Framing Food Safety and Governance Risks in Indonesia’s Free Nutritious Meals Programme: An Analysis of Detik.com Coverage

Abstract

Abstrak: Artikel bertujuan menganalisis bagaimana Detik.com membingkai ketegangan antara tujuan pemenuhan gizi dan masalah implementasi MBG melalui model framing Robert M. Entman. Data terdiri atas lima berita Detik.com yang terbit pada Januari, Februari, Maret, April, dan Juni 2026, dipilih secara purposif berdasarkan kata kunci “Keracunan MBG”, “Keracunan”, “Makan Bergizi Gratis”, dan “MBG”. Analisis dilakukan melalui empat perangkat framing, yaitu pendefinisian masalah, penetapan penyebab, penilaian moral, dan rekomendasi penyelesaian. Hasil menemukan tiga konfigurasi bingkai utama. Pertama, pemberitaan mengonstruksi eskalasi risiko keamanan pangan dari insiden lokal menjadi persoalan sistemik melalui penonjolan jumlah korban, temuan makanan tidak layak, serta pengulangan kasus lintas daerah. Kedua, atribusi tanggung jawab bergeser dari kesalahan teknis menuju kelemahan tata kelola kelembagaan, meliputi sanitasi, distribusi, kompetensi sumber daya manusia, fragmentasi kewenangan, dan konsentrasi pemasok. Ketiga, penindakan administratif berupa suspend, pencabutan sertifikat, penghentian dana, dan evaluasi diposisikan sebagai mekanisme pemulihan legitimasi program. Temuan ini menunjukkan bahwa kritik media terhadap implementasi MBG tidak serta-merta mendelegitimasi kebijakan, tetapi justru menegaskan kapasitas korektif negara. 

Abstract:  This article aims to analyze how Detik.com frames the tension between the goal of meeting nutritional needs and the challenges of implementing the MBG using Robert M. Entman’s framing model. The data consists of five Detik.com news articles published in January, February, March, April, and June 2026, selected purposefully based on the keywords “MBG Poisoning,” “Poisoning,” “Free Nutritious Meals,” and “MBG.” The analysis was conducted using four framing devices: problem definition, cause attribution, moral judgment, and recommended solutions. The results identified three main framing configurations. First, the news coverage constructed an escalation of food safety risks from local incidents into a systemic issue by highlighting the number of victims, findings of unfit food, and recurring cases across regions. Second, the attribution of responsibility shifted from technical errors to weaknesses in institutional governance, including sanitation, distribution, human resource competence, fragmentation of authority, and supplier concentration. Third, administrative actions such as suspensions, certificate revocations, funding cuts, and evaluations are positioned as mechanisms for restoring the program’s legitimacy. These findings indicate that media criticism of the MBG’s implementation does not automatically delegitimize the policy but rather affirms the state’s capacity for corrective action