The Voice of Academics on Omnibus Law on YouTube: Undermining Public Transparency
Main Article Content
Abstract
Agenda-building is concerned with negotiating interests in social systems and forces structured and carried out by a group of people. This study explores the agenda-building of the academics to intervene in the Job Creation Act (UUCK) policies that are delivered through YouTube. UUCK is an omnibus law, regulations made based on the compilation of rules with different substances and levels. UUCK in Indonesia was passed on October 5, 2020, with the main aim of simplifying regulations to improve the investment climate in Indonesia. However, the law has been opposed by many groups of people, starting from workers, students, academics, NGOs, and environmental activists, because the law is considered to be not pro-people. This study analysed dialogue texts about UUCK using agenda-building theory in 12 dialogue videos with a total duration of 25 hours and 40 minutes on YouTube uploaded in 2020. This research shows that YouTube facilitates public voices represented by academics amid positive narratives about UUCK that are spread in the mass media and the internet. The study has found four significant narratives within the pros and cons discussions of UUCK on YouTube that were built by academics. These four significant narratives are employment issues, regulatory issues, investment, economy and business and environmental issues. The UUCK sentiment was dominated by the rejection of UUCK, as mentioned above. The findings of this study indicate a firm rejection of UUCK, with scientific arguments from academics showing that the government has not built a transparent discussion regarding UUCK. This study recommends a more transparent, open and argumentative discussion from all UUCK stakeholders to minimise community friction.
Article Details
Authors who publish with Jurnal Komunikasi Ikatan Sarjana Komunikasi Indonesia agrees to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
References
Alika, R. (2020). Ramai Penolakan Omnibus Law Cipta Kerja Sepekan Jelang Pengesahan. https://katadata.co.id/ameidyonasution/berita/5f749666613fd/ramai-penolakan-omnibus-law-cipta-kerja-sepekan-jelang-pengesahan.
Asosiasi Penyelenggara Jasa Internet Indonesia. (2020). Laporan Survei Internet APJII 2019 - 2020. (https://apjii.or.id/survei)
Bekkers, V., Beunders, H., Edwards, A., & Moody, R. (2011). New media, micromobilization, and political agenda setting: Crossover effects in political mobilization and media usage. The Information Society, 27(4), 209-219.
Brasil, F. G., & Jones, B. D. (2020). Agenda setting: Policy change and policy dynamics A brief introduction. Revista de Administração Pública, 54, 1486-1497.
Camaj, L. (2018). Blurring the boundaries between journalism and activism: A transparency agenda-building case study from Bulgaria. Journalism, 19(7), 994-1010.
Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1971). The politics of agenda-building: An alternative perspective for modern democratic theory. The Journal of Politics, 33(4), 892-915.
Cobb, R., Ross, J. K., & Ross, M. H. (1976). Agenda building as a comparative political process. American political science review, 70(1), 126-138.
Conway, B. A., Kenski, K., & Wang, D. (2015). The rise of Twitter in the political campaign: Searching for intermedia agenda-setting effects in the presidential primary. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(4), 363-380.
Denham, B. E. (2004). Sports Illustrated, the mainstream press and the enactment of drug policy in Major League Baseball: A study in agenda-building theory. Journalism, 5(1), 51-68.
Denham, B. E. (2010). Toward conceptual consistency in studies of agenda-building processes: A scholarly review. The Review of Communication, 10(4), 306-323.
Dokumen Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat dpr.go.id/dokakd/dokumen/BALEG-RJ-20200605-100224-2372.pdf).
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. McQuail's reader in mass communication theory, 390-397.
Fraksi Rakyat Indonesia, 2020. Kertas Posisi Fraksi Rakyat Indonesia (FRI): 12 Alasan Menolak Omnibus Law RUU Cilaka (#Cilaka12) igj.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/12-ALASAN-MENOLAK-OMNIBUS-LAW-RUU-CILAKA.pdf).
Hasfi, N. (2017). Politik Keshalehan Personal dalam Pemilihan Presiden 2014 dalam Media Sosial Twitter. Jurnal Pemikiran Sosiologi Volume, 4(2).
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Jungherr, A. (2016). Twitter use in election campaigns: A systematic literature review. Journal of information technology & politics, 13(1), 72-91.
Kim, J. Y., Xiang, Z., & Kiousis, S. (2011). Agenda building effects by 2008 presidential candidates on global media coverage and public opinion. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 109-111.
Kiousis, S., Ragas, M. W., Kim, J. Y., Schweickart, T., Neil, J., & Kochhar, S. (2016). Presidential agenda building and policymaking: Examining linkages across three levels. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10(1), 1-17.
Lange, P. G. (2007). Publicly private and privately public: Social networking on YouTube. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 13(1), 361-380.
Lariscy, R., Avery, E., Sweetser, K. D., & Howes, P. (2009). An examination of the role of online social media in journalists’ source mix. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 314-316.
Lasut, B. A., Santosa, H. P., & Hasfi, N. (2021). Aktivisme Digital Fandom ARMY Indonesia dalam Menanggapi Isu RUU Cipta Kerja (Omnibus Law) di Twitter. Interaksi Online, 9(4), 84-95.
Lasut, B. A., Santosa, H. P., & Hasfi, N. (2021). Aktivisme Digital Fandom ARMY Indonesia dalam Menanggapi Isu RUU Cipta Kerja (Omnibus Law) di Twitter. Interaksi Online, 9(4), 84-95.
Lim, M. (2017a). Freedom to hate: social media, algorithmic enclaves, and the rise of tribal nationalism in Indonesia. Critical Asian Studies, 49(3), 411-427.
Lim, M. (2017b). Klik yang tak memantik: aktivisme media sosial di Indonesia. Jurnal Komunikasi Indonesia, 35-50.
Linvill, D. L., Boatwright, B. C., Grant, W. J., & Warren, P. L. (2019). “The Russians Are Hacking My Brain!” investigating Russia's internet research agency twitter tactics during the 2016 United States presidential campaign. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 292-300.
McCombs, M. E., & Guo, L. (2014). Agenda-setting influence of the media in the public sphere. The handbook of media and mass communication theory, 251-268.Agenda-setting influence of the media in the public sphere. The handbook of media and mass communication theory, 251-268.
Morales, E. A., Schultz, C. J. P., & Landreville, K. D. (2021). The Impact of 280 Characters: An Analysis of Trump’s Tweets and Television News Through the Lens of Agenda Building. Electronic News, 15(1-2), 21-37.
Morales, E. A., Schultz, C. J. P., & Landreville, K. D. (2021). The Impact of 280 Characters: An Analysis of Trump’s Tweets and Television News Through the Lens of Agenda Building. Electronic News, 15(1-2), 21-37.
O’Boyle, J. (2019). Twitter diplomacy between India and the United States: Agenda-building analysis of tweets during presidential state visits. Global media and communication, 15(1), 121-134.
Parmelee, J. H. (2014). The agenda-building function of political tweets. New media & society, 16(3), 434-450.
Ragas, M. W., & Kiousis, S. (2010). Intermedia agenda-setting and political activism: MoveOn. org and the 2008 presidential election. Mass Communication and Society, 13(5), 560-583.
Saffer, A. J., Yang, A., Morehouse, J., & Qu, Y. (2019). It takes a village: A social network approach to NGOs’ international public engagement. American Behavioral Scientist, 63(12), 1708-1727.
Sayre, B., Bode, L., Shah, D., Wilcox, D., & Shah, C. (2010). Agenda setting in a digital age: Tracking attention to California Proposition 8 in social media, online news and conventional news. Policy & Internet, 2(2), 7-32.
Seethaler, J., & Melischek, G. (2019). Twitter as a tool for agenda building in election campaigns? The case of Austria. Journalism, 20(8), 1087-1107.
Selvi, A. F. (2019). Qualitative content analysis. In The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 440-452). Routledge.
Serrano, Bernaola I. (2022). Effects of the 2008 Crisis on Agenda Building: Internally Originated Content Versus External Dependence. Journalism Practice, 1-18.
Shumate, M., & Lipp, J. (2008). Connective collective action online: An examination of the hyperlink network structure of an NGO issue network. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(1), 178-201.
Vu, H. T. (2020). Agenda Building. The International Encyclopaedia of Media Psychology, 1-5.
Vu, H. T., Blomberg, M., Seo, H., Liu, Y., Shayesteh, F., & Do, H. V. (2021). Social media and environmental activism: Framing climate change on Facebook by global NGOs. Science Communication, 43(1), 91-115.
We are social. (2021). https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-indonesia).
Yang, A., & Saffer, A. (2018). NGOs’ advocacy in the 2015 refugee crisis: A study of agenda building in the digital age. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(4), 421-439.