This is a case study of the People's Dailys and South China Morning Posts portrayal of the human rights lawyer Zhou Shifeng from his arrest until after his trial in Tianjin. This study analyses how media have used news frames when they have reported about Zhou Shifeng. The study also compares how often different news frames have been used by the media, as well as how this portrays Zhou Shifeng to the public. This study finds a strong difference between the People's Dailys and South China Morning Posts portrayal of Zhou Shifeng. The results showed that in the People's Daily the attribution of the responsibility frame and the moral frame were the most common. The less common frames were the human interest frame and the economic consequence frame. The consequence frame was not identified in the People's Daily. However in South China Morning Post the attribution of responsibility frame, the human interest frame and the consequence frame were the most common. The less common frame was the moral frame. The economic consequence frame was not identified in South China Morning Post. In conclusion the portrayal of Zhou Shifeng in the People's Daily was generally negative. Due to the attribution of frames he was portrayed more as a problem to society than as a person. In South China Morning Post however the portrayal was mainly positive but neutral in certain aspects. In this case he was portrayed more as a member of a group than as a central figure in this trial.