Ideological Polarization in Online News Comment Sections: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Digital Language

Reva Angelina; Ester Monica Bu’ulolo; Fadillah Fauziah Putri; Rebecha Silalahi

doi:10.55606/srj-yappi.v4i3.2541

Authors

Reva Angelina Universitas Negeri Medan
Ester Monica Bu’ulolo Universitas Negeri Medan
Fadillah Fauziah Putri Universitas Negeri Medan
Rebecha Silalahi Universitas Negeri Medan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55606/srj-yappi.v4i3.2541

Keywords:

ideological polarization, online news comments, critical discourse analysis (CDA), digital discourse, affective polarization

Abstract

This study examines ideological polarization in online news comment sections through a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) approach. In recent years, digital platforms have increasingly become sites of discursive contestation where ideological divisions are intensified rather than mitigated. Using a qualitative interpretive design, this study analyzes approximately 300 user comments on political news articles collected through purposive sampling. The analysis applies van Dijk’s socio-cognitive model, focusing on textual structures, social cognition, and social context. The findings reveal three dominant patterns: (1) the construction of “us versus them” dichotomies through evaluative and exclusionary language, (2) the use of emotional and stigmatizing discourse as a mechanism of ideological legitimation, and (3) the recursive reproduction of polarization through interactive comment chains. Drawing on recent studies in digital communication and polarization, the findings demonstrate that online language operates as a form of symbolic power that reinforces group boundaries and social fragmentation. This study contributes to contemporary digital discourse research by emphasizing the importance of critical digital literacy and micro-level discursive analysis in understanding ideological polarization.

References

Bail, C. A. (2021). Breaking the social media prism: How to make our platforms less polarizing. Princeton University Press.

Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., Lee, J., Mann, M., Merhout, F., & Volfovsky, A. (2021). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(14), e2021624118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021624118

Bouvier, G. (2021). Discourse analysis and social media. Discourse, Context & Media, 42, 100515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2021.100515

Bouvier, G. (2022). Racist call-outs and cancel culture on Twitter: The limitations of the platform’s ability to define issues of social justice. Discourse, Context & Media, 44, 100548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2021.100548

Bouvier, G., & Machin, D. (2021). What gets lost in Twitter ‘cancel culture’ hashtags? Calling out racists reveals some limitations of social media as a platform for responding to racism. Discourse, Context & Media, 40, 100469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100469

Cinelli, M., Morales, G. D. F., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., & Starnini, M. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9), e2023301118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118

Cinelli, M., Quattrociocchi, W., & Galeazzi, A. (2022). Echo chambers and misinformation spread. Nature Communications, 13, 1234. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28988-6

Çömlekçi, M. F. (2021). Polarization and social media: A research on political communication. Information, Communication & Society, 24(10), 1462–1478. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1713848

Çömlekçi, M. F. (2022). Social media, polarization, and democracy. Journal of

Domínguez Romero, E. (2022). Digital discourse and online participation: The dynamics of comment sections. Journal of Pragmatics, 193, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.02.003

Fairclough, N. (2021). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117070

Information Technology & Politics, 19(3), 345–360. ttps://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2022.2032845

Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2021). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of

KhosraviNik, M. (2021). Critical discourse studies and digital media. Critical Discourse Studies, 18(3), 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2020.1867359

KhosraviNik, M., & Unger, J. W. (2022). Critical discourse studies and social media: Power, resistance and critique in changing media ecologies. Discourse & Communication, 16(2), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813211070612

Political Science, 24, 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034 KhosraviNik, M. (2022). Social media critical discourse studies (SM-CDS). Information, Communication & Society, 25(4), 527–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1799639

Roitman, M., et al. (2021). Social media and digital platforms: Polarization and hate speech. New Media & Society, 23(11), 3213–3230. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211027191

Theocharis, Y. (2021). The conceptualization of political polarization. Political Communication, 38(5), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2021.1882394

Theocharis, Y., Barberá, P., Fazekas, Z., Popa, S. A., & Parnet, O. (2021). A bad workman blames his tweets: The consequences of citizens’ uncivil Twitter use. Journal of Communication, 71(2), 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab002

van Dijk, T. A. (2021). Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108957892

Zollo, F., Novak, P. K., Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Mozetič, I., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2022). Emotional dynamics in the age of misinformation. EPJ Data Science, 11(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-022-00326-9