Framing public dissent: A comparative content analysis of local and international media coverage of the Ethiopian health professionals’ strike

Abstract

This study investigated how local and international media outlets framed the 2025 Ethiopian health professionals’ strike, specifically the British Broadcasting Corporation's Amharic and the Ethiopian Broadcasting Corporation. Forty-five Purposively selected stories published over two months were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The study examined the tone, thematic emphasis, voice representation, and underlying ideological messages in news articles from media outlets. The study was guided by agenda-setting and framing theories. The study's findings show a stark difference between the two media outlets. British Broadcasting Corporation Amharic portrayed the strike as a rights-based protest rooted in socioeconomic conditions. In contrast, the Ethiopian Broadcasting Corporation framed it as disruptive and immoral, citing professional responsibility and government responsiveness. The two media outlets built the strike differently in their coverage. The Ethiopian Broadcasting Corporation primarily represented government accounts but excluded the voices of health professionals. On the other hand, the British Broadcasting Corporation incorporated the voices of health workers and association leaders. The findings indicate that the Ethiopian Broadcasting Corporation framed the protest through human‑interest and rights‑based narratives, amplifying workers’ voices and legitimizing grievances. Moreover, the Ethiopian Broadcasting Corporation emphasized professional duty, national unity, and government responsiveness, silencing dissent. These divergent frames reflect media ownership, editorial independence, and political context in shaping public perception and policy discourse. The study contributes to understanding media power in politically controversial contexts and underscores the significance of pluralistic narratives in public health crises.