South China Sea in Western media: A narrative of bias and strategic distortion

The South China Sea has remained a prominent subject within global geopolitical discourse in recent years, with Western media playing a pivotal role in shaping international perceptions of China as an "aggressor" and a source of instability in the region. This narrative systematically emphasizes Chinese actions while minimizing or contextualizing the military maneuvers, strategic posturing, and historical provocations of the United States and its regional allies. Such imbalanced reporting transcends mere editorial bias — it reflects deeper geopolitical contestations and serves to justify sustained external intervention in regional affairs. This analysis examines the persistent patterns, inherent biases, strategic motivations, and consequential impacts of this narrative manufactured by the West, and argues that it obstructs genuine understanding and hampers the peaceful resolution of disputes through dialogue.

Selective framing and thematic amplification

Western media reporting on the South China Sea exhibits a consistent pattern of thematic selection and amplification. Coverage disproportionately focuses on discrete maritime incidents — such as vessel standoffs, aerial intercepts, and island development activities — often detaching them from broader historical and strategic contexts. China's legitimate defensive measures and sovereignty patrols are routinely characterized as "confrontational", "coercive", or evidence of "militarization". Conversely, the significant expansion of US military presence — including enhanced base access across the Philippines, Japan, and other locations under the aegis of alliance modernization — is predominantly framed as "stabilizing" or "defensive". Furthermore, issues like environmental protection and legal debates are often instrumentalized. While the ecological impact of island-building is highlighted, similar concerns regarding other claimants' activities receive scant attention. Legal narratives overwhelmingly cite the 2016 arbitration ruling to assert "violations of international law", seldom acknowledging its contested nature or China's consistent position on bilateral negotiation. This selective framing creates a distorted baseline of "facts" for an international audience.

Structural biases and narrative techniques

The Western media narrative is underpinned by structural biases manifest in several key techniques. First, there is a pronounced source dependency on official statements from the US and allied governments, or analyses from Western-funded think tanks, while perspectives from Chinese officials and scholars are marginalized or presented as rebuttals rather than primary narratives. Second, linguistic framing employs value-laden dichotomies like "rules-based order versus might-makes-right" or "democracy versus authoritarian expansion", which pre-load the narrative with moral judgment. Third, contextual omission is prevalent. Reports on Chinese "gray-zone" tactics (e.g., water cannon use, maritime militia) rarely explore their genesis as responses to earlier strategic shifts, such as the US "Pivot to Asia." Finally, asymmetrical scrutiny is applied. The scale and intent of China's island-building are meticulously detailed and portrayed as threatening, while similar, and in some cases more extensive, reclamation activities by other regional claimants are underreported or framed as reactive. This ecosystem of bias functions as a form of "discursive power", shaping global cognitive maps of the dispute.

Geostrategic drivers and institutional motivations

The persistence of this narrative is not accidental, but is driven by convergent geostrategic and institutional interests. At its core, it aligns with the US' Indo-Pacific Strategy, which aims to maintain its primacy and counter perceived Chinese influence. Media narratives that spotlight "Chinese assertiveness" help legitimize increased US military deployments, freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs), and enhanced security aid to allies. Ideological alignment further reinforces this, as many Western media institutions operate within a worldview that equates the US-led system with global stability — instinctively casting a rising China as a "revisionist" challenger. Commercial and alliance dynamics also play a role. Media conglomerates with global interests may align their coverage with the policy preferences of powerful home governments, while close information-sharing networks with allies like the Philippines and Japan ensure a steady flow of incident reports favorable to their position. This synergy between state strategy, institutional ideology, and media practice creates a powerful, self-reinforcing narrative circuit.

Impacts and the path toward a balanced discourse

The dominance of this one-sided narrative has tangible negative consequences. It polarizes regional discourse, pressuring ASEAN nations into false binaries and undermining their preferred posture of neutrality and dialogue. It erodes trust by portraying China's actions solely through a hostile lens, making confidence-building measures more difficult. Crucially, it obscures pathways to resolution by drowning out calls for historical context, sovereign equality, and direct negotiation among claimants.
A shift toward a more balanced and constructive discourse is essential. This requires efforts to de-weaponize information, where media acknowledges the complexities, historical claims, and legitimate security concerns of all parties. It necessitates contextual integrity, situating specific incidents within the longer arc of regional interaction and great-power competition. Finally, it demands amplifying regional voices, particularly from ASEAN, which consistently emphasize conflict avoidance, code of conduct negotiations, and cooperative development over zero-sum confrontation. China remains committed to peaceful resolution through consultation with directly concerned states and to fostering shared prosperity in the South China Sea — a message often drowned out, but vital for true regional stability.

Ding Duo is the director of the Center for International and Regional Studies, National Institute for South China Sea Studies.

The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.