28 January 2020)

In China, People’s Daily released an editorial thanking the international community for its early response to the pandemic, clearly establishing itself as a representative voice of the Chinese people. Ming Pao also emphasized the importance of international cooperation, citing the G20 leaders’ calls for a comprehensive global response to the challenges posed by COVID-19.

“China’s pandemic response demonstrates its role as a responsible major power.

China’s efforts to fight COVID-19 are receiving support from the international community. Many countries have swiftly provided medical supplies and other aid to China, and the Chinese people will forever be grateful for the assistance given during critical moments.”

(People’s Daily, 19 March 2020)

“G20’s first step in pandemic response: U.S.-China relations still marked by external easing and internal tensions.

The G20 meeting took the first step toward international cooperation in responding to COVID-19 by committing to measures for pandemic control.”

(Ming Pao, 27 March 2020)

In terms of the responsibility attribution frame, media outlets from South Korea and China showed clear differences in stance and narrative orientation. South Korea’s The Chosun Daily consistently criticized the government and the ruling party in its editorials, accusing them of inadequate preparation and slow responses regarding pandemic control while emphasizing that the government should bear significant responsibility for the spread of COVID-19. In contrast, Hankyoreh adopted a more supportive and moderate tone, acknowledging the efforts made by the Moon Jae-in administration in implementing prevention policies, managing medical resources, and mobilizing society. It highlighted the need for cooperation and public trust in the face of a public health emergency.

“Using COVID-19 relief funds during elections and now shifting the responsibility to the opposition?

President Moon Jae-in, one day before the election, said, ‘Notify the recipients of the emergency disaster relief fund in advance and accept applications.’ … Yet, the Democratic Party is now pushing the opposition party regarding the emergency disaster relief fund. It seems they are shifting the difficult issues onto the opposition.”

(The Chosun Daily, 23 April 2020)

“President, ruling and opposition parties’ ‘COVID-19 meeting’, an opportunity to pool national resources.

On the 28th, President Moon Jae-in and the leaders of the four major political parties met at the National Assembly to discuss bipartisan measures to address the COVID-19 crisis. It is hoped that this meeting will serve as an opportunity to restrain excessive political conflict and quickly establish effective solutions.”

(Hankyoreh, 28 February 2020)

In China, People’s Daily expressed strong support for the central government, framing the pandemic as a collective struggle under the unified leadership of the Communist Party and highlighting the legitimacy and institutional advantages of the Chinese system. In contrast, Hong Kong’s Ming Pao adopted a more critical stance, openly criticizing the Wuhan municipal government for its lack of transparency and attempts to conceal information about the outbreak early on. It argued that such actions delayed public awareness and hindered timely responses to the virus. This position reflects Ming Pao’s effort to strike a balance between journalistic independence and calls for governmental accountability.

“Strengthen a sense of responsibility and bravely fulfill the duties entrusted.

President Xi Jinping emphasized that officials at all levels should strengthen their sense of responsibility and, under the strong leadership of the Party Central Committee, prioritize COVID-19 prevention and control efforts as the most important task.”

(People’s Daily, 3 March 2020)

“The death of Dr. Li Wenliang has been mourned, and there has been strong criticism of public officials for dereliction of duty and evasion of responsibility.

Dr. Li Wenliang did not perform any actions that would shake the world, but he faithfully fulfilled his responsibilities by alerting the public about the COVID-19 situation and diligently treating patients. The reason the public was moved was that they pointed out that the officials of Wuhan and Hubei province had concealed the situation and failed to fulfill their duties.”

(Ming Pao, 8 February 2020)

4.2. Phase 2 (May 2020–October 2021)

In the second phase, the crisis response frame appeared most frequently in the editorials of both countries, followed by the responsibility attribution and international relations frames. However, in the case of South Korean newspapers, the proportion of the responsibility attribution frame was significantly higher at 41.6%, compared to 22.8% in Chinese newspapers (p < 0.01) (

Table 6. News frames in Phase 2 in South Korea and China.

Phase 2	News Frame			Total	x2 (p-Value)
	Crisis Response	International Relations	Responsibility Attribution
South Korea	50 (49.5%)	9 (8.9%)	42 (41.6%)	101 (100%)	9.151
China	80 (65.0%)	15 (12.2%)	28 (22.8%)	123 (100%)	(<0.01)
Total	130 (58.0%)	24 (10.7%)	70 (31.3%)	224 (100%)

). Meanwhile, the crisis response and international relations frames were more prominent in Chinese daily newspapers. Nevertheless, this pattern cannot be attributed solely to national differences, as newspaper-specific variations became more pronounced during the second phase.

During this phase, the crisis response frame was overwhelmingly dominant in Hankyoreh (59.5%) and Ming Pao (72.2%). Among the four newspapers, The Chosun Daily was the only one that focused on the responsibility attribution frame (59.3%) (p < 0.01) (

Table 7. News frames of Korean and Chinese newspapers in Phase 2 of the COVID-19 response.

Phase	Frame	South Korea		China		Total	x2 (p-Value)
		The Chosun Daily	Hankyoreh	People’s Daily	Ming Pao
2	Crisis response	6 (22.2%)	44 (59.5%)	15 (45.5%)	65 (72.2%)	130 (58.0%)	28.452
	International relations	5 (18.5%)	4 (5.4%)	7 (21.2%)	8 (8.9%)	24 (10.7%)	(<0.01)
	Responsibility attribution	16 (59.3%)	26 (35.1%)	11 (33.3%)	17 (18.9%)	70 (31.3%)
	Total	27 (100%)	74 (100%)	33 (100%)	90 (100%)	224 (100%)

).

In the second phase, editorials in both countries exhibited an increasing tendency toward a critical tone. Both The Chosun Daily and Hankyoreh published more critical editorials than positive ones, with The Chosun Daily not publishing a single editorial in a positive tone. People’s Daily predominantly featured positive editorials, although one editorial with a critical tone also appeared. In the case of Ming Pao, critical editorials overwhelmingly outnumbered positive ones (p < 0.01) (

Table 8. Stance of Korean and Chinese newspapers in Phase 2 of the COVID-19 response.

Phase	Editorial Tone	South Korea		China		Total	x2 (p-Value)
		The Chosun Daily	Hankyoreh	People’s Daily	Ming Pao
2	Positive	0 (0.0%)	5 (6.8%)	16 (48.5%)	3 (3.3%)	24 (10.7%)	81.583
	Neutral	9 (33.3%)	46 (62.2%)	16 (48.5%)	66 (73.3%)	137 (61.2%)	(<0.01)
	Critical	18 (66.7%)	23 (31.1%)	1 (3.0%)	21 (23.3%)	63 (28.1%)
	Total	27 (100%)	74 (100%)	33 (100%)	90 (100%)	224 (100%)

).

During Phase 2, the crisis response framework focused on identifying the persistent issues caused by the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic and recommending suitable solutions. In South Korea, public discussion centered on the allocation of disaster relief funds. The Chosun Daily condemned the government’s initiative to issue universal relief payments, labeling it as an inappropriate use of financial resources. Conversely, Hankyoreh contended that rather than arguing over distribution methods, the government should adopt a more proactive stance in controlling the third wave of COVID-19.

“The third round of relief funds won’t be the last—reduce wasteful spending and secure financial reserves.

It is a proven fact that the indiscriminate distribution of relief funds, regardless of the extent of damage, has failed to produce effective results. … As a result of providing relief funds to all citizens, more than 10 trillion won in public funds were wasted.”

(The Chosun Daily, 28 December 2020)

“Rather than universal disaster relief funds, measures to address COVID-19-driven polarization are needed.

Universal disaster relief funds can be considered as one way to stimulate the economy in overcoming COVID-19. However, it is not too late to review this measure after the urgent crisis of the third wave of COVID-19 has been brought under control. … There is no need to rush.”

(Hankyoreh, 5 January 2021)

In China, People’s Daily emphasized that under President Xi Jinping’s leadership, China could overcome the pandemic by strengthening its healthcare system and leveraging its institutional strengths. Meanwhile, Ming Pao recognized the effectiveness of the government’s containment efforts but cautioned against complacency, emphasizing the need for continued vigilance in managing the pandemic.

“Build a strong public health system.

At the national strategic level, President Xi Jinping deeply summarized the experiences and lessons learned from the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic in order to build a strong public health system. He systematically discussed a series of key issues, such as promoting the legalization of public health safety and epidemic prevention measures.”

(People’s Daily, 15 September 2020)

“Third COVID-19 Wave Declared ‘Zero’, Easing of Epidemic Prevention Measures Difficult Ahead of Mid-Autumn Festival

Although the fact that new COVID-19 cases have finally returned to ‘zero’ yesterday and there are signs that the epidemic is under control is good news, it is still too early to assert that the third wave will soon come to an end.”

(Ming Pao, 16 September 2020)

In the framework of international relations, as U.S.–China relations grew increasingly strained during the pandemic, newspapers revealed clear differences in their national stances. Regarding the tensions between the U.S. and China, The Chosun Daily emphasized that South Korea should not remain neutral but instead adopt a clear stance in favor of the U.S. to safeguard its national security and international standing. In contrast, Hankyoreh criticized both the U.S. and Chinese governments for their handling of the pandemic and lack of international responsibility, advocating for cooperation between the two countries to address the global public health crisis jointly.

“After COVID-19, US-China ‘Full-Scale Conflict’ Over Hong Kong: Is There Strategy and Wisdom?

Under pressure from the spread of COVID-19, President Trump seeks to achieve results through the reshaping of a US-led anti-China world order. Among America’s major allies, only the South Korean government remains silent. However, if this prolonged indecision leads to missing the golden opportunity for choice, the worst-case scenario of being left out of a new US-led economic bloc could become a reality.”

(The Chosun Daily, 1 June 2020)

“Instead of cooperating on COVID-19, the irresponsible US-China conflict continues.

It is highly irresponsible that the US and China are not cooperating on COVID-19 but instead heading towards confrontation and conflict. Overcoming the COVID-19 virus requires international cooperation, and the responsibility of these two superpowers is particularly significant.”

(Hankyoreh, 5 May 2020)

On the Chinese side, both People’s Daily and Ming Pao emphasized the shortcomings of the U.S. response to the COVID-19 pandemic. People’s Daily asserted that the United States’ inadequate handling of the crisis had worsened global tensions. Ming Pao, while questioning the U.S. assessment of its economic recovery pace, maintained a more neutral tone in its reporting.

“They cannot hide their failure in epidemic control by shifting the blame.

The United States referred to COVID-19 as a ‘major flu,’ missing the optimal time for prevention and control. … The number of confirmed COVID-19 cases surpassed 39 million, and the death toll exceeded 630,000, making it the highest in the world.”

(People’s Daily, 1 September 2021)

“U.S. Stocks Detach from Pandemic Reality, Economic V-Shaped Recovery a Mirage

Although the United States resumed economic activities, the Dow Jones index plummeted nearly 7% on Thursday, marking the largest single-day drop since the outbreak of the pandemic.”

(Ming Pao, 13 June 2020)

Under the responsibility attribution framework, issues related to vaccine supply resurfaced in South Korea, drawing media attention. The Chosun Daily criticized the government for its passive approach to vaccine procurement, highlighting delays in agreements with international manufacturers and the resulting vaccine shortages. It attributed the problem to inadequate preparedness and poor execution. In contrast, Hankyoreh stressed the importance of public cooperation, suggesting that addressing the pandemic required a collective effort rather than assigning blame and calling for a more effective public health response system.

“While the world secured COVID-19 vaccines in advance, the government is only now convening an advisory committee.

The government has shown an oddly passive attitude towards securing vaccines. The Ministry of Economy and Finance was reluctant to allocate budgets, and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the responsible department, was not particularly proactive in securing funds for advance purchases.”

(The Chosun Daily, 13 November 2020)

“Chuseok ‘COVID-19 Resurgence’ Crisis: Let’s Unite and Overcome Together

In the fight against the epidemic, the outcome inevitably depends on the will and cooperation of the community. If the government’s meticulous response and the cooperation of the people come together, we can certainly overcome this resurgence crisis.”

(Hankyoreh, 27 September 2020)

In China, People’s Daily highlighted the Communist Party’s leadership in coordinating the COVID-19 response, emphasizing resource allocation, policy enforcement, and social mobilization to enhance public support. Ming Pao maintained a neutral yet critical stance, highlighting shortcomings in testing capacity and public health infrastructure, reflecting its role in media oversight.

“Extensively promote the great epidemic prevention spirit.

In the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, the Communist Party of China united the people of various ethnic groups across the country, making tremendous efforts to achieve significant strategic success in epidemic prevention. It has realized the great epidemic prevention spirit of prioritizing life, national unity, selfless dedication, respect for science, and a shared community of destiny.”

(People’s Daily, 11 September 2020)

“Delay in COVID-19 Return to Normalcy, Lack of Testing Capacity as a Barrier.

The new COVID-19 outbreak has revealed that there are still significant shortcomings in epidemic prevention efforts. … In particular, improving virus testing capacity as soon as possible is an urgent issue, and further delays cannot be tolerated.”

(Ming Pao, 9 July 2020)

4.3. Phase 3 (November 2021–March 2023)

Phase 3 marks the transition to the “With COVID-19” era. In the editorials of Korean and Chinese newspapers, the crisis response frame appeared most frequently, followed by the responsibility attribution and international relations frames. In South Korea, the crisis response frame accounted for 53.7% of all editorials and the responsibility attribution frame for 33.3%. This represented a notable difference compared to China, where the figures were 81.7% and 16.0%, respectively (p < 0.01) (

Table 9. News frames in Phase 3 in South Korea and China.

Phase 3	News Frame			Total	x2 (p-Value)
	Crisis Response	International Relations	Responsibility Attribution
South Korea	29 (53.7%)	7 (13.0%)	18 (33.3%)	54 (100%)	17.559
China	107 (81.7%)	3 (2.3%)	21 (16.0%)	131 (100%)	(<0.01)
Total	136 (81.7%)	10 (2.3%)	39 (16.0%)	185 (100%)

). In China, the use of the crisis response frame increased compared to Phase 2.

A comparison of news frames by newspaper revealed that Hankyoreh, People’s Daily, and Ming Pao employed the crisis response frame in over 70% of their editorials, whereas The Chosun Daily used it in only 32.1% of its coverage. Notably, the international relations frame did not appear in People’s Daily (p < 0.01) (

Table 10. News frames of Korean and Chinese newspapers in Phase 3 of the COVID-19 response.

Phase	Frame	South Korea		China		Total	x2 (p-Value)
		The Chosun Daily	Hankyoreh	People’s Daily	Ming Pao
3	Crisis response	9 (32.1%)	20 (76.9%)	42 (77.8%)	65 (84.4%)	136 (73.5%)	34.229
	International relations	5 (17.9%)	2 (7.7%)	0 (0.0%)	3 (3.9%)	10 (5.4%)	(<0.01)
	Responsibility attribution	14 (50.0%)	4 (15.4%)	12 (22.2%)	9 (11.7%)	39 (21.1%)
	Total	28 (100%)	26 (100%)	54 (100%)	77 (100%)	185 (100%)

).

In terms of tone, the three newspapers, excluding People’s Daily, featured more editorials with a critical tone than those with a positive tone. By country, The Chosun Daily in South Korea had the highest proportion of editorials with a critical tone at 64.3%, while People’s Daily in China had the lowest at 0.0%. In contrast, People’s Daily recorded the highest proportion of editorials with a positive tone at 18.5%, whereas The Chosun Daily had the lowest at 0.0% (p < 0.01) (

Table 11. Stance of Korean and Chinese newspapers in Phase 3 of the COVID-19 response.

Phase	Editorial Tone	South Korea		China		Total	x2 (p-Value)
		The Chosun Daily	Hankyoreh	People’s Daily	Ming Pao
3	Positive	0 (0.0%)	1 (3.8%)	10 (18.5%)	2 (2.6%)	13 (7.0%)	61.41
	Neutral	10 (35.7%)	16 (61.5%)	44 (81.5%)	63 (81.8%)	133 (71.9%)	(<0.01)
	Critical	18 (64.3%)	9 (34.6%)	0 (0.0%)	12 (15.6%)	39 (21.1%)
	Total	28 (100%)	26 (100%)	54 (100%)	77 (100%)	185 (100%)

).

Regarding the crisis response framework, Korean newspapers actively published editorials during the repeated waves of COVID-19, highlighting various social issues and offering critiques or suggestions regarding government measures. The Chosun Daily pointed out that the government’s response to the surge in cases was sluggish, particularly regarding PCR testing, which remained inconvenient and inefficient. The paper urged authorities to streamline testing procedures and enhance public accessibility. Hankyoreh, on the other hand, focused on the severe shortage of hospital beds, criticizing the government’s lack of preparedness in terms of the public healthcare system and calling for increased capacity to treat critically ill patients.

“K-Quarantine Turning Even Simple COVID-19 Tests into a Struggle Amid Severe Cold

Over the weekend, citizens who visited COVID-19 screening stations experienced significant inconvenience amid the severe cold. … Why should the public, who have actively cooperated with the government’s quarantine measures at the cost of their daily lives, have to endure such discomfort? The number of screening stations should be significantly increased, and a queue number system should be actively implemented to reduce waiting times.”

(The Chosun Daily, 20 December 2021)

“Hospital Beds at Full Capacity—Was ‘With-COVID’ Initiated with This Level of Preparedness?

As of 5 PM on the 25th, the ICU bed occupancy rate in the Seoul metropolitan area had reached 84.5%. … If this trend continues, there will be no ground left for the ‘With-COVID’ strategy. Despite this situation, the government has effectively taken no action to increase the number of ICU beds.”

(Hankyoreh, 26 November 2021)

In China, People’s Daily continued to support the “Dynamic Zero-COVID” policy, even amid the rapid spread of the Omicron variant. It emphasized that the policy was essential for safeguarding public health and highlighted the importance of strong leadership from both parties and the government in achieving complete success. Ming Pao adopted a more cautious and rational stance. While acknowledging Hong Kong’s partial success in controlling the virus, the newspaper cautioned against prematurely easing social distancing measures. It advocated for a gradual policy adjustment, which would ensure that any relaxations did not compromise epidemic control.

“Dynamic Zero-COVID is currently China’s best choice for pandemic control.

From the perspective of the virus’s characteristics, the Omicron variant has a fast transmission rate, a high proportion of mild infections, and a greater likelihood of causing widespread transmission. … Only by adhering to the ‘Dynamic Zero-COVID’ policy can we win the battle against the virus.”

(People’s Daily, 13 April 2022)

“While citizens are happy about the easing of social distancing measures, the return to normalcy amid COVID-19 should proceed with caution.

With the gradual easing of social distancing measures starting yesterday and the reopening of many facilities, citizens are excited, and shops are pleased with the increase in business. … We must cooperate with the next phase of social distancing measures to inject even more vitality into the recovery of people’s livelihoods.”

(Ming Pao, 22 April 2022)

During the third phase of COVID-19 news coverage in South Korea and China, the focus on international relations was notably minor and exhibited a downward trend with no substantial alterations. Consequently, this study does not offer an in-depth examination of the international relations frame.

Under the responsibility attribution framework, the presidential elections emerged as a significant issue in South Korea, with editorials criticizing senior government officials for their international trips during the final stages of their terms. The Chosun Daily condemned the frequent international travel of high-ranking public officials during the pandemic, while Hankyoreh urged presidential candidates to propose solutions to the growing social gap created by the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Amid the serious economic impact of COVID-19, senior ministers are taking consecutive overseas trips at the end of their terms.

Minister Park Beom-gyu and other officials from the Ministry of Justice are reported to have made 10 overseas trips since the end of last year. The total expenditure for these trips, including airfare of approximately 200 million won, amounted to 380 million won. … Recently, the wife of President Moon Jae-in was also criticized for privately visiting the Pyramids in Egypt.”

(The Chosun Daily, 31 March 2022)

“How will presidential candidates address the income gap widened by COVID-19?

The COVID-19 virus has deeply wounded our economy and society, and the pandemic continues to this day. With the presidential election on March 9, we would like to hear concrete solutions from the candidates who will be responsible for running the country for the next five years.”

(Hankyoreh, 15 February 2022)

People’s Daily praised China’s response to COVID-19, emphasizing the scientific basis of its quarantine policies and the progress made in economic recovery. Ming Pao criticized the substantial salary increases for senior officials during the pandemic, arguing that such actions were inappropriate given the ongoing economic difficulties, and recommended that the new government link senior officials’ performance to their salaries.

“Our quarantine measures are the most economical and effective approach.

In response to the rapidly spreading Omicron variant, through the joint efforts of various regions and departments, there have been slight changes in some areas, but the nationwide COVID-19 situation remains generally stable. Positive changes are also appearing in the national economy, with the economic recovery continuing to strengthen.”

(People’s Daily, 14 July 2022)

“The distortions caused by COVID-19 remain, and the significant salary increases for senior officials are inappropriate.

The government’s failure in pandemic response and the significant salary increases for senior officials not only provoke criticism of ‘a top-heavy, impoverished lower class’ but also raise concerns about diminishing public trust. … The new government should seriously consider how to link the performance of senior officials to their salary levels.”

(Ming Pao, 19 May 2022)

5. Discussion

This study reveals the contrasting approaches taken by mainstream media in South Korea and China in their coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in terms of news framing and editorial perspectives.

A notable difference is observed in the Chinese media’s persistent emphasis on national unity throughout the pandemic. Editorials often framed the crisis as a chance to enhance collective identity and public solidarity. People’s Daily faithfully served as a mouthpiece for the Chinese Communist Party, while Ming Pao, despite occasionally criticizing certain public health policies, also emphasized the importance of unity in navigating the crisis. Conversely, major South Korean newspapers—The Chosun Daily and Hankyoreh—did not significantly reference national unity in their editorials. Although both nations regarded COVID-19 as a national emergency, South Korean media did not emphasize unity as a primary rhetorical element. This difference stems from South Korea’s political landscape and entrenched media bias. During the study period, two significant elections took place—the National Assembly election in April 2020 and the local government election in June 2022. The COVID-19 response measures became key politicized campaign topics. Furthermore, the stark ideological divide between progressive and conservative media outlets contributed to intensifying the conflict surrounding COVID-19 prevention strategies.

In terms of frame preference, this study confirms a notable trend: pro-government media tend to adopt the “crisis response” frame, while opposition-leaning outlets more often employ the “attribution of responsibility” frame. This was evident in the Korean context, where Hankyoreh predominantly used the crisis response frame, while The Chosun Daily focused more on blame attribution. Interestingly, this polarization was not mirrored in the Chinese media. Although Ming Pao occasionally adopted a critical editorial tone, its news-framing patterns were similar to those of People’s Daily, reflecting a unified narrative structure.

Distinct variations also emerged in the use of the international relations frame. The Chosun Daily expressed hostility toward China, while Hankyoreh highlighted the diplomatic risks associated with such a stance. Meanwhile, People’s Daily and Ming Pao staunchly defended China’s national interests amid U.S.–China tensions. Notably, Ming Pao made the most frequent use of the international relations frame, dedicating 29.7% of its editorials to this frame in the pandemic’s first phase (19.5% overall). This can be interpreted as a reflection of Hong Kong’s status as an international financial and trade hub, which contributed to its active use of the international relations news frame.

This study aims to examine the relevance of the news frame concept for analyzing media in socialist states, focusing on the connection between news frames and editorial tone. The idea of news framing primarily originated from research on media in Western societies, especially in the United States. In countries with guaranteed press freedom, newspapers not only inform but also provide editorial commentary. Thus, analyzing news frames is a valuable theoretical approach to highlighting the differences among newspapers. However, this approach may be less applicable in the context of media such as People’s Daily, where editorials are often seen more as reflections of the ruling party’s views rather than independent journalism. Qualitative analysis indicated a common use of propagandistic slogans in the editorials of People’s Daily. The Chinese government utilized its centralized governance to exert control and promote nationwide collaboration, thereby curbing the early spread of COVID-19 (Zhuo, 2022).

Despite such limitations, news framing remains a valuable method for comparing how different media construct narratives around shared crises. While tone analysis categorizes sentiment, framing analysis enables a more nuanced understanding of how media shape public discourse through issue selection, interpretation, and emphasis.

6. Conclusions

This study categorizes the COVID-19 pandemic into three phases and analyzes the news frames used in editorials published by prominent newspapers in South Korea, China, and Hong Kong.

In the first phase, Hankyoreh, People’s Daily, and Ming Pao predominantly adopted a crisis response frame, emphasizing national mobilization and societal unity. By contrast, The Chosun Daily was the only outlet to prioritize an international relations frame, frequently urging the South Korean government to adopt a more assertive stance toward China and exhibiting the most critical editorial tone. Ming Pao also displayed a relatively critical perspective. In the second phase, the crisis response frame remained dominant, and the overall editorial tone in both South Korean and Chinese media became more critical. In the third phase, as the pandemic began to stabilize, most newspapers continued to utilize the crisis response frame. However, with the exception of The Chosun Daily, the overall critical tone diminished, and the use of the international relations frame declined significantly due to the narrowing gap in pandemic conditions between countries. This study reveals that mainstream media in different countries, when confronted with the same public health crisis, adopt varying news frames due to the influence of their political orientations, national systems, and media ecosystems.

Despite its contributions, this study also has several limitations. First, although real-world news audiences are exposed to diverse information channels, this analysis is confined to traditional newspaper editorials and does not include other important media such as online news or television reports. Future research should broaden its scope to encompass a wider range of communication platforms. Second, the selection of only four newspapers may introduce institutional selection bias. For instance, People’s Daily and Ming Pao occupy official or mainstream positions within China’s media landscape, whereas The Chosun Daily and Hankyoreh represent opposing ends of the political spectrum in South Korea. While this selection enables comparison across differing political systems, it may overlook alternative or peripheral media voices, thereby limiting the generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, although a range of keywords (e.g., “COVID-19,” “coronavirus,” “novel coronavirus,” “Wuhan virus”) were used to collect data, only editorials with relevant keywords in the title were included. As a result, the full scope and nuance of COVID-19-related discourse may not have been comprehensively captured. Lastly, this study was limited in that it did not conduct a cross-analysis of news frames and editorial tone, which would have allowed for a more multidimensional presentation of the findings. Additionally, it fell short of providing a deeper interpretation of the relationship between states’ crisis management and news framing.

Despite these limitations, this study represents a significant interdisciplinary collaboration between South Korean and Chinese scholars, integrating viewpoints from communication studies and public health. Such cross-national and cross-disciplinary engagement enhances the understanding of health communication during global crises. Future research should also investigate audience reception, particularly how readers interpret editorial tones and framing strategies, and evaluate the psychological and behavioral implications of media narratives on public trust, policy compliance, and health-related decision-making. Additionally, incorporating emerging platforms such as social media, digital news portals, and audiovisual content will enable researchers to examine how framing strategies vary across different media formats and how users interact with crisis-related content in real time.