China's rise as a global power, becoming the world's second-largest economy in 2010, has significantly increased its economic and military influence. To project a positive international image, China emphasizes its identity as a 'responsible great power,' actively participating in global emergencies as a global public goods supplier. While the 'responsible power' narrative was initially employed by Western countries to engage with China, China has adopted it to shape its global image, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examines China's COVID-19 vaccine distribution as a case study to investigate how China presented itself as a global public goods provider and how the US and other major powers perceived this self-projection. The media plays a crucial role in shaping international perceptions. Existing research highlights media framing as a strategic communication process, shaping problem definition, causal analysis, moral evaluation, and treatment recommendations for international issues. The COVID-19 vaccine became highly politicized, especially between the US and China, each employing 'vaccine diplomacy'. This study analyzes media coverage from three influential outlets—China Daily (CD), The New York Times (NYT), and Die Welt (DW)—to understand the framing of this issue and the contextual factors influencing different perspectives. Germany's inclusion reflects its significant economic influence within the EU and its complex relationship with China regarding vaccine development. The study aims to explore media frames and frame contestation regarding the Chinese COVID-19 vaccine to illuminate the dynamics of contemporary great power cooperation and competition.

Existing literature emphasizes the role of media framing in international communication. Frames, as central organizing ideas, shape understanding of events and issues by highlighting specific aspects and promoting particular interpretations (Gamson and Modigliani, 1989; Entman, 1993). National interests play a significant role in influencing media frames, often prioritizing domestic perspectives over global ones, especially during international conflicts (Lee et al., 2002; Bier et al., 2018; Brewer, 2006; Silcock, 2002). This framing process often involves counter-framing, where different actors compete to establish dominant interpretations (Luther and Zhou, 2005; Pan et al., 2019). The dominance of a particular frame depends on the power and strategies of involved governments, media motivations, and cultural congruence (Entman, 2003). Research on China's role as a provider of global public goods is also reviewed. China's increased willingness to provide such goods since 2012 reflects a great power mindset and increased national capabilities (Liu, 2015; Freeman, 2021). Initiatives like the New Development Bank and the Belt and Road Initiative showcase this commitment (Zhang, 2018). China's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, initially met with criticism, later garnered recognition for its success in containment (Gauttam et al., 2020). The concept of 'vaccine diplomacy' and its strategic use by both China and the US are also discussed (Tung, 2022; van Dijk and Lo, 2023). US perceptions of China have shifted from welcoming its rise as a 'responsible stakeholder' to viewing it as a strategic competitor (Nye, 1997; Gill, 2007; Wang and Zeng, 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated this tension, with accusations of irresponsibility leveled against China (Jaworsky and Qiaoan, 2020). The study also discusses divergent European perspectives. Germany, despite its economic ties with China, navigates the complex interplay between its relationships with both China and the US (Fix, 2022; Cook et al., 2022; Krastev and Leonard, 2021).

This study employs a standardized content analysis approach, drawing on Matthes and Kohring's (2008) method to enhance reliability and validity. This approach codes frame elements (problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and treatment) instead of directly coding frames. Three levels of comparison are conducted: across media, across frame elements within frames, and across time periods (2020 and 2021). The analysis investigates three research questions: (1) How do Chinese, US, and German media frame the Chinese vaccine issue? (2) How do media frames compete, and why? (3) How has the emphasis on certain frames varied over time? Data were collected from three English-language media outlets: China Daily (CD), The New York Times (NYT), and Die Welt (DW) (English edition). The timeframe was January 26, 2020, to July 1, 2021, covering vaccine development, clinical trials, marketing approval, and vaccination promotion. Using keywords ('China + vaccine + Coronavirus or COVID-19'), 355 articles were collected (142 NYT, 42 DW, 171 CD). A coding scheme was developed for content analytical variables within each frame element (Table 1). Two coders independently coded the articles, achieving an average inter-coder reliability of 0.84. Hierarchical cluster analysis using the Ward method in SPSS was conducted separately for each newspaper, determining the number of clusters using the 'elbow criterion'. Only binary variables with frequencies above 5% were included in the cluster analysis, resulting in 32 variables for NYT, 28 for DW, and 24 for CD.

The analysis revealed five frames in NYT, two in DW, and four in CD (Table 2). China Daily's coverage emphasized China's role as a responsible actor and global collaborator. The Global Public Goods Frame (30.99%) dominated, aligning with official Chinese discourse, frequently quoting government sources (Table 3). The Vaccination Promotion Frame (30.41%) highlighted vaccine safety and efficacy, often citing medical experts. The Leading Research and Development Frame (28.07%) focused on China's leadership in vaccine development. The Global Collaboration Frame (10.53%) emphasized international cooperation. NYT's coverage focused on safety risks (38.73%), particularly in the context of political competition, with concerns about China's vaccine diplomacy and technology as a political threat (21.13% and 16.20% respectively). The Global Cooperation frame (11.97%) showed a more positive view of cooperation, while the Effectiveness Problem frame (11.97%) questioned vaccine effectiveness. Die Welt exhibited a two-frame structure, emphasizing political risks (71.4%)—viewing China's vaccine distribution as a threat to the global political structure—and potential cooperation (28.6%), highlighting the potential for collaboration with China. A comparison of frame distribution across 2020 and 2021 for each media outlet shows the evolution of narrative strategies and focus over time (Figures 2 and 3). While CD's frames evolved from a focus on research and development to promotion and collaboration, NYT's coverage consistently emphasized safety risks, with a focus on vaccine diplomacy competition emerging in 2021. DW's coverage shifted from relative balance between political risk and potential cooperation to a heavier emphasis on political risks in 2021. The detailed analysis of variables within each frame (Tables 3, 4, and 5) highlights the nuances in each media outlet's portrayal of the issue.

The findings reveal a significant frame contestation regarding China's COVID-19 vaccine as a global public good. Chinese media presented a positive narrative emphasizing national responsibility and global collaboration, while US and German media focused on potential risks and political implications. Germany's approach displayed a more nuanced perspective than the US, prioritizing pragmatic cooperation despite concerns. The contrasting frames reflect great power competition and the varying perceptions of China's role on the global stage. China's efforts to project a responsible image clashed with Western anxieties over a perceived challenge to the liberal international order. The study highlights the politicization of public health issues in the context of great power competition, where media coverage serves both political and economic agendas. The study's findings extend beyond the specific case of the COVID-19 vaccine and are relevant to broader discussions on China-US and China-West relations and the contestation surrounding China’s projection of itself as a responsible great power and provider of global public goods. The contrast between the China Daily and Western media coverage underscores the challenges in China's international communication strategies.

This study contributes to understanding the complexities of international communication and the role of media framing in shaping perceptions of China's rising global influence. The contrast between the narratives presented by Chinese and Western media outlets reveals a deep-seated ideological and geopolitical struggle over the definition and narrative surrounding a global public health crisis. Future research should expand the analysis to include new media, additional European countries, and a more in-depth exploration of global audience reception of these competing narratives. Investigating the media's role in facilitating or hindering international cooperation in providing global public goods is also crucial.

This study's limitations include the focus on only three traditional media outlets, limiting the representation of the broader media landscape. Further research incorporating new media platforms and a more diverse range of media outlets is needed. The study also primarily focuses on English-language media, potentially neglecting other important perspectives. Including non-English language sources would offer a richer understanding of this complex issue. The selection of Germany as a representative of European countries could also limit the generalizability of the findings to other European contexts. Finally, the study's focus on only two years of coverage might not capture the full evolution of media narratives.