"
ABSTRAK Artikel ini membahas hubungan antara framing media dan bagaimana media mainstream dan alternative
menggambarkan masalah pemboman Rumah Sakit MSF di Kunduz, Afghanistan. Teori-teori ilmu komunikasi
digunakan dalam analisa perbandingan isi artikel-artikel media mainstream dan media alternative dalam waktu satu
bulan setelah pemboman Rumah Sakit MSF. Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa kedua media mainstream dan
alternative menggambarkan perspektif yang berbeda pada masalah yang sama. Media mainstream menggambarkan
pemboman sebagai kerusakan tambahan akibat penyerangan terhadap tentara Taliban dan sebuah kesalahan yang
mendorong Militer Amerika Serikat untuk melakukan investigasi sendiri yang akan berjalan dengan transparan.
Namun, media alternative menggambarkan peristiwa sebagai pembantaian yang dilakukan dengan sengaja. Selain
perbedaan pada isi artikel, perbedaan juga terlihat pada bagaimana kedua media menulis artikel mereka. Artikel
media mainstream tidak terlihat bias dengan menghindari kata-kata sifat dan tidak terdapat pendapat atau
argumentasi penulis , sedangkan dalam artikel media alternative terlihat sangat bias dengan banyaknya kata-kata
sifat dan pendapat atau argumentasi penulis.
ABSTRACT This article examines the relationship between media framing and the way both mainstream and alternative media
portray MSF Hospital bombing issue. Communication theories are used in a comparative content analysis that
examines the articles written by mainstream and alternative media sources within a month after MSF Hospital bombing. The research finds that both mainstream and alternative media portray different perspectives on a similar
issue. Mainstream media portrays the bombing as a collateral damage and a mistake, and toward this mistake U.S.
will do their own investigation that will run unbiased and transparent. However, alternative media portrays the
event as a massacre that is done intentionally. Moreover, the way they construct their articles are different.
Mainstream media article stay away from bias by avoiding any adjective words and not including author opinion or
argumentation, while in alternative media article, there are a lot of adjective words and author opinion or
argumentation.;This article examines the relationship between media framing and the way both mainstream and alternative media
portray MSF Hospital bombing issue. Communication theories are used in a comparative content analysis that
examines the articles written by mainstream and alternative media sources within a month after MSF Hospital bombing. The research finds that both mainstream and alternative media portray different perspectives on a similar
issue. Mainstream media portrays the bombing as a collateral damage and a mistake, and toward this mistake U.S.
will do their own investigation that will run unbiased and transparent. However, alternative media portrays the
event as a massacre that is done intentionally. Moreover, the way they construct their articles are different.
Mainstream media article stay away from bias by avoiding any adjective words and not including author opinion or
argumentation, while in alternative media article, there are a lot of adjective words and author opinion or
argumentation.;This article examines the relationship between media framing and the way both mainstream and alternative media
portray MSF Hospital bombing issue. Communication theories are used in a comparative content analysis that
examines the articles written by mainstream and alternative media sources within a month after MSF Hospital bombing. The research finds that both mainstream and alternative media portray different perspectives on a similar
issue. Mainstream media portrays the bombing as a collateral damage and a mistake, and toward this mistake U.S.
will do their own investigation that will run unbiased and transparent. However, alternative media portrays the
event as a massacre that is done intentionally. Moreover, the way they construct their articles are different.
Mainstream media article stay away from bias by avoiding any adjective words and not including author opinion or
argumentation, while in alternative media article, there are a lot of adjective words and author opinion or
argumentation.;This article examines the relationship between media framing and the way both mainstream and alternative media
portray MSF Hospital bombing issue. Communication theories are used in a comparative content analysis that
examines the articles written by mainstream and alternative media sources within a month after MSF Hospital bombing. The research finds that both mainstream and alternative media portray different perspectives on a similar
issue. Mainstream media portrays the bombing as a collateral damage and a mistake, and toward this mistake U.S.
will do their own investigation that will run unbiased and transparent. However, alternative media portrays the
event as a massacre that is done intentionally. Moreover, the way they construct their articles are different.
Mainstream media article stay away from bias by avoiding any adjective words and not including author opinion or
argumentation, while in alternative media article, there are a lot of adjective words and author opinion or
argumentation."
Fakultas Ilmu Pengetahuan Budaya Universitas Indonesia, 2016
