Framing Justice and Public Perception : A Discourse Analysis of the Agus Salim Donation Controversy in Online Media

Inti Englishtina; Steffie Mega Mahardhika; Kristin Marwinda

doi:10.55606/icesst.v3i2.500

Authors

Inti Englishtina Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Semarang
Steffie Mega Mahardhika Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Semarang
Kristin Marwinda Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Semarang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55606/icesst.v3i2.500

Keywords:

Critical Discourse Analysis, Donation Controversy, Media Framing, Public Perception, Social Justice

Abstract

This study explores the discourse surrounding the Agus Salim donation controversy, focusing on how media narratives and legal rhetoric shape public perception. Drawing on two primary sources—articles from Brilio.net and KapanLagi.com—the research employs critical discourse analysis to examine the framing of key events, including allegations of donation mismanagement, legal strategies, and the public's reaction to the case. The findings reveal how media outlets construct competing narratives, emphasizing the roles of public figures, lawyers, and victims in influencing the discourse. By analyzing language use, power dynamics, and ideological positioning, this study highlights the interplay between legal rhetoric and public opinion in cases of social and moral significance. The research contributes to understanding how controversies are framed in digital media and their implications for justice and accountability in contemporary society.

References

Brilio.net. (2024, November 6). The conflict between Agus Salim, the victim of acid, and Teh Novi has not subsided, Denny Sumargo provides a firm solution. Retrieved from https://en.brilio.net/entertainment/the-conflict-between-agus-salim-the-victim-of-acid-and-teh-novi-has-not-subsided-denny-sumargo-provides-a-firm-solution-241106uy.html

Cross, J., Conley, J., & O’Barr, W. (2006). Language, power, and law: An interview with John Conley and William O’Barr. Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 29(2), 337–350. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24497594

Entman, R. M. (1993). 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

Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1). Beacon Press.

Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language (pp. 128–138). Routledge.

Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishing.

KapanLagi.com. (2024, November 6). Agus Salim apologizes and thanks donors, Hotman Paris responds. Retrieved from https://en.kapanlagi.com/plus/agus-salim-apologizes-and-thanks-donors-hotman-paris-responds.html

Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics and structures of storytelling: Sentiment, events, and mediality. Information, Communication & Society, 19, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1109697

Van Dijk, T. A. (1991). Media contents: The interdisciplinary study of news as discourse. In K. B. Jensen & N. Jankowski (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative methodologies for mass communication research (pp. 108–120). Routledge.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006

Van Gorp, B. (2007). The constructionist approach to framing: Bringing culture back in. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 60–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00329_3.x

Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford University Press.

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis (Vol. 1). https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857028020.d4

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory, and methodology. In Methods of critical discourse analysis. Sage.