ABSTRAK
Artikel ini membahas hubungan antara framing media dan bagaimana media mainstream dan alternativemenggambarkan masalah pemboman Rumah Sakit MSF di Kunduz, Afghanistan. Teori-teori ilmu komunikasidigunakan dalam analisa perbandingan isi artikel-artikel media mainstream dan media alternative dalam waktu satubulan setelah pemboman Rumah Sakit MSF. Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa kedua media mainstream danalternative menggambarkan perspektif yang berbeda pada masalah yang sama. Media mainstream menggambarkanpemboman sebagai kerusakan tambahan akibat penyerangan terhadap tentara Taliban dan sebuah kesalahan yangmendorong Militer Amerika Serikat untuk melakukan investigasi sendiri yang akan berjalan dengan transparan.Namun, media alternative menggambarkan peristiwa sebagai pembantaian yang dilakukan dengan sengaja. Selainperbedaan pada isi artikel, perbedaan juga terlihat pada bagaimana kedua media menulis artikel mereka. Artikelmedia mainstream tidak terlihat bias dengan menghindari kata-kata sifat dan tidak terdapat pendapat atauargumentasi penulis , sedangkan dalam artikel media alternative terlihat sangat bias dengan banyaknya kata-katasifat dan pendapat atau argumentasi penulis.ABSTRACT
This article examines the relationship between media framing and the way both mainstream and alternative mediaportray MSF Hospital bombing issue. Communication theories are used in a comparative content analysis thatexamines 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 similarissue. 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 theevent 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 orargumentation, while in alternative media article, there are a lot of adjective words and author opinion orargumentation.;This article examines the relationship between media framing and the way both mainstream and alternative mediaportray MSF Hospital bombing issue. Communication theories are used in a comparative content analysis thatexamines 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 similarissue. 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 theevent 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 orargumentation, while in alternative media article, there are a lot of adjective words and author opinion orargumentation.;This article examines the relationship between media framing and the way both mainstream and alternative mediaportray MSF Hospital bombing issue. Communication theories are used in a comparative content analysis thatexamines 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 similarissue. 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 theevent 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 orargumentation, while in alternative media article, there are a lot of adjective words and author opinion orargumentation.;This article examines the relationship between media framing and the way both mainstream and alternative mediaportray MSF Hospital bombing issue. Communication theories are used in a comparative content analysis thatexamines 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 similarissue. 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 theevent 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 orargumentation, while in alternative media article, there are a lot of adjective words and author opinion orargumentation. |
MK-Fikri Fathurahman Zikri.pdf :: Unduh