scholarly journals Papua and the public: News framing of the 2019 Asrama Papua conflict

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1and2) ◽  
pp. 105-118
Author(s):  
Annisa Nadia Putri Harsa ◽  
Lily El Ferawati Rofil

The 2019 Asrama Papua conflict in Surabaya initiated many discourses on racial discrimination and police brutality towards Papuan students in Indonesia. The question arises as to how the public perceive news framing and its effects on public opinion. This question will be answered by examining reports in the newspapers Kompas (published in Jakarta) and Jubi (Jayapura, Papua) which display quite different thematic and rhetorical structures. As secondary research, this article aims to assess the public opinion on the framing of the incident based on Berger and Luckmann’s Social Construction of Reality. Through qualitative focus group discussion, this study examines people’s perceptions of news media framing and its effect on the shaping of public opinion towards an ethnic minority group. The results show that media framing reinforces a certain idea of public opinion towards minority groups through various factors such as Perspective of Reporting and Depth of Reporting, both of which differ in Kompas and Jubi as a result of differences in their audiences. Differences were also found in such factors as the thematic structure between lens of sympathy and lens of antagonism. Ultimately, this research suggests that the public possess an awareness of news framing, thus giving them the capability to construct their own critical viewpoints towards media and the incident.

Author(s):  
Julie Firmstone

Editorial journalism and newspapers’ editorial opinions represent an area of research that can make an important contribution to our understanding of the relationship between the press and politics. Editorials are a distinctive format and are the only place in a newspaper where the opinions of a paper as an organization are explicitly represented. Newspapers and the journalists who write editorials play a powerful role in constructing political debate in the public sphere. They use their editorial voice to attempt to influence politics either indirectly, through reaching public opinion, or directly, by targeting politicians. Editorial journalism is at its most persuasive during elections, when newspapers traditionally declare support for candidates and political parties. Despite the potential of editorial opinions to influence democratic debate, and controversy over the way newspapers and their proprietors use editorials to intervene in politics, editorial journalism is under-researched. Our understanding of the significance of this distinctive form of journalism can be better understood by exploring four key themes. First, asking “What is editorial journalism?” establishes the context of editorial journalism as a unique practice with opinion-leading intentions. Several characteristics of editorial journalism distinguish it from other formats and genres. Editorials (also known as leading articles) require a distinctive style and form of expression, occupy a special place in the physical geography of a newspaper, represent the collective institutional voice of a newspaper rather than that of an individual, have no bylines in the majority of countries, and are written with differing aims and motivations to news reports. The historical development of journalism explains the status of editorials as a distinctive form of journalism. Professional ideals and practices evolved to demand objectivity in news reporting and the separation of fact from opinion. Historically, editorial and advocacy journalism share an ethos for journalism that endeavors to effect social or political change, yet editorial journalism is distinctive from other advocacy journalism practices in significant ways. Editorials are also an integral part of the campaign journalism practiced by some newspapers. Second, research and approaches in the field of political communication have attributed a particularly powerful role to editorial journalism. Rooted in the effects tradition, researchers have attributed an important role to editorials in informing and shaping debate in the public sphere in four ways: (1) as an influence on readers, voters, and/or public opinion; (2) as an influence on the internal news agendas and coverage of newspapers; (3) as an influence on the agendas and coverage in other news media; and (4) as an influence on political or policy agendas. Theorizing newspapers as active and independent political actors in the political process further underpins the need to research editorial journalism. Third, editorial journalism has been overlooked by sociological studies of journalism practices. Research provides a limited understanding of the routines and practices of editorial journalists and the organization of editorial opinion at newspapers. Although rare, studies focusing on editorial journalism show that editorial opinion does not simply reflect the influence of proprietors, as has often been assumed. Rather, editorial opinions are shaped by a complex range of factors. Finally, existing research trajectories and current developments point to new challenges and opportunities for editorial journalism. These challenges relate to how professional norms respond to age-old questions about objectivity, bias, and partisanship in the digital age.


Author(s):  
Gabriella Sandstig

The news media can both mirror age stereotypes held by the public, as well as contribute to constructing or amplifying them. The first risk group identified in the pandemic was older adults. They are generally not so visible in the media, but during the pandemic, they were in focus. This study analyses to what extent the public agrees with age stereotypes during the COVID-19 pandemic and what characterizes the groups that hold them. Survey data from 04/14/20-06/28/20 on a national sample (6000) of the population of Sweden is used. The results, contrary to the expectation that stereotypes of older adults should dominate the public opinion, rather the stereotype of younger people not distancing themselves enough is the most common. However, the corresponding stereotype of older adults not doing the same is the second most common. In a non-crises situation, the most common stereotype of older adults is that they have poor cognitive abilities. However, this stereotype is rare during the pandemic. The characteristic of the group that agree with the stereotypes are that they are young rather than old. There are also differences by gender, education and residential area, but they vary depending on the specific age stereotype in question.


2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ismail Fahmi Arrauf Nasution ◽  
Miswari

Mass media is an effective instrument in shaping public opinion. Though mass media is believed to be principally transparent and independent, the information presented to the public is the result of human construction based on their understanding of the reality of knowledge. In this topic, majority of Moslem, recently, claim that some popular mass media are not objective in reporting terrorism. For that reason, this article efforts whether the image of Islam as a religion of terror is constructed, especially from the online media framing in Kompas.com about the incident in Charlie Hebdo’s media in Paris.


Author(s):  
Amit Kumar ◽  
Poonam Gaur

<p>The news is not just an ordinary media product, especially in a democracy. It plays a very crucial role in engaging common people in democratic processes. Television news media plays a vital role in shaping the public opinion which is very important in any democracy. As a result, the content of television news channels has been the topic of serious discussion and research among journalists and academics. This study employed a qualitative approach to reveal the perspectives of working journalists on the different aspects of the content of Hindi and English television news channels.</p><p><strong> </strong></p>


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Hall

Media and public discourses are constantly changing as a result of their effect on one another. The Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences which roamed the province of Québec in late 2007 was widely reported on in the mainstream news-media. This paper provides a critical content analysis of 105 articles in three Québec daily newspapers (La Presse, Le Soleil, and The Gazette) during the months of September to December 2007 when the public forums discussing the reasonable accommodation of minority groups took place. By making theoretical linkages with the data collected, the findings show that the media discourses between the three newspapers vary slightly and are not accurate representations of the public discourses surrounding the issue of reasonable accommodations amongst the Québec population.


2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-139
Author(s):  
Akber Ali

Scholars in the arena of media and communication have paid attention to the news framing of the controversial US drone policy in the post 9/11 mainly from the Western media perspectives. Scant scholarly heed has been given to examine the media framing of the US drone strikes from the national media perspectives of the targeted countries. The current study attempts to build on the existing scholarship on US drone policy by exploring the news media framing in two elite national newspapers of Pakistan. Using inductive framing as methodological approach and qualitative analysis as methodology, the study analyzed the editorial discourse in the selected dailies on the US drones. The findings reveal that both the newspapers covered the drones using strikingly different frames. The Daily Times constructed the discourse on US drones using the efficacy frame predominantly- that the drones are effective and doing ‘good job’ against the militants. The Express Tribune framed the drones as violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and counterproductive. The discussion elaborates the possible factors for the differential framing of US drones in the two national dailies of Pakistan.


2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 639-656 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Cushion

The news media are often accused of reporting politics in a too narrow and consensual way, excluding certain perspectives and issues that might better reflect the public’s agenda. This study lends weight to this argument by not only demonstrating the party political focus of UK election coverage but also in the misleading way public opinion was, at times, represented. Analysing 6647 items and/or stories in the largest ever content analysis study of 4613 sources across five first- and second-order election campaigns in the United Kingdom, it comprehensively tracks how citizens and journalists appear in television news, as well as developing a finely grained, qualitative assessment of how public opinion was represented during the 2017 election campaign. Overall, the study found that political parties received the most amount of airtime, but in some election campaigns members of the public appeared in coverage more often than politicians. However, they were mostly granted limited airtime to articulate their views in vox pops. During the 2017 election campaign, the study found the editorial construction of public opinion in vox pops and live journalistic two-ways was shaped by a relatively narrow set of assumptions made by political journalists about the public’s ideological views rather than consulting more objective measures of public opinion. So, for example, voters were portrayed as favouring more right- than left-wing policies despite evidence to the contrary. The use of citizens as sources is theorised as serving the pre-conceived narratives of journalists rather than reflecting a representative picture of public opinion. The study reinforces and advances academic debates about journalists and citizen-source interactions. More accurately engaging with people’s concerns, it is concluded, will help move broadcasters beyond the narrow set of assumptions that typically serve their narratives of political coverage.


2021 ◽  
pp. 016327872110182
Author(s):  
Paul Cristian Gugiu

Kaplan and Baron-Epel advanced the notion that findings from public surveys should inform health policy decision making with respect to funding allocation. This approach to governing can draw large support from the populace, legislators, and the academic community alike. Yet, it has the potential to undermine evidence-based health policy decision making. In this paper, I delineate six drawbacks and several related corollaries drawn from historical events that have occurred during the recent coronavirus pandemic. These examples illustrate the dire downstream consequences (e.g., disregard for the needs of minority groups; diminution of critical services not broadly supported by the public; promotion of fringe group or foreign actor agendas; advancement of poorly informed opinions; shift from a forward-thinking, proactive perspective to a retroactive one; and reliance on potentially biased estimates) that may follow if public surveys become embedded in healthcare policy decision making. Without solutions to the drawbacks delineated in this paper, health policy driven by public opinion is likely to cause more harm than good.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document