Framing Through Words: How Media Language Shapes Public Perception

In today’s era, mass media functions as an instrument of perception engineering rather than as a neutral tool, shaping how society understands reality through word choice, perspective, and emphasis in news coverage. Media outlets feel compelled to package news in specific ways for a variety of reasons, including political pressure, ownership interests, financial independence, and self-censorship. This phenomenon is closely related to the concept of framing in communication studies, namely the process of packaging news through the selection of certain language, perspectives, and emphases on an event. Entman (1993) explains that to frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described. In this context, Entman’s view shows that framing is not just a technical way of presenting news, but also a way for media to shape how the public understands, prioritizes, and judges the issue being discussed. As a result, framing can influence public moral perception by making certain actions appear more acceptable, more dangerous, more urgent, or more blameworthy than others.

One of the most visible forms of framing is the selection of specific diction or terminology in news reporting. For example, this is shown through the different ways Al Jazeera and The Times of Israel describe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially during the key events analyzed. Al Jazeera often uses terms such as “Israel’s war on Gaza” and describes Israeli military actions with loaded expressions like “brutal onslaught,” which places greater emphasis on Palestinian suffering and Israeli aggression. By contrast, The Times of Israel tends to describe Hamas as a “terrorist” group and refers to Israel’s response as a “military operation,” which gives the impression of a more strategic and legitimate defensive action. These differences show that word choice is not neutral, but part of a framing process that shapes how readers understand the conflict, assign responsibility, and judge the severity of the situation.

Besides choosing specific terms, the media also frequently use depersonalization and strategic anonymity to distance the audience from the emotional weight of the crime. In reporting cases of sexual violence against children, local-media outlets often frame underage victims as passive objects while foregrounding perpetrators or authorities as the main actors. For instance, in a local news report about a child sexual violence case such as “Nasib ABG Kalideres Dijanjikan Nikah oleh Sopir Odong-odong: dari Numpang Berujung Hamil 3 Bulan”, where the victim is represented primarily through the label “ABG” and through the storyline of being promised marriage, which shifts attention away from the fact that she is a child victim of exploitation. The news also draws heavily on the perpetrator’s explanation and the police’s response, so the child’s own perspective is further erased and the narrative becomes centered on adult voices rather than the victim’s experience. This framing makes the child appear as a passive figure in a personal tragedy rather than as a rights-bearing subject who has experienced sexual violence. Critical discourse analytic work applying Sara Mills’s model shows that such lexical and narrative choices marginalize child victims in the text and make their suffering appear secondary to the voices of institutions or suspects. This pattern effectively desensitizes public awareness regarding the systemic nature of child exploitation, shifting the narrative from a severe institutional failure and human rights violation into an isolated, privatized incident. When a child is mentioned only as an anonymous, objectified figure in the news, whose age, rights, and vulnerability are downplayed, the audience may unconsciously downgrade the sense of moral outrage, even though under many legal systems this remains a case of sexual assault on a child, the normalization or justification of such acts ultimately deprives the child victim of the legal and social protection to which they are absolutely entitled.

The media strategically uses language to construct either positive or negative images of individuals or groups by carefully selecting words, framing formats, and linguistic choices that shape public perception. This framing is not limited to coverage of international conflict; it also plays an important role in domestic and political issues that are close to everyday public life. Through framing and discourse techniques, journalists can emphasize certain traits, actions, or contexts while downplaying others, thereby guiding audiences to interpret a person or group in a particular light. For example, one study on digital media coverage of the 2025 demonstrations against the increase in DPR allowances found that reports mainly highlighted riots, violence, and property damage in cities such as Jakarta and Bandung, while giving less attention to the protesters’ social and economic grievances. News headlines often framed demonstrators as threats to public order rather than citizens expressing political demands. In this way, language becomes a subtle instrument of power through which the media can reinforce stereotypes, silence certain voices, and legitimize specific political or social positions.

Thus, it can be concluded that the use of language in mass media plays a major role in the framing process of news. Language does not merely report facts; it also constructs meaning, influences emotion, and directs the way society understands an event. In contexts ranging from conflict reporting in Gaza to the use of euphemisms for child sexual violence victims and the negative portrayal of demonstrations, sentence structure, and labels all shape who is seen as guilty, who is seen as innocent, and what is considered urgent or acceptable. Therefore, the public needs to develop media literacy and a critical attitude toward word choice, sentence structure, and labels used by the media, so as not to be easily swayed by constructions that may obscure reality.

Written by : Aisyah Amarilis Ramadhani & Balqis Fadwa Sabita

References

Arifah, A. R. & Rakhmawati, A. (2024). Narasi Korban Kekerasan Seksual Pada Anak Dalam Media Lokal: Analisis Wacana Kritis Sara Mills. Jurnal Aksara, 36(1), 151–162. https://aksara.kemendikdasmen.go.id/index.php/aksara/article/view/4134/0Cohen, S. (2025). News media framing of conflict from different perspectives: A comparative analysis of Al Jazeera and Times of Israel news coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from October 7th 2023 to January 2025. Erasmus University Thesis Repository. http://hdl.handle.net/2105/76747

Danso, S. (2025). Media and politics: investigating government interests, ownership influence and media independence in combating corruption in Ghana. Cogent Social Science, 11(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2025.2483391

Dharta, F. Y. (2024). The influence of mass media on public opinion formation: Comparative analysis of news framing techniques. The Journal of Academic Science, 1(2), 43–52. http://thejoas.com/index.php/thejoas/article/view/7

Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/209409849_Framing_Toward_Clarification _of_A_Fractured_Paradigm

Nurjanah, M. & Surtrisno. (2025). Analisis Framing Media Digital Terhadap Pemberitaan Demonstrasi di Indonesia. Medium : Jurnal Ilmiah Fakultas Ilmu Komunikasi, 13(2), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.25299/medium.v13i2.24996