Cognitive Attitudes of International Mainstream Media to China during the Contaminated Water and Human Health Under Big Data

Abstract

The water pollution affecting human health is a crisis and big test, which tests the mainstream news media’s ability and level of communication to respond to major public opinions and public emergencies. The contaminated water is a crisis and a major test, which tests the ability and level of communication of major news outlets to respond to important common views and emergencies. It aims to understand the perception and attitude of the international mainstream media towards China during the contaminated water. The work sorted out the mainstream media’s reporting of China from the contaminated water to the present and selected the New York Times, The Times, and the Guardian as examples. We could understand the changes in China’s international image during the water pollution through these mainstream media reports on China. The results show that these media reports on water pollution in China mainly focused on negative public opinion, which accounted for more than 70% of the total number of reports. Western developed countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States are out of consideration for their national interests. Using mainstream media to create public opinion that is not conducive to China, advocating “neo-colonialism”, “China threat theory” and other false statements, trying to limit China’s influence, due to the difference in cognitive habits and the influence of British and American media hegemony also affects the country The communication and understanding between the two have brought obstacles.

Retracted: Cognitive Attitudes of International Mainstream Media to China during the Contaminated Water and Human Health Under Big Data

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [ 1 ]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process: Discrepancies in scope Discrepancies in the description of the research reported Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described Inappropriate citations Incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article Peer-review manipulation …”