Analysis of Chinese Image Discourse Based on Crawler Algorithms

Abstract

The study explores the construction of China's image in the context of a major public health event such as the Newcastle pneumonia epidemic by crawling social media data in China during the epidemic prevention and control period. The study argues that, in the era of new media, especially self-media, the image of China in Chinese social media during the prevention and control of the Newcastle pneumonia epidemic presents multiple types of images, ranging from a “dual” image of those fighting and preventing the epidemic in their home country and their country of residence to a “dual” image of those being questioned and even those being “questioned” in their home country and their country of residence. “It is worth noting that in March 2020, the number of people who have been affected by the epidemic in their home countries will be increased to 3,000. It is worth mentioning that in mid to late March 2020, Chinese people in China had a serious negative image crisis, but it was quickly repaired through mechanisms such as government “stabilisers,” mainstream media “gatekeepers,” and audience “self-purification.” One of the lessons is that image repair relies on the “stabiliser,” the “gatekeeper” of mainstream media, and the “self-purification” of the audience. One of the lessons is that image repair relies on the triple factor of “real society—audience” working together. The second lesson is that while the open Internet environment can generate a lot of exaggerated and false information; at the same time, audiences, including Chinese people, can remove misunderstandings and bridge differences through active voices and debates and activate rational and healthy positive energy. The epidemic is a “danger” and an “opportunity” for China’s image.

Retracted: Analysis of Chinese Image Discourse Based on Crawler Algorithms

“…Tis article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. Tis investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process:…”