Framing of Online News Media Regarding the Constitutional Court's Decision
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61194/ijcs.v2i3.499Keywords:
Detik.com, Framing, Kompas.com, Constitutional Court DecisionAbstract
This study examines how Detik.com and Kompas.com frame news coverage of the Constitutional Court’s decision on Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017, which allows presidential and vice-presidential candidates to be at least 40 years old or have previously held an elected position. The decision, issued in October 2023, sparked public debate regarding youth involvement in politics and constitutional consistency. Employing a qualitative method with a framing analysis approach, data collection was conducted through purposive sampling, observation, documentation, and interviews. The results reveal contrasting framing strategies between the two media outlets. Detik.com frames the decision positively, viewing it as a progressive step to encourage youth participation in national politics. In the problem definition element, Detik.com highlights the benefits for young generations, while Kompas.com frames it as controversial, emphasizing its potential to undermine legal stability. In diagnosing causes, Detik.com attributes the ruling to efforts to empower younger politicians, whereas Kompas.com identifies inconsistencies within the Constitutional Court as the root issue. For moral judgment, Detik.com regards the decision as momentum for youth political consolidation, while Kompas.com criticizes its adverse constitutional implications despite acknowledging its finality. In treatment recommendation, Detik.com suggests eliminating discrimination against youth in politics based on merit, while Kompas.com recommends rejecting the ruling to prevent further complications. This study concludes that media framing significantly shapes public perception, with Detik.com and Kompas.com reflecting differing editorial stances. The findings emphasize the crucial role of balanced, objective reporting in fostering an informed public discourse on political decisions.
References
Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Iyengar, S. (2016). The End of Framing as we Know it … and the Future of Media Effects. Mass Communication and Society, 19(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811
Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The Use of Triangulation in Qualitative Research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545–547. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437186
Detik.com. (2023). Pasangan Anies-Cak Imin dan Ganjar-Mahfud daftar ke KPU hari ini. Https://News.Detik.Com/Pemilu/d-6992553/Pasangan-Anies-Cak-Imin-Dan-Ganjar-Mahfud-Daftar-Ke-Kpu-Hari-Ini.
Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame? The Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1041–1066. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00100
Entman, R. M. (1993a). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
Entman, R. M. (1993b). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harvard University Press.
Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. F. (2000). New Perspectives and Evidence on Political Communication and Campaign Effects. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.149
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Matthes, J. (2009). What’s in a Frame? A Content Analysis of Media Framing Studies in the World’s Leading Communication Journals, 1990-2005. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900908600206
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176. https://doi.org/10.1086/267990
Miles, M. B., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Puspapertiwi, E. R., & Nugroho, R. S. (2023). Anwar Usman Dipecat dari Ketua MK, Ini Daftar Kode Etik yang Dilanggar. Https://Www.Kompas.Com/Tren/Read/2023/11/07/195000665/Anwar-Usman-Dipecat-Dari-Ketua-Mk-Ini-Daftar-Kode-Etik-Yang-Dilanggar?Page=all.
Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00326.x
Van Gorp, B. (2007). The Constructionist Approach to Framing: Bringing Culture Back In. Journal of Communication , 57(1), 60–78.
Wilson, I. D., & Savirani, A. (2021). Young Generation, Politics, and Digital Activism in Indonesia . Asian Politics & Policy, 13(3), 365–385.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Faisal Reza, Getse Pafritasary, Shinta Hartini Putri, Nisa Lathifah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
