Delegitimation of Single-Mux Policy on Re-Regulation Process of Indonesian Broadcasting Bill in Media Framing

Abdul Fadli Kalaloi


This study aims to explain the reality behind the framing of negative coverage of the single-mux policy in the re-regulation of Law No.32/2002, from a more macro perspective. Framing negative news by building reader cynicism on the single-mux policy option is associated as one of the efforts to delegitimize the single-mux policy, throughout the process of discussing the policy in Parliament. This research links the reality between negative news framing around single-mux policy options, with the media agenda in the broadcast industry in Indonesia. The author used the concept of framing-strategy analysis Cappella and Jamieson (1997) as an analysis tool, to analyze data from detikcom content as online news media around the debate on single-mux and multi-mux policies on 2017-2018 reporting period. The results identified that the media developed a negative narrative about single-mux policies aimed to rise public cynicism about the policy. Cynicism is built by constructing issues around single-mux policies with policy impacts that conflict with democratic values, such as mass layoffs in the broadcasting industry, the issue of excesses of authoritarian policies because management rights are controlled solely by the government, to the issue of unpreparedness of government infrastructure which results in a waste of budget in the process of procuring new infrastructure. These facts the author associates with the effort to delegitimize single-mux policy options in the legislation process, using the arguments of Berger, Ridgeway, Fisek and Norman, (1998).


Keywords: Framing analysis, broadcasting policy, framing-strategy, value framing, delegitimation.

Full Text:



Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Berger, J., Ridgeway, C. L., Fisek, M. H., & Norman, R. Z. (1998). Prestige, the legitimation and delegitimation of power and order. American Sociological Review, 63(3), 379-405. Retrieved from

Boydstun, A. E., Bevan, S., & Thomas III, H. F. (2014). The importance of attention diversity and how to measure it. Policy Studies Journal, 42(2), 173-196. Retrieved from http://www.amber-

Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and public good. New York: Oxford University Press.

Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 99–118.

Dekker, R., & Scholten, P. (2017). Framing the immigration policy agenda: A qualitative comparative analysis of media effects on Dutch immigration policies. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 22(2), 202-222.

de Vreese, C. H., & Semetko, H. A. (2002). Cynical and engaged: Strategic campaign coverage, public opinion, and mobilization in a referendum. Communication Research, 29(6), 615-641.

Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.

Entman, R. M. (2003). Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion and US foreign policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hänggli, R., & Kriesi, H. (2012). Frame construction and frame promotion (Strategic framing choices). American Behavioral Scientist, 56(3), 260-278.

Jamaluddin Aziz. (2019). Retrieving trends and issues of penyiaran/broadcasting in Malaysian parliamentary debates from 1957 to 2018: A culturomics approach. Jurnal Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal of Communication, 35(4), 172–192.

Lawrence, R. G. (2000). Game framing issue: Tracking the strategy frame in public policy news. Political Communication, 17(2), 93-114.

Lee, N.-J., McLeod, D. M., & Shah, D. V. (2008). Framing policy debates: Issue dualism, journalistic frames, and opinions on controversial policy issues. Communication Research, 35(5), 695-718.

Lim, M. (2012). The league of thirteen: Media concentration in Indonesia. Participatory Media Lab by Arizona State University and Ford Foundation, 2. Retrieved from

Littlejohn, S. W. (2009). Encyclopedia of communication theory. US: Sage Publication.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oak: SAGE.

Osama Kanaker, Mohamed Oklah Abughazlih, & Mohd Faizal Kasmani. (2020). Media framing of minorities’ crisis: A study on Aljazeera and BBC News coverage of the Rohingya. Jurnal Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal of Communication, 36(2), 1–16.

Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10(1), 55–75.

Rahayu, Wahyono, B., Wendratama, E., Yusuf, I. A., Kurnia, N., Rianto, P., Adiputra, W. M., & Siregar, A. E. (2016). Membangun sistem komunikasi Indonesia: Terintegrasi, adaptif, dan demokratis. Yogyakarta: Pr2Media dan Yayasan Tifa.

Rianto, P., Rahayu, Yusuf, I. A., Wahyono, B., Zuhri, S., Cahyono, M. F., & Siregar, A. E. (2014). Kepemilikan dan intervesi siaran: Perampasan hak publik, dominasi dan bahaya media ditangan segelintir orang. Yogyakarta: PR2Media.

Setianto, Y. P. (2015). Media policy in the context of global media flows, the internet, and piracy: An historical analysis of media regulation in Indonesia. Jurnal Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal of Communication, 31(2), 371-388.

Shah, D. V., Domke, D., & Wackman, D. B. (2008). The effects of value-framing on political judgment and reasoning. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (p. 227). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Sudibyo, A. (2004). Ekonomi politik medai penyiaran. Yogyakarta: ISAI.

Thesen, G. (2013). When good news is scarce and bad news is good: Government responsibilities and opposition possibilities in political agenda-setting. European Journal of Political Research, 52 (364-389). 6765.2012.02075.x

Top-Site. (2020, April Saturday). Indonesian news media top site rank. Retrieved from

Valentino, N. A., Beckmann, M. N., & Buhr, T. A. (2001). A spiral of cynicism for some: The contingent effects of campaign news frames on participation and confidence in government. Political Communication, 18(4), 347–367.

van Aelst, P., & Walgrave, S. (2011). Minimal of massive? The political agenda setting power of the mass media according to different methods. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 295-313.

van der Pas, D. (2013). Making hay while the sun shines: Do parties only respond to media attention when the framing is right? The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19(1), 42-65.

Vliegenthart, R., & Walgrave, S. (2010). When media matter for politics: Partisan moderators of mass media influence on parliament in Belgium, 1993-2000. Party Politics, 17(3), 321-342. 322.

Wahyuni, H. I. (2006). Indonesia broadcasting policy: The limits of re-regulations to creat a democratic broadcasting system. In N. Prajanto (Ed.), Media komunikasi: Siapa mengorbankan siapa (pp. 13-19). Yogyakarta: Fisipol UGM.

Walgrave, S., & van Aelst, P. (2006). The contingency of the mass media’s political agenda setting power: Toward a preliminary theory. Journal of Communication, 56(1), 88-109.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

e-ISSN: 2289-1528