-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
Expand file tree
/
Copy pathEmotions.html
More file actions
284 lines (239 loc) · 25.6 KB
/
Emotions.html
File metadata and controls
284 lines (239 loc) · 25.6 KB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
<!DOCTYPE HTML>
<!--
Editorial by HTML5 UP
html5up.net | @ajlkn
Free for personal and commercial use under the CCA 3.0 license (html5up.net/license)
-->
<html>
<!--Vega-Lite Libraries-->
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/vega@6.0.0"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/vega-lite@6.1.0"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/vega-embed@6.29.0"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/echarts@5"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/echarts@5/dist/echarts.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/echarts@5/dist/echarts.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/echarts/map/js/world.js"></script>
<head>
<title>Emotions</title>
<meta charset="utf-8" />
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1, user-scalable=no" />
<link rel="stylesheet" href="assets/css/main.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" href="assets/css/flowriver.css">
<link rel="stylesheet" href="assets/css/emomap.css">
</head>
<body class="is-preload">
<!-- Wrapper -->
<div id="wrapper">
<!-- Main -->
<div id="main">
<div class="inner">
<!-- Header -->
<header id="header">
<a href="index.html" class="logo">China-US <strong>Trade War</strong></a>
<ul class="icons">
<li><a href="https://github.com/RubyZh/TradeWarVisualization" class="icon brands fa-github"><span class="label">GitHub</span></a></li>
</ul>
</header>
<!-- Content -->
<section>
<header class="main">
<h1>Emotions</h1>
</header>
<hr class="major" />
<h2>Emotional Trends and Corresponding Events</h2>
<div id="emotion_river" style="width: 100%; max-width: 1000px; height: 100%; height: 600px;"></div>
<h3>Early Stage (Early January – Early February)</h3>
<p>
According to the emotion river chart, anger gradually increased from early January to around January 20. On January 20, Trump began his second presidential term. This rise in anger may stem from mixed feelings regarding the incoming administration's trade policies and a retrospective view of former President Biden’s term. After Trump took office, a series of new policies drew attention and emotional reactions from various groups.
</p>
<p>
On February 1, Trump signed an executive order to raise tariffs on Chinese imports. This likely caused further increases in anger due to concerns over trade tensions, higher costs for businesses and consumers, and potential economic instability. Fear also grew during this time, reflecting worries about reduced profits and rising consumer prices.
</p>
<h3>Mid Stage (Early February – Early March)</h3>
<p>
On February 4, China responded with retaliatory tariffs on American goods, including coal and liquefied natural gas. The river chart shows a continued rise in fear, as escalating trade frictions led to growing uncertainties for businesses. Anger also likely peaked following this bilateral tit-for-tat, reflecting emotional backlash to the intensifying trade conflict.
</p>
<p>
On March 3, Trump again increased tariffs on Chinese products and extended tariffs to goods from Mexico and Canada. This sparked another peak in both anger and fear, as the escalation of protectionist policies triggered concern across a wider range of industries and demographics.
</p>
<h3>Late Stage (Early March – Early May)</h3>
<p>
On March 4, China introduced a new round of retaliatory tariffs, this time targeting agricultural products. Emotions remained heightened — anger persisted as the trade standoff dragged on, and fear intensified due to rising costs and shrinking markets for affected companies.
</p>
<p>
On April 2, during a “Liberation Day” speech, Trump announced a dramatic tariff hike to 54% on Chinese goods. This likely pushed both anger and fear to new highs. Anger reflected opposition to such extreme protectionism, while fear was rooted in rising uncertainty and deteriorating bilateral relations.
</p>
<p>
From April 4 to April 9, China imposed a 34% tariff and both sides escalated their trade war. Emotional volatility intensified — anger and fear intermingled as the confrontation deepened. Neutral sentiment may have decreased, as public attention and opinion increasingly polarized around trade issues.
</p>
<p>
On May 2, the U.S. ended preferential tariff treatment for low-value Chinese imports. Emotions like anger remained elevated. However, by May 12, when Chinese and American officials met in Geneva and reached a preliminary agreement to reduce some tariffs, emotional trends began to shift. Anger and fear started to subside, while neutral sentiment likely increased as the public assessed the impact of the tentative agreement.
</p>
<hr class="major" />
<h2>News Volume and Event Correlation</h2>
<p>
From mid-January to early February, the number of news articles began to rise following Trump's inauguration and the announcement of new trade policies. This surge reflected heightened media interest in analyzing policy details, public reactions, and possible impacts.
</p>
<p>
From early February to early April, news volume continued to grow and reached a peak. During this critical stage of U.S.-China trade escalation, every new round of tariffs or retaliation captured media headlines. Given the broad impact on businesses, consumers, and international trade, media coverage expanded significantly.
</p>
<p>
From early April to early May, news volume remained high but fluctuated. This was a result of continued tensions and dramatic trade measures, such as threats of new tariffs from the U.S. and countermeasures from China, all of which kept the issue in the media spotlight.
</p>
<p>
After mid-May, news volume began to decline but remained at a relatively elevated level. This was due to developments in trade negotiations and renewed attention to possible de-escalation. While the number of reports dipped from earlier highs, media outlets continued to monitor the aftermath of the trade conflict and prospects for resolution.
</p>
<script src="data/emotion_dataset.js"></script>
<div style="display: flex; align-items: flex-start; justify-content: center; padding-bottom: 50px;">
<div id="tariff-emotion" style="width: 100%; max-width: 1000px; height: 850px;"></div>
</div>
<div class="emotion-analysis">
<p>We mapped various emotions along the timeline in an attempt to explore the relationship between emotional fluctuations and major events in the trade war.</p>
<p><strong>February 1:</strong> After Trump signed an executive order to increase tariffs, the media expressed concern and criticism over the decision. Negative emotions such as fear and anger began to rise. The unilateral tariff hike by the United States sparked worries about an impending trade war.</p>
<p><strong>February 4:</strong> China announced countermeasures. Media emotional fluctuations intensified, with emotions like anger and surprise increasing. This not only reflected China's dissatisfaction and retaliatory stance toward the U.S. tariffs, but also showed that the sudden escalation of the situation caught some media outlets and the public off guard.</p>
<p><strong>March 3–4:</strong> Trump once again raised tariffs and China implemented retaliatory measures. As tariffs continued to climb, negative emotions such as fear and anger remained high. The ongoing escalation of the trade war heightened tensions between the two countries. The media expressed concern and unease about the future of bilateral trade relations, while also showing dissatisfaction with the tough measures taken by both sides.</p>
<p><strong>April 2–11:</strong> Trump significantly raised tariffs multiple times in a short period, and the Chinese government also launched a series of countermeasures. This was the period with the most drastic tariff changes and the most pronounced emotional fluctuations. Media anger and fear peaked, showing strong concern and dissatisfaction over the intensity of the trade war and the resulting uncertainty. Some media outlets also expressed surprise at the decisions and the evolving situation.</p>
<p><strong>May 2–14:</strong> After a meeting on May 12, the two sides reached an agreement to temporarily reduce tariffs. This event led to a mitigation of negative emotions in the media, with an increase in neutral sentiment. The media showed interest and recognition that both parties could engage in dialogue and make some progress. However, due to the previous trade war experiences, some media outlets remained cautious and adopted a wait-and-see attitude toward the future of trade relations.</p>
</div>
<hr class="major" />
<h2>Geographical distribution</h2>
<script src="data/map_data.js"></script>
<script src="data/tooltip_emotions.js"></script>
<div style="display: flex; align-items: flex-start; justify-content: center;">
<div id="emotionMapContainer" style="width: 100%; max-width: 1000px; height: 100%; height: 550px; margin: 50px;"></div>
</div>
<!-- <div id="compareBox" style="width: 100%; max-width: 1000px; height: 100%; height: 200px; margin: 50px;"></div> -->
<div id="compareBox"></div>
<div class="analysis-container">
<h4>The Emotions of News Reports on the US-China Trade War Show Certain Regional and Power Differences</h4>
<p>The emotions of news reports on the US-China trade war show certain regional and power differences. Countries geographically close to the United States and China, such as Canada, Mexico, Japan, and South Korea, tend to have more negative emotions. These countries are closely linked to the US and China in terms of economy, trade, and geopolitics, so they are more directly affected by the US-China trade war. Thus, their news reports reflect more worries and unease.</p>
<p>In the Americas, the US neighbors Canada and Mexico, because of their extensive trade relations with the US, have relatively negative emotions in their reports on the trade war. As an important US trading partner, Canada's economy is closely connected with that of the US. The uncertainty brought by trade friction has caused anxiety about potential economic risks in Canadian news reports.</p>
<p>In Asia, Japan and South Korea, as US allies and neighbors of China, also have relatively low emotions in their reports on the US-China trade war. These two countries have close trade relations with both the US and China in industries such as semiconductors and automobiles. The trade barriers and market uncertainty caused by the trade war have impacted their industrial development, leading to negative emotions in news reports.</p>
<p>In Europe, some economically powerful countries like Germany and France have relatively neutral to negative emotions. These countries have significant economic and political influence and are sensitive to changes in the global trade landscape. The impact of the US-China trade war on the global trading system has caused some concern in these countries' news reports. However, their own economic strength and diversified trading partners make their stance relatively neutral.</p>
<p>Countries far from the US and China, such as some in Africa and South America, have relatively neutral or even slightly positive emotions. These countries may be less directly affected by the US-China trade war, or may find new trade opportunities in the conflict, hence their relatively stable or slightly optimistic news report emotions. For instance, some African countries may increase exports of agricultural products or raw materials to other nations due to obstacles in US-China trade, thus showing relatively positive emotions.</p>
<p>In summary, countries closer to the US and China, as well as those with more influence in international affairs, often have more negative emotions in their news reports on the US-China trade war. This is closely related to the direct risks and potential impacts they face in the trade friction.</p>
</div>
<hr class="major" />
<h2>Take a closer look.</h2>
<p>The emotional characteristics reflected in news media reports are not only influenced by temporal and spatial factors, but also closely related to the position and social context of the reporting source country. In the previously generated geographical distribution map of emotions, although the proportion of different emotions in news reports of various countries can be initially observed, this map is difficult to support two key comparisons:</p>
<ol>
<li>The proportion comparison among different emotions, that is, which type of emotion is more common in the overall report.</li>
<li>The distribution of the same type of sentiment in different countries, that is, which country's news is more likely to reflect a certain specific sentiment.</li>
</ol>
<p>To address this visualization deficiency, we selected countries with a total of no less than 10 news reports and drew Sankey diagrams based on their sentiment classification results to dynamically display the flow and structural distribution of news sentiment in each country.</p>
<div style="display: flex; align-items: flex-start; justify-content: center;">
<div id="emotion-chart0" style="width: 100%; max-width: 1000px; height: 100%; height: 900px; margin: auto;"></div>
</div>
<p>It can be clearly seen from the Sankey chart that among all the emotion labels, the most frequently occurring emotion types are neutral, fear and anger. However, the proportions of emotional tags such as sadness, disgust, joy and surprise are relatively low.</p>
<p>This result reflects that when global media are confronted with the trade war, an event full of uncertainties and economic risks, their emotional expressions tend to be more cautious, anxious or even hostile, while relatively positive emotions such as "joy" only occur in specific contexts. Meanwhile, the Sankey chart also effectively shows which countries each sentiment mainly originates from, thereby revealing the differences in media positions and public sentiment responses in the context of geopolitics.</p>
<p>It is worth further analysis that even reports marked as the same emotion may convey completely different positions and semantic motivations behind them. Take joy, a relatively rare emotion, as an example. Its main source countries include the United States, Canada and China, but the semantic background behind the emotion varies significantly:</p>
<h4>The United States</h4>
<blockquote>
“This will be the golden age of America! Will there be some pain? Yes, maybe (and maybe not!). But we will make America great again, and it will all be worth the price that must be paid,” Trump said via his Truth Social media platform.<br>
Reported by Boston Herald
</blockquote>
<p>Evidently, this type of "joy" emotion mainly stems from a kind of confident expression in the style of nationalism or economic nationalism.</p>
<h4>Canada</h4>
<blockquote>
The former prime ministers say there has been a “surge” in Canadian pride and patriotism in the face of Trump’s tariff threats. In their statement, the former prime ministers say Canadians have come together to “express their love” for the country and “their determination to defend Canada’s values and independence.”<br>
Reported by Canadian Press
</blockquote>
<p>In this context, joy is more reflected as the sentiment of national unity and the cohesion formed under external pressure.</p>
<h4>China</h4>
<blockquote>
The Chinese statement quoted Bonne as saying that France did not support trade wars and supported "mutually beneficial cooperation between Europe and China".<br>
Reported by South China Morning Post
</blockquote>
<p>This type of joy sentiment is more inclined towards the positive expectations and signals of international support formed under diplomatic cooperation.</p>
<p>It can thus be seen that even under the same emotional tags, the positions, expressions and semantic motivations reflected in news reports of different countries vary significantly. Therefore, when conducting sentiment analysis, one should not rely solely on the labels themselves but also make a comprehensive judgment in combination with the specific context, event background and the political stance of the country.</p>
<hr class="major" />
<h2>Are these results consistent with international relations?</h2>
<p>Although in the Sankey chart we can observe the distribution of emotions in news reports of different countries, this visualization method is difficult to reveal the correlation between media emotional tendencies and the foreign relations of the country. To further analyze the potential connection between the political positions among countries and their media sentiment expressions, we introduced a dataset of "Ideal Point" estimates of the member states of the United Nations General Assembly to measure the position tendencies of each country in diplomatic voting.</p>
<p>This dataset covers the voting records of the 1st to 77th sessions of the United Nations General Assembly from 1946 to 2023. The ideal point estimation method is based on the following academic research:</p>
<blockquote>Bailey, Michael A., Anton Strezhnev, and Erik Voeten.Estimating dynamic state preferences from United Nations voting data.Journal of Conflict Resolution 61, no. 2 (2017): 430–456.</blockquote>
<p>Under this method, researchers calculate the "ideal point" (i.e., position proximity) valuation that aligns the stance of each country with that of the United States or China based on the voting behavior of each country in each session of the United Nations General Assembly. To measure a country's overall diplomatic stance, we averaged the scores of each country's consent to the United States and consent to China during the covered period, using them as quantitative indicators of the country's relations with China and the United States.</p>
<p>In addition, to facilitate the distinction of national stance tendencies, we color-code the parallel lines: the ratio of "ChinaAgree" to "USAgree" of each country is color-coded accordingly. The larger the ratio, the closer it is to red, and the smaller the ratio, the closer it is to blue. This is used to indicate whether a country is more inclined to be in line with China or the United States in the UN voting.</p>
<div style="display: flex; align-items: flex-start; justify-content: center;">
<div id="emotion-chart1" style="width: 100%; max-width: 1000px; height: 100%; height: 600px; margin: auto;"></div>
</div>
<p>Firstly, in the UN voting, the number of countries with a diplomatic stance more inclined towards China (ChinaAgree > USAgree) is relatively large, but the corresponding number of news reports is generally low, especially in the seven types of emotional tags, which mostly show a low-frequency distribution. This might reflect that the media in these countries pay less attention to the Sino-US trade war, or that the media voices of such countries have not been fully captured due to the limitations of data sources.</p>
<p>Secondly, the number of countries whose diplomatic stance is more inclined towards the United States (USAgree > ChinaAgree) is slightly smaller, but the activity level of their news reporting is significantly higher. Especially in terms of emotional tendencies, the proportion of negative emotions such as "anger" and "fear" in the media of such countries is higher. This indicates that these countries often regard the Sino-US trade war as the focal event of geopolitical conflicts. In their reports, they tend to highlight confrontation and uncertainty more, thereby triggering stronger emotional expressions.</p>
<p>Further analysis also reveals that the reporting sentiment of pro-American countries is mostly concentrated between "neutrality" and "fear", which may reflect that although their media retain a certain degree of objectivity in narration, they reinforce the cognitive framework of situation risks and future uncertainties in the context. Pro-china countries, on the other hand, may tend to adopt cautious expressions or strategic evasive reporting methods, making the overall emotional distribution more concentrated or neutral.</p>
<p>To sum up, the parallel coordinate graph reveals an enlightening conclusion: the media's expression of reporting emotions is not completely neutral or independent, but is significantly correlated with the country's international political stance. This coupling relationship between emotions and positions provides an observation window for us to further understand the interaction mechanism between information dissemination and foreign policy.</p>
<hr class="major" />
<h2>Is there any difference between mainstream media and niche media?</h2>
<div style="display: flex; align-items: flex-start; justify-content: center;">
<div id="mediaradar" style="width: 100%; max-width: 1000px; height: 100%; height: 550px; margin: 10px;"></div>
</div>
<div class="container">
<p>This radar chart illustrates the emotional distribution differences between "mainstream media" and "niche media" in their coverage of the US-China trade war. Niche media has a significantly higher proportion of neutral emotions than mainstream media, indicating more objective and fact-based content. In contrast, mainstream media tends to use more emotional expressions, particularly in terms of anger and fear, with its anger levels nearly reaching the maximum, reflecting more intense wording and a stronger emphasis on conflict intensity and risks. Both types of media show high levels of sadness, indicating shared concerns about economic and social impacts. However, mainstream media has slightly higher levels of disgust, possibly due to more condemnation of trade principle violations. On the other hand, niche media outperforms in surprise and joy emotions, focusing more on unexpected developments and positive outcomes.</p>
<p>Overall, mainstream media tends to highlight impacts and conflicts by emphasizing emotions such as fear, anger, and disgust. Conversely, niche media has more balanced and diverse emotional expressions, covering not only concerns about the situation but also highlighting positive developments and constructive progress, thus presenting a more neutral and constructive tone. If you need further analysis, such as combining these emotional distributions with specific topics, regional differences, or time-based evolution, or if you want to generate visualizations like word clouds or emotional trend curves, I can continue to assist.</p>
</div>
</section>
</div>
</div>
<!-- Sidebar -->
<div id="sidebar">
<div class="inner">
<!-- Search -->
<section id="search" class="alt">
<form method="post" action="#">
<input type="text" name="query" id="query" placeholder="Search" />
</form>
</section>
<!-- Menu -->
<nav id="menu">
<header class="major">
<h2>Menu</h2>
</header>
<ul>
<li><a href="index.html">Homepage</a></li>
<li><a href="DataPreprocess.html">Data preprocess</a></li>
<li><a href="Timeline.html">Timeline</a></li>
<li>
<span class="opener">Media Report</span>
<ul>
<li><a href="Topics.html">Topics</a></li>
<li><a href="Emotions.html">Emotions</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>
<span class="opener">3D Visualization</span>
<ul>
<li><a href="3D_0.html">Overview</a></li>
<li><a href="3D_1.html">Data Import and Time Filtering</a></li>
<li><a href="3D_2.html">Topic Heat Map</a></li>
<li><a href="3D_3.html">Important Event Timeline and Daily News Sentiment Analysis</a></li>
<li><a href="3D_4.html">National News Basic Information Analysis Panel</a></li>
<li><a href="3D_5.html">National News Sentiment Dynamics Analysis</a></li>
<li><a href="3D_6.html">News Summary Dynamic Carousel and Assisted Reading</a></li>
<li><a href="3D_7.html">Tax</a></li>
<li><a href="3D_8.html">VR Hardware Exploration Section</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="#">Summary</a></li>
</ul>
</nav>
<!-- Footer -->
<footer id="footer">
<p class="copyright">
© TradeVis360
</p>
</footer>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<!-- Scripts -->
<script src="assets/js/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script src="assets/js/browser.min.js"></script>
<script src="assets/js/breakpoints.min.js"></script>
<script src="assets/js/util.js"></script>
<script src="assets/js/main.js"></script>
<script src="assets/js/emotion_sankey.js"></script>
<script src="assets/js/emotion_parallel.js"></script>
<script src="assets/js/flowriver.js"></script>
<script src="assets/js/tariff-emotion.js"></script>
<script src="assets/js/emomap.js"></script>
<script src="assets/js/radar.js"></script>
</body>
</html>