Analyzing Foreign Media Coverage of China During the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics Opening and Closing Ceremonies: A Corpus-Assisted Critical Discourse Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

Thank you for the opportunity to review your work under the title Analyzing Foreign Media Coverage of China During the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics: A Corpus-Assisted Critical Discourse Analysis. The representation of China has been a timely and important issue for a long time. Your manuscript certainly contributes to the growing scholarship on media discourse, international image construction, and soft power.  While so, this manuscript also has several issues that need addressing, which can help you significantly strengthen this work. More specifically, this manuscript lacks some clarity, scholarly rigor, and theoretical impact.

1. While this manuscript addresses the significant and pressing issues, global media coverage, and the country’s image of such a strong global actor as China, the work has no explicit theoretical grounding guiding the analysis. Incorporating a media communication theory in this manuscript will help to strengthen its explanatory power.
2. The manuscript contains outdated literature. Most cited sources date from 2008 to 2022. This is a significant limitation, especially for a paper submitted in mid-2025. I strongly encourage the authors to integrate recent work published in 2023–2025, especially on international image construction, Olympic media coverage, and critical discourse analysis.
3. In addition to section 2, while the study is focused on media content, it does not consider audience effects or how such portrayals may influence public opinion. I would refrain from using strong language emphasizing the lack of studies reflecting the impact of the Olympics on the public’s perceptions, as this is misleading (line 137). I strongly recommend citing empirical work that bridges media content and public attitudes, e.g., Vishnevskaya, A., Hilton, K., Price, R., Thatcher, G., Zhang, Z., & Tan, A. (2023). 2022 Beijing winter Olympic games: The effect of media visual primes on American public opinion about the Olympics and China. International Communication Gazette, 86(6), 502-518. https://doi.org/10.1177/17480485231165590. Citing such recent work would help connect your media analysis to its potential real-world impact.
4. Building off that, the manuscript is missing an elaborate discussion of the findings and their implications. The very brief mention of limitations and future directions is present, yet more elaboration is needed.
5. As for the corpus design, the authors used NexisUni. However, they obtained only 40 valid samples. This small sample size limits the generalizability of findings. Additionally, it’s confusing what foreign/global media sources were included in the analysis. This clarification will likely help to increase the sample size. The authors also mentioned that circulation metrics were the rationale for selecting media news. However, this rationale was not clearly unpacked in the methods section. The study refers to the foreign media as a single unit. However, this narrative is misleading. Is the foreign media ‘foreign’ from the U.S.? China’s? Western block’s perspectives? This needs a lot more clarification to enrich insights and better account for variations within media sources.
6. The manuscript would benefit from proofreading and adding consistency and clarity in the discussion of corpus building and specifying the unit of analysis.
7. While AFINN is among the sentiment analysis tools, it is also a very basic tool. What was the rationale for its selection when there are sentiment analysis tools that yield more accurate results?
8. It is also important that the manuscript maintains a more objective, academic tone. Language like unfounded accusations (line 352) or fabricating human rights issues (line 318) reduces the neutrality of the analysis.
9. As for the RQs, RQ1 is addressed properly. However, RQ2 is focused on implied ideology. This part lacks a systematic framework or categorization of ideological leanings. The author(s) should thus address the theoretical and methodological aspects of the concept of “ideology.”

Last but not least, make sure to proofread the manuscript in accordance with APA guidelines and for clarity (e.g., eliminate redundant sections, explain better how the key concepts are linked to the RQs and data, punctuation, etc.).

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your careful reading of the manuscript and for providing thoughtful and constructive feedback. We truly appreciate the time and effort you devoted to improving our work.

In response to the comments, we have revised the manuscript using the “Track Changes” mode, so all changes are clearly visible. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each comment. We indicate how we have addressed each concern and where in the manuscript the corresponding revisions have been made.

 

【Comment 1 】While this manuscript addresses the significant and pressing issues, global media coverage, and the country’s image of such a strong global actor as China, the work has no explicit theoretical grounding guiding the analysis. Incorporating a media communication theory in this manuscript will help to strengthen its explanatory power.

【Response 1】Thank you very much for this constructive comment. We agree with this comment. In response to your suggestion, I have now incorporated Agenda-Setting Theory (McCOMBS and SHAW 1972) to provide a clearer theoretical grounding for the analysis. A new subsection titled “2.2 Integration of Agenda-Setting Theory into the CDA Framework” has been added, where I outline how this theory complements the existing corpus-assisted critical discourse analysis (CADS) approach.

Additionally, I have revised the 3.2.1 Keywords Analysis section to explicitly apply Agenda-Setting Theory to selected examples. This theoretical addition helps to clarify not only what the media emphasized in their coverage of the Beijing Winter Olympics ceremonies, but also how these agenda-setting practices interact with the ideological functions revealed through CDA.

These revisions aim to strengthen the explanatory power of the study by linking linguistic patterns to broader media communication dynamics, as you recommended.

 

【Comment 2 】The manuscript contains outdated literature. Most cited sources date from 2008 to 2022. This is a significant limitation, especially for a paper submitted in mid-2025. I strongly encourage the authors to integrate recent work published in 2023–2025, especially on international image construction, Olympic media coverage, and critical discourse analysis.

【Response 2】Thank you for pointing out the issue regarding the use of outdated literature. In response, I have revised the “1.2. Media Coverage of Sporting Events” section to include recent studies published between 2023 and 2025, particularly those focusing on Olympic media discourse and national image construction. Specifically, I have incorporated the following sources:

Wang, Yilei, Dezheng Feng, and Hua Wang. Modernity, Aesthetics, and Nation Re-branding in Olympics: A Multimodal Discourse Analysis of the Opening Ceremony of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympic Games. Communication & Sport (2024).

Lemus-Delgado, Daniel. Opening ceremonies and national identity: Beijing 2008 and Tokyo 2020. National Identities 25, no. 5 (2023): 463–482.

Boykoff, Jules. Framing the games: US media coverage of the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics. Communication & Sport 12, no. 1 (2024): 19–39.

         Vishnevskaya, A., Hilton, K., Price, R., Thatcher, G., Zhang, Z., & Tan, A. (2023). 2022 Beijing winter Olympic games: The effect of media visual primes on American public opinion about the Olympics and China. International Communication Gazette, 86(6), 502-518. https://doi.org/10.1177/17480485231165590. Citing such recent work would help connect your media analysis to its potential real-world impact.

 

【Comment 3 】In addition to section 2, while the study is focused on media content, it does not consider audience effects or how such portrayals may influence public opinion. I would refrain from using strong language emphasizing the lack of studies reflecting the impact of the Olympics on the public’s perceptions, as this is misleading (line 137). I strongly recommend citing empirical work that bridges media content and public attitudes, e.g., Vishnevskaya, A., Hilton, K., Price, R., Thatcher, G., Zhang, Z., & Tan, A. (2023). 2022 Beijing winter Olympic games: The effect of media visual primes on American public opinion about the Olympics and China. International Communication Gazette, 86(6), 502-518. https://doi.org/10.1177/17480485231165590. Citing such recent work would help connect your media analysis to its potential real-world impact.

【Response 3】Thank you very much for this insightful and constructive suggestion. I fully agree with your point that distinguishing between media content and audience perception is essential for maintaining analytical clarity. Since the present study is focused on the discursive construction of China’s image in international media coverage, I did not develop audience perceptions in the main analysis.

However, in response to your comment, I have now explicitly added this limitation in Section 4 Conclusion, where audience perceptions are discussed as a key area for future study (line 759- 762; line 768-771). I have also clarified that the study does not empirically examine how such portrayals may influence public opinion and have emphasized the need for audience-centered methods in subsequent research.

Additionally, I have revised the original wording at line 137 (now line 160) to avoid overstating the lack of existing literature. The phrasing has been softened to reflect a more balanced and accurate assessment of current research.

Finally, I have integrated the empirical study by Vishnevskaya et al.(2024) into the literature review, as you recommended. It helps position my study within the broader research landscape connecting media discourse and public perception.

 

【Comment 4】Building off that, the manuscript is missing an elaborate discussion of the findings and their implications. The very brief mention of limitations and future directions is present, yet more elaboration is needed.

【Response 4】In response, I have expanded the 4. Results and Discussion section to provide a more detailed and systematic interpretation of the results. Specifically, I draw on the results of the N-Gram function in AntConc to strengthen the 3.2.1 Keyword Analysis and incorporate Collocate analysis in the 3.2.2 KWIC Analysis section to explain how and why specific keywords (e.g., “China”and “Xi”) were selected for in-depth analysis. These additions help make the analytical process more transparent, coherent, and logical.

In addition, I have revised Section 4 Conclusion to offer a more substantial reflection on the limitations of the current study and more clearly directions for future research. These changes aim to strengthen the explanatory and critical value of the study and align with your suggestion for a more robust and reflective discussion.

 

【Comment 5】As for the corpus design, the authors used NexisUni. However, they obtained only 40 valid samples. This small sample size limits the generalizability of findings. Additionally, it’s confusing what foreign/global media sources were included in the analysis. This clarification will likely help to increase the sample size. The authors also mentioned that circulation metrics were the rationale for selecting media news. However, this rationale was not clearly unpacked in the methods section. The study refers to the foreign media as a single unit. However, this narrative is misleading. Is the foreign media ‘foreign’ from the U.S.? China’s? Western block’s perspectives? This needs a lot more clarification to enrich insights and better account for variations within media sources.

【Response 5】Thank you for raising this concern. I fully acknowledge the limitation of the relatively small sample size (n=40). However, the corpus was constructed through a rigorous manual screening process using NexisUni, based on highly specific inclusion criteria:

(1) the report had to be a headline-level article that explicitly mentioned the opening or closing ceremony of the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics;

(2) the article had to be published in English-language media and

(3) originate from international (non-Chinese) news sources.

Due to the focused scope of this study—centered on media representations of the ceremonial dimension of a single international mega-event—the number of highly relevant and unique headlines was limited. While I agree that the limited sample size constrains statistical generalizability, the corpus contains 33,505 words in total. It is guided by Corpus-Assisted Critical Discourse Studies (CADS), where depth of analysis and interpretation take precedence over quantity.

Country	Media Outlet(s)
United States (USA)	The Washington Post, NBC News, Yahoo! Sports, USA TODAY, CNN, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Radio Free Europe (U.S.-funded)
United Kingdom (UK)	The Guardian, BBC News
Canada	Global News
France	FRANCE 24, EuroSport
Germany	Deutsche Welle (DW)
Australia	ABC News Australia
Greece	Greek Reporter
Qatar	Al Jazeera English

This clarification has been added to the revised Section 2.3 Research Materials (line 275-280). I have clarified the national origin of each media outlet and provided a complete list in the article.

To enhance transparency and replicability, I have included a comprehensive table in Appendix I, which lists each media headline used in the analysis along with its source outlet and country of origin. This table ensures that readers can trace the exact provenance of each text sample.

 

【Comment 6】The manuscript would benefit from proofreading and adding consistency and clarity in the discussion of corpus building and specifying the unit of analysis.

【Response 6】I have clarified the corpus composition and news selection criteria in Section 2.3 Research Materials. This addition aims to enhance transparency and consistency in the description of the dataset.

In addition, the manuscript has been professionally edited by SAGE Language Services, and I have also conducted further proofreading to improve clarity and language consistency throughout the paper.

 

【Comment 7】While AFINN is among the sentiment analysis tools, it is also a very basic tool. What was the rationale for its selection when there are sentiment analysis tools that yield more accurate results?

【Response 7】AFINN was chosen for two reasons. First, it is specifically designed for short, discrete text units, such as headlines and tweets, making it particularly suitable for analyzing the emotionally charged yet compact linguistic structure of news headlines. Second, AFINN assigns integer sentiment scores ranging from –5 (highly negative) to +5 (highly positive) (Nielsen 2011), allowing for quantitative comparisons across multiple headlines. This numeric scoring provides a way to detect general emotion tendencies in discourse. The reason for choosing AFINN has been added in the revised manuscript (line 322-327).

 

【Comment 8】It is also important that the manuscript maintains a more objective, academic tone. Language like unfounded accusations (line 352) or fabricating human rights issues (line 318) reduces the neutrality of the analysis.

【Response 8】Thank you for highlighting the importance of maintaining an objective academic tone. I fully agree with your observation. In response, I have revised the original wording at line 352, changing the phrase to “Evaluative Headlines” （line 395）to ensure a more neutral and accurate description of the data. Additionally, the original sentence at line 318 has been deleted, and the entire paragraph has been rewritten to present a more logically structured and evidence-based analysis.

In the revised article, I have incorporated relevant findings from the N-gram results and linked the keyword patterns to Agenda-Setting Theory, allowing for a more analytical and theory-driven interpretation of the media discourse while avoiding value-laden or speculative language. These changes aim to improve the academic tone and objectivity of the manuscript.

 

【Comment 9】As for the RQs, RQ1 is addressed properly. However, RQ2 is focused on implied ideology. This part lacks a systematic framework or categorization of ideological leanings. The author(s) should thus address the theoretical and methodological aspects of the concept of “ideology.”

【Response 9】Thank you for this insightful comment. In response, I have made the following revisions: In 1.1 Corpus-Assisted Critical Discourse Study（CADS）,the definition of “ideology” has been provided, which will help to explain how ideology can be realized in QR2.

 

Last but not least, make sure to proofread the manuscript in accordance with APA guidelines and for clarity (e.g., eliminate redundant sections, explain better how the key concepts are linked to the RQs and data, punctuation, etc.).

 

References:

McCOMBS, M. E. and D. L. SHAW (1972). "THE AGENDA-SETTING FUNCTION OF MASS MEDIA*." Public Opinion Quarterly 36(2): 176-187.

Nielsen, F. Å. (2011). A new ANEW: Evaluation of a word list for sentiment analysis in microblogs. Proceedings of the ESWC2011 Workshop on ‘Making Sense of Microposts’: Big things come in small packages, Heraklion.

Vishnevskaya, A., K. Hilton, R. Price, G. Thatcher, Z. Zhang and A. Tan (2024). "2022 Beijing winter Olympic games: The effect of media visual primes on American public opinion about the Olympics and China." International Communication Gazette 86(6): 502-518.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. While the article is clearly written and well-structured, there are several substantial issues that should be addressed before it can be considered for publication.

 

1. The abstract states that the article analyzes foreign media coverage of the opening and closing ceremonies of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics. However, the title refers more broadly to media coverage during the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics. This inconsistency could mislead readers into thinking the study focuses on the entire Games rather than specifically on the ceremonies. This ambiguity also affects the clarity of the data collection scope, which I will elaborate on further below.

 

2. Assuming the focus is indeed on the opening and closing ceremonies, it is essential to provide readers with background information about ceremonies. For example, when did the opening and closing ceremonies take place? Who directed them? What were their core themes and aesthetic elements? How was China’s national image portrayed through them? Unfortunately, the manuscript does not engage with any of this contextual information, nor does it reference existing scholarly literature on the ceremonies. This is a major gap, especially given the growing body of English-language research on Olympic opening ceremonies, including the Beijing 2022. I recommend the author(s) read the following relevant articles:

• Wang, Yilei, Dezheng Feng, and Hua Wang. Modernity, Aesthetics, and Nation Re-branding in Olympics: A Multimodal Discourse Analysis of the Opening Ceremony of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympic Games. Communication & Sport (2024).
• Hwang, Dong-Jhy, and Yi-Chun Huang. Olympism and Chinese humanism: a critical analysis of the opening ceremony of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympic Games. Journal of Contemporary East Asia Studies (2024).
• Arning, Chris. Soft power, ideology and symbolic manipulation in Summer Olympic Games opening ceremonies: A semiotic analysis. Social Semiotics 23, no. 4 (2013): 523–544.
• Lee, Jongsoo, and Hyunsun Yoon. Narratives of the nation in the Olympic opening ceremonies: comparative analysis of Beijing 2008 and London 2012. Nations and Nationalism 23, no. 4 (2017): 952–969.
• Lemus-Delgado, Daniel. Opening ceremonies and national identity: Beijing 2008 and Tokyo 2020. National Identities 25, no. 5 (2023): 463–482.

 

3. On page 4, line 160, the author(s) claims that “no prior studies have critically analyzed foreign media’s China-related sports coverage of the 2022 Winter Olympics and the construction of China’s national image so far.” This is not entirely accurate. I recommend the author read the following work, which directly addresses related topics:

• Boykoff, Jules. Framing the games: US media coverage of the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics. Communication & Sport 12, no. 1 (2024): 19–39.

 

4. The manuscript rightly adopts a corpus-assisted critical discourse analysis approach, which helps minimize subjective bias. However, the selection of keywords does not include terms such as “ceremony,” which is problematic given the study’s stated focus. There is a crucial difference between media coverage of “Beijing Winter Olympics Opening” and coverage specifically of the “opening and closing ceremonies.” For example, the media samples cited on page 9, line 318, appear to report on the end of the Olympics in general, not specifically on the closing ceremony. Section 3.2 includes several examples that are not clearly linked to ceremony coverage; Example 9, for instance, seems to refer to a report prior to the opening ceremony rather than focus on opening ceremony. The author should re-examine the dataset and ensure it captures media texts that explicitly address the opening and/or closing ceremonies. For instance, is there coverage comparing the different styles of the Beijing 2008 and Beijing 2022 opening ceremonies?

 

5. The manuscript refers to media outlets such as The Washington Post, NBC News, BBC News, Time, Global News, and others. Since the study aims to analyze foreign media coverage, it is necessary to specify which country each outlet is from and justify their selection. Why were these specific outlets chosen? Do they offer a representative cross-section of international media perspectives? Moreover, the use of "etc." is inappropriate in methodological descriptions—please provide a complete list of media sources.

 

6. Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 are both titled “Keyword Analysis.” It is unclear how these sections differ or how they are thematically organized. The author should clarify the rationale and analytical distinction between these two subsections.

 

7. Some phrases in the manuscript suggest direct translation from Chinese, which affects clarity and professionalism. For example, the phrase “within the same media house” (p.13, line 466) appears awkward and may not align with standard academic English. A thorough language polishing is recommended.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your careful reading of the manuscript and for providing thoughtful and constructive feedback. We truly appreciate the time and effort you devoted to improving our work.

In response to the comments, we have revised the manuscript using the “Track Changes” mode, so all changes are clearly visible. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each comment. We indicate how we have addressed each concern and where in the manuscript the corresponding revisions have been made.

 

【Comment 1 】The abstract states that the article analyzes foreign media coverage of the opening and closing ceremonies of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics. However, the title refers more broadly to media coverage during the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics. This inconsistency could mislead readers into thinking the study focuses on the entire Games rather than specifically on the ceremonies. This ambiguity also affects the clarity of the data collection scope, which I will elaborate on further below.

【Response 1】Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency between the abstract and the original title. I fully agree that clarity regarding the scope of the study is essential. In response, I have revised the manuscript title to:

“Analyzing Foreign Media Coverage of China During the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics Opening and Closing Ceremonies: A Corpus-Assisted Critical Discourse Analysis.”

This updated title more accurately reflects the specific focus on the opening and closing ceremonies, in alignment with the abstract and the actual corpus design. I appreciate your comment, which helped improve the precision and consistency of the manuscript.

 

【Comment 2 】Assuming the focus is indeed on the opening and closing ceremonies, it is essential to provide readers with background information about ceremonies. For example, when did the opening and closing ceremonies take place? Who directed them? What were their core themes and aesthetic elements? How was China’s national image portrayed through them? Unfortunately, the manuscript does not engage with any of this contextual information, nor does it reference existing scholarly literature on the ceremonies. This is a major gap, especially given the growing body of English-language research on Olympic opening ceremonies, including the Beijing 2022. I recommend the author(s) read the following relevant articles:

• Wang, Yilei, Dezheng Feng, and Hua Wang. Modernity, Aesthetics, and Nation Re-branding in Olympics: A Multimodal Discourse Analysis of the Opening Ceremony of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympic Games. Communication & Sport (2024).
• Hwang, Dong-Jhy, and Yi-Chun Huang. Olympism and Chinese humanism: a critical analysis of the opening ceremony of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympic Games. Journal of Contemporary East Asia Studies (2024).
• Arning, Chris. Soft power, ideology and symbolic manipulation in Summer Olympic Games opening ceremonies: A semiotic analysis. Social Semiotics 23, no. 4 (2013): 523–544.
• Lee, Jongsoo, and Hyunsun Yoon. Narratives of the nation in the Olympic opening ceremonies: comparative analysis of Beijing 2008 and London 2012. Nations and Nationalism 23, no. 4 (2017): 952–969.
• Lemus-Delgado, Daniel. Opening ceremonies and national identity: Beijing 2008 and Tokyo 2020. National Identities 25, no. 5 (2023): 463–482.

【Response 2】Thank you for this important and detailed suggestion. In response, I have revised the Introduction section to include relevant background information about ceremonies. This includes the dates of the ceremonies, the artistic direction by Zhang Yimou, and a brief summary of their core themes and symbolic representation of China’s national image (line 36-41).

Furthermore, I have integrated recent scholarly literature on Olympic ceremonies—including those you kindly recommended—into 1.2. Media Coverage of Sporting Events. These sources provide valuable theoretical perspectives on the use of Olympic ceremonies as platforms for national branding.

I sincerely appreciate your recommendation, which has helped improve the depth and scholarly relevance of the manuscript.

 

【Comment 3 】On page 4, line 160, the author(s) claims that “no prior studies have critically analyzed foreign media’s China-related sports coverage of the 2022 Winter Olympics and the construction of China’s national image so far.” This is not entirely accurate. I recommend the author read the following work, which directly addresses related topics:

• Boykoff, Jules. Framing the games: US media coverage of the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics. Communication & Sport 12, no. 1 (2024): 19–39.

【Response 3】Thank you for pointing out the need accuracy in this statement.

In response, I have revised the sentence to adopt a soften and appropriate tone, clarifying that while there is a growing body of literature on China’s national image and the Opening Ceremonies of Olympic, there remains limited scholarship specifically combining corpus-assisted critical discourse analysis with foreign media coverage on both opening and closing ceremonies of the 2022 Winter Olympics.

In addition, I have integrated several relevant and recent studies published between 2023 and 2025 into 1.2. Media Coverage of Sporting Events (lines 149–174).

 

【Comment 4】The manuscript rightly adopts a corpus-assisted critical discourse analysis approach, which helps minimize subjective bias. However, the selection of keywords does not include terms such as “ceremony,” which is problematic given the study’s stated focus. There is a crucial difference between media coverage of “Beijing Winter Olympics Opening” and coverage specifically of the “opening and closing ceremonies.” For example, the media samples cited on page 9, line 318, appear to report on the end of the Olympics in general, not specifically on the closing ceremony. Section 3.2 includes several examples that are not clearly linked to ceremony coverage; Example 9, for instance, seems to refer to a report prior to the opening ceremony rather than focus on opening ceremony. The author should re-examine the dataset and ensure it captures media texts that explicitly address the opening and/or closing ceremonies. For instance, is there coverage comparing the different styles of the Beijing 2008 and Beijing 2022 opening ceremonies?

【Response 4】Thank you very much for this insightful comment. We acknowledge the importance of the term “ceremony” to the study and appreciate the opportunity to clarify our analytical decisions.

In designing the KWIC analysis, we first applied AntConc’s “Collocate” function (span: L5–R5) to examine the immediate lexical environment of potential keywords, including “ceremony”. However, the surrounding collocates (e.g., “opening”, “closing”, “Sunday”, “held”, “during”) were largely neutral in nature. These collocates tended to describe the timing of events, rather than evaluative or ideological framing. Therefore, “ceremony” offered limited discursive value for exploring ideological framing in relation to China’s national image. As such, we found “ceremony” to be less analytically productive for KWIC-based interpretation within a critical discourse framework.

By contrast, the keyword “Xi” demonstrated both high keyness and strong lexical proximity to “China” in the “Collocate” analysis, suggesting its central role in representing national identity and leadership image during ceremonial events. Therefore, we prioritized “Xi” over “ceremony” in the KWIC analysis, as it provided richer ideological and discursive insights aligned with the study’s goals.

This rationale has now been clarified in the revised Section 3.2.2 Keyword-in-Context(KWIC) Analysis. We also added discussion on how cultural, artistic, and symbolic dimensions of the ceremonies were marginalized by the media outlets in 3.2.1 Keyword analysis.

For the news selection, here is the response. During the data collection process via Nexis Uni, we conducted a refined keyword search focused on terms such as “Beijing Winter Olympics opening/closing ceremony”. However, the available international media coverage on Nexis Uni was relatively limited, particularly with regard to in-depth descriptions of the aesthetic, cultural, or artistic dimensions of the ceremonies.

Moreover, our qualitative review of the reports revealed that many outlets used the occasions of the Opening or Closing Ceremonies as discursive entry points to conduct broader political issues such as COVID-19 restrictions, human rights controversies, or diplomatic boycotts. This trend reflects how the ceremonial moments were frequently framed not as independent cultural performances, but as part of a larger ideological narrative.

Given that the articles were published on the day of the ceremonies (accounting for time zone differences), we believe that they represent valid and relevant media reactions to the ceremonial context, even if they do not focus solely on the ceremony itself. This intersection of ceremony and sociopolitical discourse is central to our research objective: to examine how foreign media constructed China's image during ceremonial performances.

To address this point in the revised manuscript, we have further clarified the criteria for media coverages in 2.3 Research Materials (line 275-280).

 

【Comment 5】The manuscript refers to media outlets such as The Washington Post, NBC News, BBC News, Time, Global News, and others. Since the study aims to analyze foreign media coverage, it is necessary to specify which country each outlet is from and justify their selection. Why were these specific outlets chosen? Do they offer a representative cross-section of international media perspectives? Moreover, the use of "etc." is inappropriate in methodological descriptions—please provide a complete list of media sources.

【Response 5】The corpus was constructed through a rigorous manual screening process using NexisUni, based on highly specific inclusion criteria:

(1) the report had to be a headline-level article that explicitly mentioned the opening or closing ceremony of the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics;

(2) the article had to be published in English-language media and

(3) originate from international (non-Chinese) news sources.

This clarification has been added to the revised Section 2.3 Research Materials (line 275-280). I have clarified the national origin of each media outlet and provided a complete list in the article.

Country	Media Outlet(s)
United States (USA)	The Washington Post, NBC News, Yahoo! Sports, USA TODAY, CNN, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Radio Free Europe (U.S.-funded)
United Kingdom (UK)	The Guardian, BBC News
Canada	Global News
France	FRANCE 24, EuroSport
Germany	Deutsche Welle (DW)
Australia	ABC News Australia
Greece	Greek Reporter
Qatar	Al Jazeera English

To enhance transparency and replicability, I have included a comprehensive table in Appendix I, which lists each media headline used in the analysis along with its source outlet and country of origin. This table ensures that readers can trace the exact provenance of each text sample.

 

【Comment 6】Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 are both titled “Keyword Analysis.” It is unclear how these sections differ or how they are thematically organized. The author should clarify the rationale and analytical distinction between these two subsections.

【Response 6】Thank you very much for your careful reading. I sincerely apologize for the mistakes. You are absolutely right that both Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 were mistakenly labeled as “Keyword Analysis,” which caused confusion.

I have revised the section headings accordingly:

3.2.1 Keywords Analysis

3.2.2 Keyword-in-Context (KWIC) Analysis

This correction should now clearly reflect the methodological distinction and analytical progression.

【Comment 7】Some phrases in the manuscript suggest direct translation from Chinese, which affects clarity and professionalism. For example, the phrase “within the same media house” (p.13, line 466) appears awkward and may not align with standard academic English. A thorough language polishing is recommended.

【Response 7】The manuscript has been professionally edited by SAGE Language Services, and we have also conducted further proofreading to improve clarity and language consistency throughout the paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the work demonstrates some improvement, there are still elements of this manuscript that need attention.

1. First, while you mention agenda-setting theory, the discussion of how this theory drives the study makes me question whether the author/s misunderstands the purpose and role of the methodological approach vs. the theoretical foundation in a manuscript. While great attention is dedicated to the discussion of the CDA, agenda-setting is simply mentioned, thus maintaining the status of this manuscript as a-theoretical. The author/s needs to provide a more thoughtful integration of the theoretical foundation into this manuscript.
2. The sampling approach is still questionable. The author/s collected news from 17 sources and stated that the final sample size was N=40. While the news sources/country dyad is integrated into the revised draft, the number of articles collected from each news outlet is not included. This additional information would allow readers to assess the proportional influence of each source on your dataset and better interpret the findings. However, overall, N=40 for 17 news sources is a very small and suspicious number. During the opening and closing ceremonies of the Olympics, news sources produce a lot more coverage, especially when this coverage overlaps with ongoing political issues, which is also emphasized in this paper. Thus, the author/s should provide a more comprehensive explanation of how they ended up with such a small sample. My alternative suggestion would be to properly collect the news articles during the given timeframe and re-run the analysis.
3. The paper still needs proofreading. The formatting and spacing are not consistent throughout the document. There are typos, including those in the section numbering (e.g., CADS should be 2.1, not 1.1). The references are not in a proper APA style. Neither are the in-text citations.

Overall, this is a very interesting and timely topic that can make valuable contributions to the field. However, a lot more work is needed on the draft before it’s ready for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your constructive feedback on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you devoted to reviewing our work.

To improve clarity and transparency in our revision process, we have used highlighting to distinguish between the two rounds of revisions:

1) Yellow highlights indicate changes made in response to the first round of comments; 2) Blue highlights indicate new revisions made in response to the second round of comments.

Below, we respond to each of your comments point by point.

 

Comments 1: [First, while you mention agenda-setting theory, the discussion of how this theory drives the study makes me question whether the author/s misunderstands the purpose and role of the methodological approach vs. the theoretical foundation in a manuscript. While great attention is dedicated to the discussion of the CDA, agenda-setting is simply mentioned, thus maintaining the status of this manuscript as a-theoretical. The author/s needs to provide a more thoughtful integration of the theoretical foundation into this manuscript.]

Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In response to your concern about the lack of clarity between the methodology and the theoretical framework, we have added a new section titled 3. Theoretical Framework in the revised manuscript. This section clearly distinguishes between the methodological approach (Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies and Critical Discourse Analysis) and the theoretical foundation (Agenda-Setting Theory), while also reinforcing the explanatory role of the agenda-setting theory in the research design and findings.

Specifically, we have expanded the discussion of agenda-setting theory, particularly its first- and second-level components, in Chapter Three to demonstrate how it helps in shaping the issues’ salience and attributes of China's national image. We also clarified how this theory complements the CDA framework, thereby strengthening the theoretical coherence of the study. These additions are included in 3. Theoretical Framework and are highlighted in blue for review.

Furthermore, we have incorporated agenda-setting theory into the analysis and discussion of findings in Chapter: Results and Discussion (lines 351–369, 453–472, 526–533, 653–657) and summarized its role in the expanded Conclusions section (lines 689–700).

We hope these revisions adequately address your concerns and demonstrate a more coherent and well-integrated theoretical foundation for the study. Thank you again for your thoughtful and constructive feedback.

 

Comments 2: [The sampling approach is still questionable. The author/s collected news from 17 sources and stated that the final sample size was N=40. While the news sources/country dyad is integrated into the revised draft, the number of articles collected from each news outlet is not included. This additional information would allow readers to assess the proportional influence of each source on your dataset and better interpret the findings. However, overall, N=40 for 17 news sources is a very small and suspicious number. During the opening and closing ceremonies of the Olympics, news sources produce a lot more coverage, especially when this coverage overlaps with ongoing political issues, which is also emphasized in this paper. Thus, the author/s should provide a more comprehensive explanation of how they ended up with such a small sample. My alternative suggestion would be to properly collect the news articles during the given timeframe and re-run the analysis.]

Response 2: Thank you for your thoughtful comment regarding the sample size. We fully understand your concern about the relatively small number of articles (initially N=40), especially given the visibility and intensity of media coverage during the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics.

In response, we have revised the dataset to include a total of 50 English-language news articles (N=50), amounting to 41,599 tokens, drawn from 23 internationally recognized mainstream media outlets. This update reflects both an expanded sample and more precise documentation of source distribution, now listed in Appendix A1 (pages 22-23), where the source, country, and media outlet are clearly specified.

Regarding the limited sample size, we would like to offer two explanations:

1) Data availability constraint:

The initial collection was conducted via LexisNexis, which, despite being a robust news archive, contained a limited number of articles explicitly covering the Opening and Closing ceremonies. To address this, we incorporated Google News as a supplementary search engine to ensure broader coverage and minimize potential omissions. However, even after integrating both databases, the number of qualified articles remained limited once strict inclusion criteria were applied.

2) Strict selection criteria:

Although the ceremonies generated a high volume of media content, much of that included image galleries, live-streaming posts, video-centered content, and coverage from non-mainstream or entertainment-focused outlets. Our study intentionally focused on text-based news reports from influential, mainstream English-language outlets, in line with the objectives of critical discourse analysis (CDA). As a result, we excluded content that lacked narrative or discursive analysis (e.g., video-only or photo galleries), as well as non-English or low-credibility news sources.

We acknowledge that a large volume of content was produced during the Olympic ceremonies, including live blogs, photo galleries, and video-centered content. However, our analytical framework—rooted in textual discourse analysis—required a focused selection of written, narratively coherent articles from reputable sources to examine ideological framing and agenda-setting. Broader coverage formats, such as multimedia or social media content, while valuable, fall outside the scope of this study and are discussed in the Limitations and Future Research section in Chapter 5, Conclusion (lines 727-730; lines 736-739). We have also added further clarification regarding the data collection procedures in Section 2.2 Research Materials (see lines 226–228; lines 244–248; and lines 257–261). In addition, the corpus has been expanded from 40 to 50 news articles. Accordingly, all references to data quantity throughout the manuscript have been updated. These revisions are highlighted in blue in the revised manuscript.

We hope this clarification sufficiently addresses your concern and demonstrates the methodological rigor behind the sample collection.

 

Comments 3: [The paper still needs proofreading. The formatting and spacing are not consistent throughout the document. There are typos, including those in the section numbering (e.g., CADS should be 2.1, not 1.1). The references are not in a proper APA style. Neither are the in-text citations.

Overall, this is a very interesting and timely topic that can make valuable contributions to the field. However, a lot more work is needed on the draft before it’s ready for publication.]

Response 3: Thank you for your helpful comments regarding the formatting and language quality of the manuscript. We have carefully proofread the entire paper and corrected all identified issues, including inconsistent spacing, section numbering, and formatting errors. In addition, both in-text citations and the reference list have been revised to conform strictly to APA 6th edition style (conducted by EndNote 21) guidelines. We appreciate your attention to these details, and we hope the revised version meets the expected academic standards.

 

We once again thank you for your valuable suggestions. We hope the revisions now meet your expectations and look forward to your further feedback.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author/s,

Your revisions show significant improvement.

Please still make sure to double-check the proper APA style formatting. In addition, make sure your font is also consistent throughout the manuscript and all the references follow the proper APA style (not all of them currently do).

Good luck with your work!