人工智能伦理的东西方视角：基于东西方媒体报道的批判性话语分析

East-Westperspectivesontheethicsofindustrialintelligence:adiscourseanalysisbasedonEast-WestmediacoverageChapter1IntroductionResearchBackgroundArtificialintelligencehasevolvedveryquicklyinrecentyears.Thetechnologyisnowubiquitous.Itispresentinmanyaspectsofhealthcare,schoolingandbusinessoperations.Itimprovesefficiency,advancestechnologyanddevelopment,andgreatlychangesourlives.MoreandmoreAIproductshavealsobeenintroducedrecentlyandthenumberofpeopleusingAIisgrowing.Thisgrowingusagemakessocietyfocusmoreonrelatedmoralquestions.Theseissuesrelatenotonlytotechnicalaspects,suchasensuringthesafetyandtransparencyofAI,butalsotobroadersocietalimpacts,suchaschangesinemploymentstructures,privacyprotection,datasecurity,technologicalbias,andethicaldecisionmaking.AIhasalsobroughtaboutethicalandsocialissuesthattheworldistalkingabout.Thebiggestissueishowtocombinetechnologicaldevelopmentwithmoralresponsibility.PeoplefromdifferentculturesunderstandAIethicsdifferently.EasternandWesterncountrieshavedifferentvalues,moralstandardsandattitudestowardsacceptingtechnology.ThesedifferencesmakethemfocusonseparateethicalareaswhenhandlingAIsystems.Easternculturesgenerallyfocusoncollectivism,socialharmony,andresponsibility,whileWesternculturesfocusmoreonindividualism,freedom,andinnovation.TheseculturaldifferencesstronglyinfluencehowthemediareportonAIethicsandhowthediscussionsaroundthemareformed.Becauseofthis,itisimportanttostudythedifferencesinhowEasternandWesternmediaapproachAIethics.Thishelpstobetterunderstandtheethicalviewsthatexistindifferentculturalsystems.SignificanceoftheResearchThisstudyemploysCriticalDiscourseAnalysis(CDA)toexaminethelinguisticcharacteristics,discoursestrategies,andculturalenvironmentinfluencesofEasternandWesternmediaonethicalreportingofartificialintelligence.Throughtheanalysisofmediadiscourseinthesurfacelinguisticfeaturessuchasvocabulary,sentencestructureandtoneofvoice,andpotentialcontextualfactors,wewillfindthatartificialintelligenceethicscommunicatedifferentlyindifferentcultures.BasedonVanDijk's"DiscourseModel"andFairclough's"Three-DimensionalAnalysisModel",thisstudywillalsoconductmulti-levelanalysesofthecorpustoexplorehowEasternandWesternmediaconstructsocialcognitionthroughdiscourseandinfluencethepublic'sunderstandingandperceptionofartificialintelligence.ArtificialIntelligence(AI)ThisstudyexploreshowEasternandWesternmediaconstructsocialcognitionthroughdiscourse,therebyinfluencingthepublic'sunderstandingandattitudetowardsartificialintelligence.Thisresearchhasimportanttheoreticalandpracticalsignificance.Theoreticallyspeaking,theresearchresultscanhelpusbetterunderstandthediversityofartificialintelligenceethicalissuesindifferentculturesandprovidetheoreticalsupportfortheconstructionofacross-culturalethicalframework.Inreality,thisresearchcanprovideusefulreferencesfortheformulationofglobalartificialintelligencepolicies,technicalregulationandpubliceducation,promotingin-depthexplorationandrationalthinkingofartificialintelligenceethicsinsociety.PurposeoftheResearchTheaimofthisstudyistoexplorehowtheEastandWestmediatalkabouttheethicsofAIandtrytofindoutthecharacteristicsofthelanguageofthenewsmediaindifferentcountries,thewayofspeaking,andtheembodiedculturaldifferencesbehindthem.Criticaldiscourseanalysiswillbeusedinthispaper.Thespecificobjectivesofthisstudyareasfollows:toexaminehowlanguageisusedintheEastandWestmediawhentalkingaboutAIethics.Thismeanslookingatthewording,sentencestructureandtoneofdifferentmediareports.Further,tounderstandhowculturalcontextsinfluencepeople'sviewsonethicsandtoanalyzehowdifferentculturesinterprettheissueofAIethics.ThisstudyplanstoexploreouttheideologicaldifferencesbetweenEasternandWesternmediaviewsonAIethicsandthecountriesbehindthem.Wewillseehowtheseviewswillchangethepublic'smind.ThestudywilluseVanDijk'sDiscourseModelandFairclough'sThree-DimensionalAnalysisModelandwilllookattheissuefromdifferentlevels.Itwillalsohelptoshowhowlanguagebuildsunderstandingandshapespublicopinion.Byaccomplishingthesegoals,thisstudyisexpectedtoprovidenewwaysofunderstandinghowethicalissuesofAImanifestthemselvesindifferentcultures.SummaryInthissection,wewillexploretheethicalissuesthatmayariseinthecontextoftherapiddevelopmentofartificialintelligencetechnology.ThekeypointisthatEasternandwesterncultureshavedifferentunderstandingsoftheseethicalissues,andhowimportantthisculturaldifferenceisforourstudy.Thisdifferenceisparticularlyprominentinthemedia'scoverageofethicalissuesrelatedtoartificialintelligenceandhas,toacertainextent,changedthepublic'sperceptionoftheseproblems.ThisstudyaimstoapplycriticaldiscourseanalysistoexaminethelinguisticandculturaldifferencesbetweenWesternandEasternmediainreportingonAIethicalissues.Thesedifferenceswillnotonlyhaveanimpactontheformofinformationdissemination,butalsounconsciouslychangethepublic'scognitionandattitude.Ifwestudythesedifferencescarefully,wecanhaveaclearerunderstandingofhowpeoplefromdifferentculturalbackgroundsviewtheethicsofartificialintelligence.Thefollowingpartwillreviewtheresearchpapersrelatedtothistopic.Therearebothdomesticandforeignresearchachievementshere,aswellastheirlimitations.Thepurposeofthispartoftheliteraturereviewistoenableustohaveamorecomprehensiveunderstandingoftheresearchprocessofthistopic.Meanwhile,wealsoexpecttogainadeeperunderstandingoftheethicalissuesofartificialintelligenceindifferentculturalbackgrounds.Chapter2LiteratureReviewCriticalDiscourseAnalysis(CDA),asatheoreticaltoolforstudyingtherelationshipbetweenlanguageandsociety,hasmadesignificantprogressinrecentyearsinanalyzingideology,powerrelations,andculturaldifferencesinmediareports.ThecoregoalofCDAistorevealtheideologyandsocialstructurebehindthetext,especiallyhowpowerisembodiedandreproducedthroughlanguage(Fairclough,1995;Wodak&Meyer,2001).languageisembodiedandreproduced(Fairclough,1995;Wodak&Meyer,2001).TheapplicationofCDAinthecoverageofAIethicalissuesinbothEasternandWesternmediaprovidesinsightfulperspectivesforunderstandingnarrativestrategiesanddiscourseconstructionindifferentculturalcontexts.TherapiddevelopmentofArtificialIntelligence(AI)technologyisreshapingtheproduction,lifeandgovernanceofhumansociety.Frommedicaldiagnosistofinancialriskcontrol,fromautomaticdrivingtointelligentcustomerservice,thedeepembeddingofAIhasraisedunprecedentedethicalchallengeswhileimprovingefficiency.TheethicalissueofAIhasthusbecomeacoreissueofconcernforacademics,industriesandpolicymakersaroundtheworld,theessenceofwhichliesinhowtobalancethecomplextensionbetweentechnologicalinnovationandsocialvalues,individualrightsandpublicinterests,andtechnologicalautonomyandhumancontrol.Theresearchinthisfieldoriginatedfromthereflectionontheinstrumentalrationalityoftechnology.Earlydiscussionsfocusedonthephilosophicaldebateofwhethermachinescanreplacehumandecision-making,butwiththebreakthroughsintechnologiessuchasdeeplearningandgenerativeAI,ethicalissueshaveevolvedfromtheoreticalassumptionstorealcrises.Forexample,casessuchasalgorithmicbiasexacerbatingsocialdiscrimination,deepfalsificationtechnologythreateningtheauthenticityofinformation,andautonomousweaponssystemsblurringtheboundariesofresponsibilityforwarhavehighlightedthesystemicrisksthatmaybetriggeredbyuncontrolledtechnology.Inthiscontext,theresearchonAIethicshasgraduallyformedtwomajordimensions:first,theendogenousethicsoftechnology,i.e.,embeddingmoralconstraintsinthewholeprocessfromalgorithmdesign,datacollectiontomodeltraining;andsecond,theexogenousgovernanceofthesociety,whichcoversthesynergisticadjustmentoflegalregulation,industrystandardsandculturalvalues.2.1StudiesonAIEthicsAbroad2.1.1TheoreticalOriginsandFoundationalFrameworkThesystematicexplorationofAIethicsresearchbeganintheearly21stcenturyagainstthebackdropofacceleratingtechnologicaldevelopmentinparallelwithsocialcontroversies.Floridiandotherscholars(2018)putforwardtheethicalframeworkofthe“AISocietyforGood”,whichcategorizesAIethicalissuesintofivecoreopportunitiesandrisks,andputsforward20specificpolicyrecommendations,emphasizingthattechnologyneedstoservehumanwell-being,socialequityandsustainabledevelopment.Thisstudyestablishedthetraditionof“principle-oriented”AIethicsresearchintheWest,anditscoreideasechothefourprinciplesofmedicalethics(autonomy,non-harmfulness,beneficence,andjustice).However,Mittelstadt(2019)offersacriticalreflectiononthis,pointingoutthatthereareessentialdifferencesbetweenAIethicsandmedicalethics:AIdevelopmentlacksunifiedprofessionalnorms,legalaccountabilitymechanisms,andmethodologicalsupportfortranslatingethicalprinciplesintopractice,resultinginthediscrepancybetween“highconsensusprinciples”and“inefficientimplementation”.Thishasledtoagapbetween“highconsensusprinciples”and“inefficientimplementation”.2.1.2DevelopmentandValidationofCoreTheoryInordertobreakthroughtheabstractionofprinciples,scholarshavegraduallyconstructedanoperationalethicalframework.SialaandWang(2022)proposedthe“SHIFT”framework(Sustainability,Human-centeredness,Inclusiveness,Fairness,andTransparency)throughasystematicreviewof253papers,emphasizingthatethicsshouldpermeatethroughthewholelifecycleofAIsystems,andthroughthehealthcarefield.Diaz-Rodriguezetal.(2023)furtherproposedatechnology-legalfusionmodelfor“trustworthyAI”,identifyingseventechnicalrequirements(e.g.,robustness,privacyprotection,anddiversity)andthreepillars(legality,ethics,andsocialrobustness),andadvocatingtheadoptionofthe“SHIFT”frameworkthroughasystematicreviewofAIsystems.(legality,ethics,andsocialrobustness),andadvocatestherealizationofaclosedloopofresponsibilitythrough“regulatorysandboxes”andauditingmechanisms.SuchresearchreflectstheWesternacademy'spreferenceforinstitutionalizedgovernance,butitsvalidationismostlyfocusedontheEuropeanandAmericancontexts,anditsadaptabilitytoculturaldiversitystillneedstobefurthertested.2.1.3ApplicationsandChallengesinSegmentedAreasWiththeexpansionofAItechnologyscenarios,ethicalresearchhasgraduallydeepenedintospecificfields.Inthemedicalfield,StahlandEke(2024)focusongenerativeAI(e.g.,ChatGPT),systematicallyrevealtherisksofambiguousresponsibilityattribution,amplifiedalgorithmicbias,andhighenvironmentalcosts,andputforwardatwo-dimensionalassessmentmodelof“technology-society”.Inthebusinessfield,Grewaletal.(2024)pointoutthatAImayexacerbatetheconcentrationofmarketpowerandthedigitaldivide,andcallfortheestablishmentofatriadicgovernanceframeworkof“competence-attribution-equity”.Itisworthnotingthatprivacyprotectionhasbecomeacross-cuttingissue:HuandMin(2023)experimentallydemonstratedthatthe“surveillanceeyeeffect”ofAIdevicessignificantlytriggersusers'privacyanxiety,andthatgenderandsetting(public/privatespace)constitutekeymoderatingvariables.Thesestudiesrevealthecomplexityofethicalissues,butmostofthemarestillpremisedontechnologicalcontrollability,andsystemicrisks(e.g.,ecologicaldamage,laborsubstitution)arerelativelyunder-discussed.2.2StudiesonAIEthicsathome2.2.1TheoreticalOriginsandLocalizedFrameworkConstructionThesystematicexplorationofdomesticAIethicsresearchbeganintheseconddecadeofthe21stcentury,withearlyresearchfocusingontheethicaldilemmascausedbytheproliferationoftechnologyandtheconstructionofbasictheories.StartingfromtheMarxistdoctrineofhumannature,CaiSixin(2021)pointsoutthedifficultyofaccountability,privacyleakageandalienationphenomenonbroughtbythedevelopmentofAI,andadvocatesbalancingtechnologicalinstrumentalityandvaluerationalitythroughthereconstructionofhuman-computerrelationship.YanKunru(2021)furtherputforwardtheconceptof“ethicaldesign”,emphasizingthatAIdesignneedstobeembeddedinthesecurityandtransparencyrequirements,andconstrainthebehaviorofdevelopersthroughprofessionalethics.Thisphaseofresearchhassetthetoneof“technology-ethicssynergy”,butitismostlyphilosophicalandlacksempiricalsupport.After2022,thelocalizedethicalframeworkisgraduallytakingshape.In“SystemicRisksandHarmoniousSymbioticGovernanceofGenerativeArtificialIntelligenceCommunicationEthics”,LiBenqianetal.(2025)proposedagovernancemodelof“human-machineharmonioussymbiosis”basedontheideaof“unityofheavenandman”intraditionalChineseculture,advocatingthattheproblemcanbesolvedthroughthethree-dimensionalgovernancestructure(technological-personal-social).technology-person-society)toresolveethicalrisks.ZhangDongetal.(2025)focusonideologicalandpoliticaleducationscenariosandputforwardtheframeworkof“human-computercollaborativepedagogicalrelationship”,whichemphasizesthecombinationofeducator'ssubjectivestatusandethicalregulationoftechnology.Thesestudiesreflecttheresponseofdomesticacademicstoculturaltraditionsandpracticalneeds,butthetheoriesaremoreabstract,andthepathtorealizationstillneedstoberefined.2.2.2DeepeningandValidationofCoreTopicsWiththeaccelerationoftechnologyapplication,researchhasgraduallyturnedtothesystematicanalysisofspecificethicalissues.InthefieldofgenerativeAI,PanLi(2025)foundthroughbibliometricsthatdomesticscholarsfocusontheissuesofdataprivacy,copyrightinfringementandliabilityattribution,andproposedathree-levelgovernancepathoftechnology,societyandglobal.TakingDeepSeekasanexample,QiZhiyuanetal.(2025)revealthedoubleeffectof“substitution-reinforcement”ofgenerativeAIinlaborscenarios,andputforwardacollaborativegovernancestrategyoflaborregulationsandethicalnorms.ThiskindofresearchhighlightsChina'skeeninsightintothesocialeffectsoftechnology,butthecasestudiesaremostlyfocusedonspecificscenarios(e.g.,manufacturingandeducation),andarenotsufficientlycross-disciplinary.Privacyandsecurityissueshavebecomeacross-domainfocus.XuXiaogengetal.(2025)systematicallysortoutthedifferencesinAIsecuritystandardizationathomeandabroad,andcallforstrengtheninginternationalcooperationtoimprovethestandardsystem;ChengXuejun(2023)putsforwardafour-dimensionalregulatorypathof“transparency-explanation-accountability-ethics”fortheblackboxoffintechalgorithms.Itisworthnotingthatdomesticresearchismoreinclinedtopolicy-drivensolutions,suchasXieYongjiang(2025),whoadvocatestheenhancementofglobalgovernancediscoursethrough“hardscienceandtechnology+softrules”,reflectingChina'sstrategicconcernfortechnologicalsovereignty.2.2.3ApplicationExplorationandChallengesinSegmentedScenariosDomesticresearchisquiteuniqueinitsexplorationofethicalpracticesinthefieldsofhealthcare,education,andmedia.GuoJiaetal.(2025)foundthroughquantitativeanalysisthatmedicalethicseducationandresearcharesignificantlyaffectedbypoliciesandneedtostrengthenethicalriskpreventionunderthegoalof“newmedicalethics”;ChuLian(2023)proposeda“long-termtrackingandfeedbackmechanism”fortheapplicationofAIinthemanagementofuniversityaffairs,butdidnotdiscussindepththe“long-termtrackingandfeedbackmechanism”fortheapplicationofAIinthemanagementofuniversityaffairs.ChuLian(2023)proposesa“long-termtrackingandfeedbackmechanism”fortheapplicationofAIincollegeaffairsmanagement,butdoesnotdiscussindepththeriskofalienationofthesubjectofeducationduetotechnologicaldependence.Inthefieldofmedia,ZengXiao(2023)pointsoutthatAIGCtechnologymaydissolvenewscreativity,andadvocatesbalancingtechnologicalinnovationandethicalbottomlinethroughindustryself-regulationandlegalnorms.Itisnoteworthythatdomesticscholarshaveactivelyrespondedtothecutting-edgetopicsoftechnology.Forexample,ZhangCan(2023)criticallyanalyzesthe“nihilisticdilemma”ofin-depthforgerytechnology,andproposestoreconstructtechnologicalcognitionwiththephilosophyofexistentialism;ZhaoJingwu(2023)reflectsonthelimitationsoftheethicalprinciplesofscienceandtechnologyinthegovernanceofChatGPT,andemphasizestheneedtoestablishadynamicevaluationmechanism.Suchstudiesreflectthetheoreticaldepth,buttheempiricaldatasupportisweakandmostlystaysatthelevelofconceptualdeduction.2.3Evaluatingdomesticandoverseastudies2.3.1Limitations(1)Sharedlimitations:Disconnectionbetweenstaticframeworkanddynamictechnology:existingethicalframeworksathomeandabroadarealldifficulttoadapttotherapiditerationoftechnology(e.g.,theemergenceofgenerativeAIandgenericAI),andprinciple-basednormsmostlystayattheabstractlevel,lackingadynamicresponsemechanismtotechnologicaluncertainty.Insufficientinterdisciplinarysynergy:theoreticaldialoguesinthefieldsoftechnology,law,andethicsarestilldominatedbyconceptualmappingandfailtoformoperationalintegration.Forexample,thereisacognitivegapbetweentechnologydevelopersandethicistsintermsofresponsibilityattributionandriskassessmentcriteria.Weakempiricalfoundation:Moststudiesrelyonliteratureanalysisorcasederivation,lackingfieldsurveysandempiricalverificationwithmulti-stakeholderparticipation,leadingtodoubtsaboutthefeasibilityandsocialacceptanceoftheprogram.(2)Unsharedlimitations:Overseas:lackofculturalsensitivity,ethicalframeworkdefaultstoWesternindividualisticvaluesandignorestherightsclaimsofnon-Westerncommunities(e.g.,collectiveviewofprivacy,technologicaluniversality).Domestic:localizedconceptsaresuspended,suchasthelackofquantifiableindicatorsandimplementationpathsfor“human-machinesymbiosis”,andpolicy-drivenresearchtendstofallintothepredicamentof“sloganfirst,practicelagsbehind”.2.3.2Globalsynergyandlocalbreakthroughsinfutureresearchdirections(1)Deepinterdisciplinaryintegrationandculturalembedding:Disciplinarysynergy:buildajointtechnology-ethics-legallaboratorytodesigncross-disciplinarysolutionsbytakingspecificproblems(e.g.copyrightattributionofdeepforgeries)asentrypoints.Culturaladaptation:Westernresearchneedstointroducemulticulturalperspectives(e.g.,thecommunityresponsibilityviewofAfricanUbuntuphilosophy),whiledomesticresearchshoulddeepenthemoderntransformationofConfucianism's“RighteousnessandProfitability”andTaoism's“UnityofHeavenandHumanity”tobuilda“TechnologyforGood”program.Domestically,weshoulddeepenthemoderntransformationofConfucianism's“RighteousnessandBenefit”andTaoism's“UnityofHeavenandHumanity”tobuildalocaldiscoursesystemof“TechnologyforGood”.(2)Globalizationcooperation:Internationalcooperation:RelyingonplatformssuchastheUnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganization(UNESCO),promotetheconstructionofaminimalconsensusonglobalethicalstandards(e.g.banninglethalautonomousweapons),whilerespectingregionalculturalspecificitiesandavoidingethicalhegemony.2.4SummaryTheethicalissuesofartificialintelligenceareessentiallyindicativeoftherelationshipbetweentechnologyandsociety.Currently,despitethefactthatresearcharoundtheworldhasadvancedtheconceptsof“fairness,transparencyandaccountability”,whicharesharedbymany,manyproblemsremain.Oneofthekeyissuesisthattechnologyischangingfasterthantherulesofethics.Perhapswereallyneednewideasaboutwhatartificialintelligencemightdoandwherethelineisdrawnbetweenhumanandmachine.Anotherproblemisthatdifferencesinculturalandpoliticalcompetitionaroundtheworldmakemoralrulesinconsistent.ThedifferencesbetweenWesternindividualistvaluesandEasterncollectivistvaluesareveryclear,especiallyonissuessuchasprivacyandwhocontrolsthedata.Therefore,systematicallysortingoutthetheoreticallineage,practicaldilemmasandgovernancepathsofAIethicalissuesisnotonlyrelatedtothesustainabledevelopmentofthetechnologyitself,butalsoakeypropositionforbuildinganeworderofhumancivilizationinthedigitalera.ThisstudyattemptstorevealtheethicalissuesofAIfrombothEasternandWesternperspectivesthroughacross-culturalperspective,andhopestoprovideareferenceframeworkofbothacademicvalueandpracticalsignificancefortheglobalethicalgovernanceofAI.Onlythroughinterdisciplinarycollaboration,cross-culturaldialogueandglobalizationcanweachievetheultimategoalsof“goodness”and“controllability”ofAI,andprovideanethicalcornerstoneforthesustainabledigitaltransformationofhumansociety.Chapter3Methodology3.1ResearchQuestionsThisthesiswillanswerthefollowingthreemainquestions:(1)Fromtheperspectiveoftextualanalysis,whatarethesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenEastandWestintermsoflinguisticformsaswellaslexicalchoicesinreporting,andwhatdoesthisreflect?(2)Fromtheperspectiveofdiscoursepractice,howdonewsreportsfromtheEastandtheWestexpressdiscourseinspecificsocialsituations?(3)Fromtheperspectiveofsocialpracticeanalysis,whatdeeperideologicaldifferencesarereflectedinthecharacteristicsofEast-Westreporting?3.2DataCollectionThecorpusofthisstudycomesfromfourrepresentativemediaoutlets,representingthemainstreammediaintheEastandtheWest,aimingtoanalyzethepresentationofAIethicalissuesinthecontextofEasternandWesternculturesthroughcomparison.BelowIwilluseaflowcharttodescribetheprocessandstepsofmydataprocessing.Figure3.2Toensurethebreadthandrepresentativenessofthestudy,fourmainstreamnewsplatformswithwideinfluenceinChina,Japan,theUnitedStatesandtheUnitedKingdomwereselectedforthisstudy.ThespecificmediaoutletsselectedincludeChinaDailyinChina,TheJapanTimes(hereafterreferredtoasJT)inJapan,TheAssociatedPress(hereafterreferredtoasAP)intheUnitedStates,andBritishBroadcastingCorporation(hereafterreferredtoasBBC)intheUnitedKingdom.ThetimeframefordatacollectionwassetfromDecember2024toMarch2025,atimeframeinwhichAItechnologyisrapidlydevelopinggloballyandthenumberandcontentofreportsaremorethansufficient,whichcanproviderichlinguisticmaterialsforthisstudy,helptoexploreindepththemanifestationandfocusofdiscussionofAIethicalissuesintheEasternandWesternmedia,andfurtherrevealthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthetwoculturesinthecontext.Intheprocessofdatacollection,inordertoensuretherelevanceandrepresentativenessofthedata,thisstudyfirstsearchedthroughtheofficialwebsitesofmajormediausing“AI”asthekeyword.ThismethodensuredthatallthecollectedreportswerecloselyrelatedtotheissueofAI.Then,newsreportsdirectlyrelatedtoAIethicsweremanuallyscreened,basedonthecriteriaincludingthetopicofthereport,theethicalissuesinvolved,aswellasthebreadthanddepthofthereport.Contentthatwasnotrelatedtoethicsorwasmoremarginalizedwasexcludedtoensurethatthefinalselectedstorieshadsufficientdepthandrepresentativenessinthepresentationofethicalissues.Intheend,thisstudycollectedrelevantreportsfromfourmajormediaoutlets:11articlesfromChinaDaily,withatotalwordcountof8,270;13articlesfromTheJapanTimes,withatotalwordcountof8,801;10articlesfromTheAssociatedPress,withatotalwordcountof8,334;and10articlesfromtheBBC,withatotalwordcountof8,319.Thesereportscoverawiderangeofethicaltopicssuchasdataprivacy,theimpactofAIonemployment,andthefairnessandtransparencyofAI,providingrichlinguisticmaterialforsubsequentanalysis.TheselectedmediarepresentwidelyinfluentialnewsorganizationsinthecontextofEasternandWesterncultures,whichcaneffectivelyreflecttheconcernsandperceptionsoftheirrespectivesocietiesandculturesontheissueofAIethics.Throughthiscross-culturalcomparativeanalysis,thisstudyisnotonlyabletoexplorethecommonalitiesanddifferencesofAIethicalissuesindifferentcultures,butalsoprovidesasolidfoundationforcriticaldiscourseanalysis.Thissystematiccorpuscollectionprocessensurestherepresentativenessandreasonablenessofthedata,enablingthesubsequentanalysistofullyrevealdifferentcultures'approachesandattitudestowardsAIethicalissues.3.3DataAnalysisInthisstudy,thecollectedreportedarticleswereorganizedintoplaintextformat(.txt),theAntConcsoftwarewasopened,andtheself-builtcorpuswasimportedintoAntConcandopenedwiththeFileViewoptionofAntConc,andthenumberofarticlesandformantdataobtainedareshowninTable3.3.Table3.3ChinaDailyJTAPBBCTotalNumberofNewsArticles1113101044NumberofWordTypes23022661232321789464NumberofWordTokens827088018334831933724Inthefollowinganalysis,Iwillgothroughseveralstepstoanalyzethehigh-frequencywords.First,IinputfourrelateddocumentsintoAntConcsoftwareanduseits“Keyword”functiontoextractkeywords.Toensureac