INFORMATION SUBSIDY DURING THE PANDEMIC: a case in Indonesian journalism

This research analyzes the subsidy information during the covid-19 pandemic from the Indonesian Government’s press release to mass media news. Information subsidies are a compelling practice to study since they describe how information flows in society. This practice becomes unavoidable, especially during the pandemic, which implies restrictions on activities and social distancing. This research used framing analysis and quantitative methods. The results indicated practices of information subsidies with a total of 95.65% from the Indonesian government press release samples published by mass media in the form of news in the same period. The analysis showed no significant difference between information from government press releases and news on detik.com through analysis of dominant frame, episodic and thematic framing, emotional appeal, gain-loss framing, sourcing news, and news tone. It is feared that the practice of information subsidies will lead to the degeneration of social responsibility from the mass media and eliminate the data verification process in journalism.

Keywords
Framing analysis; News; Press release; Subsidies information

Category	Type	Definition
Dominant frame	Basic information	Factual information or updates on covid-19 in terms of numbers of fatalities, confirmed cases, or WHO actions.
	Preventive information	Good behaviors preventing the spread of covid-19 including hand washing and temperature measurement.
	Treatment information	Treatment options include what to do and where to go.
	Medical research	New medical findings, e.g., vaccine efficacy or virus mutations.
	Social context	Position of covid-19 in a societal context, e.g., impact on social activities.
	Economic context	Position of covid-19 in an economic context, e.g., tourism.
	Political context	Position of covid-19 in a political context, e.g., diplomatic ties.
	Personal stories	Experiences of patients/families.
	Others
Episodic & thematic framing	Episodic	Focus on: (1) the issue; (2) trends over time; (3) the public realm – the environment and public institutions; (4) how to fix the conditions that led to the problem; (5) addressing the audience as citizens or stakeholders who have an active role in problem-solving; (6) finding solutions through better policies; (7) broader social and institutional responsibilities for problems.
Episodic & thematic framing	Thematic	Focus on: (1) the individual; (2) a single event; (3) the private realm (an individual’s psychology or behaviors within a family); (4) how to fix the person experiencing the problem; (5) addressing the audience as consumers; (6) finding solutions to problems through better information; (7) individual responsibilities for problems.
Emotional appeal	Fear	An expression of agitation or anxiety caused by the presence of danger.
	Anger	An expression of displeasure or hostility.
	Satisfaction	An expression of gratification of a need, achievement of a goal, or overcoming an adversity.
	Sadness	An expression of sorrow or unhappiness.
	Reassurance	An expression of restored confidence.
Gain-Loss frames	Gain frame	Focusing on the gains that resulted from the pandemic or response efforts.
	Loss frame	Focusing on the losses that resulted from the pandemic or response efforts.
	Neutral	No judgment.
Sourcing news	Government officials
	Corporate official
	Victim/ family member
	Other organizations
News tone	Positive tone	Positive feelings toward the Government’s efforts.
	Negative tone	Negative feelings toward the Government’s efforts.
	Neutral tone	No judgment.

Dominant Frame	Group				Sig	χ
	news (detik.com)		government
	No	Yes	No	Yes
Basic information	68 (39.1%)	19 (10.9%)	72 (41.4%)	15 (8.6%)	0.444	0.585
Preventive information	56 (32.2%)	31 (17.8%)	55 (31.6%)	32 (18.4%)	0.875	0.025
Treatment information	79 (45.4%)	8 (4.6%)	80 (46%)	7 (4%)	0.787	0.073
Medical research	82 (47.1%)	5 (2.9%)	83 (47.7%)	4 (2.3%)	0.732	0.116
Social context	44 (25.3%)	43 (24.7%)	43 (24.7%)	44 (25.3%)	0.879	0.023
Economic context	62 (35.6%)	25 (14.4%)	63 (36.2%)	24 (13.8%)	0.866	0.028

Framing	Group				Sig	χ
	detik.com		government
	No	Yes	No	Yes
Episodic	26 (14.9%)	61 (35.1%)	28 (16.1%)	59 (33.9%)	0.743	0.107
Thematic	56 (32.2%)	31 (17.8%)	56 (32.2%)	31 (17.8%)	-	-

Emotional Appeal	Group				Sig	χ
	news (detik.com)		government
	No	Yes	No	Yes
Fear	45 (29.5%)	42 (24.1%)	51 (29.3%)	36 (20.7%)	0.360	0.837
Anger	80 (46%)	7 (4%)	77 (44.3%)	10 (5.7%)	0.444	0.587
Satisfaction	69 (39.7%)	18 (10.3%)	66 (37.9%)	21 (12.1%)	0.585	0.297
Sadness	83 (47.7%)	4 (2.3%)	80 (46%)	7 (4%)	0.350	0.873
Reassurance	63 (36.2%)	24 (13.8%)	57 (32.8%)	30 (17.2%)	0.326	0.967
Neutral	74 (42.5%)	13 (7.5%)	77 (44.3%)	10 (5.7%)	0.502	0.451

Gain Loss Frame	Group				Sig	χ
	news (detik.com)		(government)
	No	Yes	No	Yes
Gain Frame	84 (48.3%)	3 (1.7%)	84 (48.3%)	3 (1.7%)	-	-
Loss Frame	36 (20.7%)	51 (29.3%)	36 (20.7%)	51 (29.3%)	-	-
Neutral	56 (32.2%)	31 (17.8%)	56 (32.2%)	31 (17.8%)	-	-

Sourcing News	Group				Sig	χ
	news (detik.com)		(government)
	No	Yes	No	Yes
Indonesian Government	9 (5.2%)	78 (44.8%)	9 (5.2%)	78 (44.8%)	-	-
Local Government	86 (49.4%)	1 (0.6%)	86 (49.4%)	1 (0.6%)	-	-
Corporates	87	-	87	-	-	-
Victim / Family of victim	87	-	87	-	-	-
Other organization	80 (46%)	7 (4%)	80 (46%)	7 (4%)	-	-
Non-Organization	84 (48.3%)	3 (1.7%)	84 (48.3%)	3 (1.7%)	-	-
Health experts	86 (49.4%)	1 (0.6%)	86 (49.4%)	1 (0.6%)	-	-

News tone	Group				Sig	χ
	news (detik.com)		(government)
	No	Yes	No	Yes
Positive tone	26 (14.9%)	61 (35.1%)	17 (9.8%)	70 (40.2%)	0.114	2.502
Negative tone	87	-	87	-	-
Neutral tone	61 (35.1%)	26 (14.9%)	70 (40.2%)	17 (9.8%)	0.114	2.502

Associação Brasileira de Pesquisadores em Jornalismo (SBPJor) Secretaria da SBPJor, Faculdade de Comunicação, Universidade de Brasília(UnB)., ICC Norte, Subsolo, Sala ASS 633 - cep: 70910-900, Brasília - DF / Brasil - Brasília - DF - Brazil
E-mail: sbpjor.dir.adm@gmail.com

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Desk Review Editor: Laura Storch