<![CDATA[Online media construct distinct interpretations of diplomatic initiatives through selective reporting, making Indonesia’s response to the 2026 Iran–Israel–United States conflict an important case for examining foreign policy narratives. This study aimed to compare how Detik.com, Kompas.com, and CNNIndonesia.com framed Indonesia’s diplomatic position, mediation proposals, and recommendations for conflict resolution. A descriptive qualitative design within a constructivist paradigm was employed using Robert N. Entman’s framing model, which encompasses problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and treatment recommendation. Nine articles, comprising three from each outlet, were purposively selected from coverage published between February 28 and April 30, 2026. Data were collected through documentation and a literature review, while source triangulation and repeated textual analysis were employed to enhance the credibility of the findings. The findings revealed that Detik.com emphasized cautious realism, technical requirements for mediation, and structural capacity. Kompas.com shifted from affirming official diplomatic narratives to critically scrutinizing national interests and the legitimacy of mediation. CNNIndonesia.com highlighted external validation, contradictions surrounding Indonesia’s participation in the Board of Peace, and strategic ambiguity. Across the three outlets, mediation was framed in terms of feasibility, acceptance, and unequal international power relations. These differences suggest that source selection and editorial emphasis contribute to the construction of competing diplomatic realities. The study concludes that national online media actively negotiate the legitimacy of diplomatic initiatives, underscoring the need for clearer government communication and greater critical media literacy.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
