This study combines quantitative content analysis and qualitative discourse analysis to provide a corpus-assisted analysis of Sino-US trade dispute coverage in China Daily , the South China Morning Post and the New York Times . Utilizing software tools such as Leximancer and AntConc, the study provides a tripartite comparison that moves beyond binary US-China media analyses. It examines how these newspapers construct the trade dispute through topics, discursive strategies, and linguistic means, revealing how structural forces rooted in political systems, economic interests, and institutional contexts shape ideological positioning. Findings indicate that China Daily tends to emphasize China’s effort to open up its market and advocate conflict resolution through dialogue. In contrast, the New York Times adopts a critical stance toward China’s trade practices, employing neoliberal discourse to justify protective measures while framing US companies as perceived victims of alleged unfair policies. The South China Morning Post occupies a unique “third space”, filtering coverage through a globalist lens that prioritizes international system stability and multinational business interests. These approaches demonstrate how media outlets position themselves within global information flows, with implications for public media literacy, international communication strategies, and diplomatic dialogue amid global economic tensions.
Zhang et al. (Wed,) studied this question.