Ade Devia Pradipta, Putu Titah Kawitri Resen

Audiences’ Perception of Rape Euphemism In the Sexual Violence News in Online Media

Introduction

Audiences’ perception of rape euphemism in the sexual violence news in online media . Examine public perception of rape euphemisms in online sexual violence news. While polite language is preferred, some word choices may inadvertently perpetuate perpetrator dominance. Key media insights.

Abstract

Online media is a form of mass media that is close to society, especially in the era of increasingly massive development of information and communication technology. One type of information that the public is interested in in online media is news, especially cases of sexual violence such as rape. Rape is a serious crime because it harms the victim from physical and psychological aspects. Reporting about rape incidents generally applies euphemisms for verbs that represent heinous acts. In some cases of rape, the criminal act is replaced with several words such as "digagahi", "dicabuli", "dirudapaksa", even if the perpetrator is more than one person, the word choice used is "digilir". The aim of this research is to describe public perceptions regarding the replacement of the word rape in reporting about sexual violence in online media. The results of this research found that respondents felt that it was important for the media to replace the word rape because it made the news more polite and more comfortable to read. The pronouns most frequently read by respondents were molested and fucked. Furthermore, this research also found that some word choices actually perpetuate the dominance of perpetrators, who are mostly male, over victims, who are usually women or minors.

Review

This study tackles a highly relevant and sensitive topic: audiences’ perceptions of rape euphemisms in online media news. Given the pervasive nature of online media and the serious implications of sexual violence reporting, investigating how language choices are received by the public is crucial. The abstract effectively highlights the problem, identifying specific Indonesian euphemisms used ("digagahi," "dicabuli," "dirudapaksa," "digilir") and noting their potential impact. The initial finding that respondents value polite language for comfort is interesting, as is the subsequent, more critical observation that some euphemisms may inadvertently perpetuate perpetrator dominance. This demonstrates an attempt to move beyond a simplistic understanding of "politeness" in media reporting. However, the abstract presents several limitations, primarily stemming from a lack of methodological detail. While findings are presented, the reader is left without any understanding of how "public perceptions" were gathered. Information regarding the research design (e.g., qualitative or quantitative, survey or focus groups), sample size, demographics of respondents, and the analytical approach is conspicuously absent. This makes it challenging to assess the robustness and generalizability of the stated results. Furthermore, the abstract notes that "respondents felt it was important for the media to replace the word rape because it made the news more polite and more comfortable to read," yet also states that "some word choices actually perpetuate the dominance of perpetrators." The relationship or potential tension between these two findings is not explored, leaving a gap in understanding the nuances of audience perception. In conclusion, this research addresses a vital area concerning media ethics, victim representation, and audience engagement with sensitive news. The potential contribution of understanding how euphemisms shape public perception is significant. To strengthen its impact, the authors should significantly elaborate on their methodology, providing clear details about data collection and analysis. A deeper discussion is also warranted to reconcile or explore the complexities between the findings on politeness and the perpetuation of perpetrator dominance, perhaps linking these perceptions to broader societal attitudes or media literacy levels. With these revisions, the paper could offer a more rigorous and insightful contribution to the field.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.