BANDUNG, 2025 — A study from Padjadjaran University has uncovered how two major media outlets, Kompas.com and Tempo.co, framed coverage of the All Eyes on Papua movement. The research found significant differences in how they construct reality, define the problem, and offer solutions to the conflict over customary forest grabbing by the Awyu and Moi tribes in Papua. The research was conducted by Resti Rahmawati (a Communication Science student) and her supervisors, Ilham Gemiharto and Samson CMS.
This study was initiated in response to the increasingly widespread phenomenon of digital activism. The researchers sought to understand how mainstream media present these complex environmental, political, and humanitarian issues to the public. The goal, in addition to enriching the scientific literature, was also to strengthen media literacy among the public. By understanding these differences in narratives, it is hoped that the public will be more critical and gain a more complete picture of the media’s role in overseeing government policies and advocating for social justice.
This research used a qualitative method with Robert N. Entman’s framing model analysis. This model helped researchers analyze four key aspects of news reporting: problem definition, cause identification, moral considerations, and recommended solutions. Data were collected from relevant articles published by both media outlets between May 31 and June 22, 2024.
The findings revealed two distinct narratives. Kompas.com tended to frame the “All Eyes on Papua” issue as an environmental and development issue. Their reporting highlighted the threat of deforestation and the need for a balance between development and the rights of indigenous peoples. The government’s perspective was also dominant in Kompas.com’s reporting. Tempo.co, on the other hand, framed the issue as a political and humanitarian issue. This media outlet highlighted human rights violations, criticized government policies deemed detrimental to indigenous peoples, and even called the practices of palm oil companies a form of ecocide.
Although both outlets reported on the struggles of the Awyu and Moi tribes, these differences in narratives were key. Kompas.com emphasized the need for government involvement in returning customary lands, while Tempo.co focused more on the urgency of changing government policies to protect customary forests. Based on these findings, the researchers recommend that the media present more diverse perspectives and provide greater space for the voices of indigenous communities.
This research not only contributes to communication studies but also has a tangible impact. The findings are relevant to global commitments to SDG 15 (Terrestrial Ecosystems), as it highlights the importance of preserving customary forests, as well as SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Resilient Institutions), by promoting information transparency and social justice. This research underwent a rigorous peer-review process, was accepted and approved in January 2025, and was officially published in Jurnal Komversal: Jurnal Komunikasi Universal in February 2025.
The full article is available at:
http://media.unpad.ac.id/files/publikasi/2025/rpm_20250205215048_6162.pdf
Authors: Ridha Amalia, Nadziva Shaqeena, and Moh. Fikri Ardinata Fuadi
