Mini Research

CONVERSATION ANALYSIS IN DEBATE

(The Debate Analysis of Sexy Killers Documentary Video)

Amelia F. Sitepu
8186112016
English Applied Linguistic Study Program
Postgraduate of State University of Medan
Indonesia
ameliafsitepu8@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

This research deals with one of Discourse topic which is Tools of

Inquiry - Conversations. This research was conducted in order to
analyze how the participants manage their interactions and how many
sides do the participants take during the conversations in the debate.
The data was taken from the newspaper which the headline discuss
about the Sexy Killers documentary video. The data will be anaylze
based on the value, beliefs, and objects play role in the conversations.

Keywords : Tools of Inquiry – Conversations, Debate, Sexy Killers

Documentary Video

I. INTRODUCTION

Conversation is an exchange of thoughts and ideas between two or more people which
occurs when people cooperate with each other in order to introduce and sustain a single focus of
attention. Gee (2011) Conversation is all the talk and writing that has gone on in a specific social
group or in a society at large around a major theme, debate, or motif. The conversation which
will be analyzed in this paper is the conversation in debate. As one of the tool of inquiry,
 conversation can be used to analyze the sides people took during the conversations, the aim of
this analysis is to find out how many sides have taken by the participants and figure out the
participants’ backgrounds based on their speech. Which Gee has mentioned before in his book
“To know about these Conversation is to know about the various sides one can take in debates
about the issues and what sorts of people are usually on each sides”.

Several researches studying Conversation has been conducted before. Antaki (2009)
Conversation can reveal such working interactions, check them, correct them or go beyond them.
Peräkylä and Vehviläinen (2003) found that Conversations can discover things about the
interaction that the practitioners did not suspect or which have affects or functions which don’t
figure in. According to Gee (2011), there are some reasons for doing Conversation analysis, such
as : to know what different sides or poles are in such Conversations, to know how many sides do
the participants take during the conversations and to figure out the participants’ background
based on their speech.

II. METHOD

This study analyzed the sides which the participant took during the debate. The analysis
investigates the debate of a viral documentary video which has been uploaded in Youtube, on April
14th 2019, three days before the day of Presidential Election in Indonesia. This documentary video
revealed some stories of coal mining in Borneo, Indonesia. The data were taken from Newspaper
and Youtube channel. The link of the data is: http://www.thejakartapost.com/tag/coal-mining ,
http://www.thejakartapost.com/tag/sexy-killers, and http://www.detikhot.com/tag/sexy-killers.
From the youtube channel, the data was transcribed and analyzed based on the sides which divided
into three sides : Pros, Modarates and Cons.

III. DATA ANALYSIS

1) Data
(The Jakarta Post: Indramayu Halts “Sexy Killers” Screening for Alleged Hate Speech)

HINDUN MULAIKA – Climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace Indonesia

MERAH JOHANSYAH – Executive director of the Mining Advocacy Network (Jatam)
BOY THOHIR – brother of ERICK THOHIR, The CEO of Mining Company in Borneo
LUHUT BINSAR PANJAITAN – The Minister of Indonesian Maritim / One of the
owner of Coal Mining
DANDHY DWI LAKSONO – Director of Sexy Killers
MERAH JOHANSYAH – Executive director of the Mining Advocacy Network
UJANG KAMARUDIN – Executive Director of Indonesian Political Review
ARIE KERITING – Artist, Comedian / Jokowi’s supporter
ANGGA DWI SASONGKO – Director
COKI PARDEDE – Artist, Comedian

HINDUN MULAIKA
Sexy Killers exposed how the country’s political elite continued to design politics favoring
the coal industry, despite the environmental and social impacts associated with the fossil
fuel. It has nothing to do with the elections. This was published three days before the day of
electional is kind of warning to both candidates. Ever since the video was published there
are 6.5 viewers, it means the people are aware of this. The regulations aren’t there for these
projects to abide by. Instead, the regulations are made in such a way that these projects can
continue to happen. Both of them (the video makers) are the people who care of the
environment. They have been travelling 20 Provinces of this country.

BOY THOHIR
Maksudnya film Sexy Killers ini kredibel enggak? Menurut saya, kalian (Wartawan) mesti
kritis juga, kalian dengar saya ngomong gini, pasti berpikir “Bener gak Pak Boy ini?”, mesti
kritis. Kita perlu kritis juga sama film itu: siapa yang buat? Ini kepentingannya apa? Dan
yang mesti dilihat kontribusi kita pada negara dan perekomonian seberapa besar.

LUHUT B. PANJAITAN
Tidak benar itu. Kurang kerjaan itu.

DANDHY D. LAKSONO
Saya baru akan merespon kalau nanti Pak Luhut sudah mengomentari substansi filmnya.
Jika hanya berkomentar “enggak bener, atau kurang kerjaan”. Saya serahkan responnya
kepada penonton yang lain. Yang kedua, agar saya juga tahu, beliau merespon sebagai
pejabat publik yang membuat keputusan-keputusan di bidang energi, atau sebagai
pemegang saham perusahaan energi dari hulu hingga hilir?

MERAH JOHANSYAH
Kami anggap [ respon luhut ] sebagai reaksi sebagai seorang pengusaha batu bara yang
panik. Jika Luhut bersikap sebagai seorang menteri, Luhut seharusnya memberikan
komentar soal bagaimana mencari solusi atas masalah tambang, bukan berkomentar “tidak
benar dan tidak jelas”. Dasar dia mengatakan tidak benar itu dari mana? Apakah dia sudah
menonton film itu atau belum? Karena itu film dokumenter dari basis data yang
dipertanggung jawabkan. Bahkan itu yang terjadi di lapangan dan di tingkat masyarakat.
Dia langsung reaksioner gitu, kan. Karena bukti film Sexy Killers tak bisa dibantah.

Karena berdasarkan catatan JATAM, Luhut memiliki banyak usaha pertambangan batu
bara. Di daerah Kalimantan Timur saja, Luhut mempunyai 50 lubang tambang batu bara.
Kalau berani, kami [JATAM] tantang dia datang dan bertemu dengan masyarakat yang
menjadi korban tambangnya dia. Akibat lokasi pertambangannya di daerah Kecamatan
Sanga-Sanga, Kabupaten Kutai Kartenegara, Kalimantan Timur itu mengakibatkan
kerusakan tanah warga, dan jalan disekitarnya pun menjadi amblas.

Luhut tidak bisa mengomentari film tersebut lantaran dirinya memiliki konflik kepentingan
dalam tubuh pemerintahan. Terlebih saat ini Luhut menjadi seorang menteri dan tim sukses
Paslon 01, Jokowi-Ma’ruf. Seharusnya Luhut sebagai menteri, membersihkan adanya
konflik kepentingan dan konflik pengaruh di tubuh pemerintahan. Bukan malah menjabat di
dalam pemerintahan yang juga melakukan pengambilan keputusan terkait bisnis tambang.

Seharusnya kasus pertambangan yang ada di film Sexy Killers ditinjak lanjuti oleh pihak
yang berwenang, seperti Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU), United Nation
Against Corruption (UNAC) yang berada dibawah Perserikatan Bangsa Bangsa (PBB) dan
juga pemerintah. Kedepannya, diharapkan tidak menjadikan seseorang yang memiliki
konflik kepentingan sebagai seorang menteri lagi. Seperti Luhut yang menjadi Menko
Maritim dan juga sebagai pengusaha batu bara.
UJANG KOMARUDIN
Luhut yang notabene seorang menteri, sebaiknya merespon dengan bukti bukan dengan
pernyataan. Agar publik tahu yang sesungguhnya. Publik perlu tahu apa yang terjadi dengan
kasus penguasaan sumber daya alam yang dikuasai oleh para pejabat dalam film tersebut.
Luhut bisa mengambil langkah hukum jika isi film tersebut memang tidak benar. Jika film
tersebut mengandung unsur tidak benar atau fitnah. Luhut bisa lapot ke pihak yang
berwenang.

ARIE KERITING
Nonton film sebentar lalu menjadi golput dan merasa lebih baik? Sementara di kejauhan
ada anak kecil naik turun gunung demi bisa sekolah dan memperbaiki kualitas hidup
keluarganya. Di pelosok bahkan tidak ada sekolah untuk mereka. Pilih sosok yang hadir
untuk mereka. Udah kalo gak mau milih ya gak milih aja. Tapi asal tahu juga, beberapa
orang memilih bukan untuk kepentingan dirinya sendiri. Seandainya orang tahu rasanya
punya banyak harapan bagi kemajuan untuk daerahnya yang lama dikesampingkan.

ANGGA DWIMAS SASONGKO

Udeh kalo mau milih ya milih aja. Gak perlu prejudice sama orang. Demokrasi gak cuma
soal ikutan konser, tapi juga paham orang lain punya pendapat. Suara-suara yang berusaha
melegetimasi film yang kau maksud itu brief dari pemangku kepentingan. Jangan kira kita-
kita ini bodoh dan gak tau. Apa kau bagian dari itu?

COKI PARDEDE
Yang paling serem dari Sexy Killers adalah orang pada maksa kita buat nonton film itu,
dan kalo kesimpulannya gak sama ama mereka dianggap cupu. Haaaaaa.....

Dr. ACHMAD YURIANTO

Dalam video berdurasi 1 jam 29 menit itu, mengangkat juga soal isu kesehatan. Terutama
kesehatan paru yang dialami sejumlah orang yang tinggal di dekat Pembangkit Listrik
Tenaga Uap (PLTU) salah satunya PLTU Panau di Palu. Butuh kajian untuk memastikan
kaitannya dengan kanker. Tidak secepat itu kalo kanker, kajiannya harus dalam. Kalo
misalnya disebut PLTU menyebabkan kanker, semuanya kanker dong? Perlu kajian. Oleh
karena itu kita minta teman-teman dari lingkungan hidup untuk secara ketat mengontrol
kualitas udara yang muncul dari wilayah kepabrikan ini. Kami yang menentukan udara
yang bersih begini, kalian yang mengawasi, kalau enggak bener ya Anda yang tegur.

2) Analysis

SIDES
Pros
It has nothing to do with the elections.
Ever since the video was published there are 6.5 viewers,
1. Hindun Malaka it means the people are aware of this.
Both of them (the video makers) are the people who care
of the environment.
Kami anggap [ respon luhut ] sebagai reaksi sebagai
seorang pengusaha batu bara yang panik.
Dia langsung reaksioner gitu, kan. Karena bukti film
2. Merah Johansah Sexy Killers tak bisa dibantah.
Kalau berani, kami [JATAM] tantang dia datang dan
bertemu dengan masyarakat yang menjadi korban
tambangnya dia.
Udeh kalo mau milih ya milih aja. Gak perlu prejudice
sama orang.
3. Angga D. Sasongko Suara-suara yang berusaha melegetimasi film yang kau
maksud itu brief dari pemangku kepentingan.
Jangan kira kita-kita ini bodoh dan gak tau.
Moderates
Saya baru akan merespon kalau nanti Pak Luhut sudah
mengomentari substansi filmnya.
Yang kedua, agar saya juga tahu, beliau merespon
sebagai pejabat publik yang membuat keputusan-
1. Dandy D. Laksono keputusan di bidang energi, atau sebagai pemegang
saham perusahaan energi dari hulu hingga hilir?
Luhut tidak bisa mengomentari film tersebut lantaran
dirinya memiliki konflik kepentingan dalam tubuh
pemerintahan.
Terlebih saat ini Luhut menjadi seorang menteri dan tim
sukses Paslon 01, Jokowi-Ma’ruf.
Luhut yang notabene seorang menteri, sebaiknya
2. Ujang Komarudin merespon dengan bukti bukan dengan pernyataan.
Luhut bisa mengambil langkah hukum jika isi film
tersebut memang tidak benar.
Butuh kajian untuk memastikan kaitannya dengan
3. dr.Achmad Yurianto kanker. Tidak secepat itu kalo kanker, kajiannya harus
dalam.
 Oleh karena itu kita minta teman-teman dari lingkungan
hidup untuk secara ketat mengontrol kualitas udara yang
muncul dari wilayah kepabrikan ini.

Cons
Maksudnya film Sexy Killers ini kredibel enggak?
1. Boy Thohir Kita perlu kritis juga sama film itu: siapa yang buat? Ini
kepentingannya apa?
2. Luhut B. Panjaitan Tidak benar itu. Kurang kerjaan itu.
Nonton film sebentar lalu menjadi golput dan merasa
3. Arie Keriting lebih baik?
Di pelosok bahkan tidak ada sekolah untuk mereka. Pilih
sosok yang hadir untuk mereka.
4. Coki Pardede Yang paling serem dari Sexy Killers adalah orang pada
maksa kita buat nonton film itu, dan kalo
kesimpulannya gak sama ama mereka dianggap cupu.
Haaaaaa.....

Table 1. Analysis of Participants’ arguments

Based on the table above, can be concluded that there are three sides of the
Conversation. These sides are divided based on their point of speech. The three sides are
Pro (The group of people who support the existence of the video), Moderate (The group of
people who neither support nor banned the existence of the video) and Cons (The group of
people who banned the existence of the video).
The people who stand on the Pro-side are : Hindun Malaika, Merah Johansyah and
Angga Dwi Sasongko. They come from different backgrounds. Hindun Malaika as climate
and energy campaigner at Greenpeace Indonesia takes the position as Environmentalist
and stands in the environmental side. Merah Johansyah as the executive director of the
Mining Advocacy Network (JATAM), takes the position as lawyer who concerns about
humanity and environment, and stands in the Humanity and Environment side. Angga Dwi
Sasongko as a director, takes the position as someone who concerns in the situations which
is happening in the society, and stands in the Humanity side.
Meanwhile the people who stand on the Con-side are : Boy Thohir, Luhut B.
Panjaitan, Arie Keriting and Coki Pardede. These people come from different backgrounds
as well. Boy Thohir who is known as the brother of Erick Thohir, Jokowi’s supporter in
Campaign of Presidential Election, which also known as the CEO of Mining Company in
Borneo, takes the side as Business side. He concerns more about his company than the
environment. The same thing with, Luhut B. Panjaitan, he is one of ministers in Indonesia
who also has part in that coal mining. He takes the side as businessman. Arie Keriting, as
the artist and comedian, he stands in political sides, many people knew he is one of
Jokowi’s supporter which do campaign and support Jokowi-Ma’ruf by taking part in their
concert in Jogjakarta a few month ago. Coki Pardede, he is also an artist and comedian, he
stands in the same side with Arie Keriting. From his speech it can be seen, he is also a
supporter of Jokowi-Ma’ruf.
Then the last side, the people who stand in the Moderate side are: Dandy D. Laksono,
Ujang Komarudin and dr. Achmad Yurianto. Dandy D. Laksono as Director of Sexy
Killers, he comes from the Humanity side, and stands in the moderate side. Eventhough he
made some arguments against Luhut B. Panjaitan, he gave the choice to the viewers and
people to give their opinion on his documentary video, whether it is a fact and worth to
share or it was just a hoax which threat the coal mining company and the candidates of
Presidential Election of 2019. Ujang Komarudin as Executive Director of Indonesian
Political Review, he comes from the political side, from his statement, people can
understand that he has good information about Luhut B. Panjaitan bussiness and his
relation to Presiden. Eventhough he comes from the political side, he stands in the
moderate sides which do not support neither banned the existence of this documentary
video. dr. Achmad Yurianto, as a doctor who have been asked by reporters, he comes from
the Medical side. He concerns more about the people’s healthy. He stands in the moderate
side because he has no relation to both sides, those who support the existence of the video
or those who try to banned it.

No. SIDES
1. Environment 2
2. Humanity 3
3. Political 3
4. Business 2
5. Medical 1
Total 11
Table 2. Total sides took by the participants
 Table 2 shows that there are 11 sides which has taken by the participants. Those
sides are divided into five sides, Environmental side, Humanity side, Political side, Business
side, and Medical side. Merah Johansyah took 2 different sides at once, he stands in the
Humanity and Environment sides. Other participants only took one side for each.

IV. DISCUSSION

From the analysis, the author found that there are at least 5 sides which Participants
comes from. Environmental side, Humanity side, Political side, Business side, and Medical
side. The amount of each sides are Environmental 2, Humanity 3, Political 3, Business 2,
and Medical 1. The research also revealed that from the three sides Pro, Moderate and Con.
The Pro and Con sides have different amount of participants. There are 3 participants who
pro on the existence of the Sexy Killers documentary video, and there are 4 participants who
con. Meanwhile there are three participants who neither pro nor con on the existence of the
video. From the finding, we can concluded that the most significant side took by the
participant is Con, and most participants come from Humanity and Political sides. With the
same total, three participants.

V. REFERENCES

Antaki, Charles, Billig, Michael, Edwards, Derek & Potter, Jonathan (2003). Discourse
analysis means doing analysis: a critique of six analytic shortcomings. Discourse
Analysis. http://www.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a1/antaki2002002.html

Gee, J.P (2010). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis, Theory and Method. 3rd
edition. New York, London : Routledge

The Jakarta Post. - [Indramayu Halts “Sexy Killers” Screening for Alleged Hate Speech]
http://www.thejakartapost.com/tag/coal-mining
http://www.thejakartapost.com/tag/sexy-killers

Detik.com - http://www.detikhot.com/tag/sexy-killers.