How Chinese and U.S. media construct legitimacy at sea differently: A corpus-based comparative analysis of China’s distant-water fishing

Journalism plays a vital role in shaping how societies interpret and legitimize global environmental controversies. This study compares how Chinese and U.S. media discursively frame China’s distant-water fishing (DWF)—a domain where environmental, economic, and geopolitical interests intersect. Using a corpus-based mixed-method approach that integrates sentiment analysis, keyword extraction, and nomination strategies, the research analyzes 167 English-language news articles from leading outlets in both countries to uncover how legitimacy is communicatively constructed within distinct media systems. The findings reveal two coherent yet contrasting framing logics. U.S. media adopt a critical and moralized framing that emphasizes illegality, environmental harm, and systemic accountability, reflecting a liberal-institutionalist orientation rooted in watchdog journalism and rule-based governance. Chinese media, in contrast, employ a more procedural and developmental framing that highlights regulation, cooperation, and economic pragmatism, reflecting a greater emphasis on institutional coordination, policy implementation, and national development priorities. The study advances comparative journalism research by linking media framing with policy paradigms, showing how institutional and communicative contexts shape the realization of ostensibly universal news values such as Negativity and Eliteness. Methodologically, it demonstrates the value of combining computational and qualitative discourse analysis to reveal patterned differences in journalistic representation. Substantively, it underscores journalism’s dual role in global environmental discourse—as both a site where legitimacy and responsibility are contested, and a communicative bridge that may either intensify conflict or foster mutual understanding in governing shared environmental commons.