Discursive Chaos in Indonesian Facebook Responses to the Iran–Israel Conflict: Media Framing, Affective Polarization, and Epistemic Distrust

Zulfikri Betyar Rasuan; Widyasari Widyasari; M Afifulloh; Basri Basri

doi:10.58421/gehu.v5i4.1955

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58421/gehu.v5i4.1955

Authors

Zulfikri Betyar Rasuan State Islamic Institute (IAIN) Syaikh Abdurrahman Siddik, Bangka Belitung
Widyasari Widyasari English Literature Department, Universitas Terbuka
M Afifulloh Universitas Bangka Belitung
Basri Basri State Islamic Institute (IAIN) Syaikh Abdurrahman Siddik, Bangka Belitung

Keywords:

Discursive chaos, Facebook comments, Iran–Israel conflict, Media framing, Affective polarization, Epistemic distrust, Indonesia

Abstract

This article examines how Indonesian Facebook users responded to media posts about the Iran–Israel conflict and how these responses contributed to the emergence of discursive chaos in digital public space. Existing studies on digital political communication have often examined misinformation, polarization, and platform dynamics separately. Less attention has been given to how media framing, emotional antagonism, and distrust toward information interact simultaneously in comment sections, especially in non-Western contexts. To address this gap, this study employed a qualitative digital discourse approach based on publicly accessible Facebook posts and user comments circulated in Indonesian online spaces. The analysis combined thematic reading and discourse-oriented interpretation to examine how users received, contested, redirected, and emotionally amplified media narratives. The findings show that Facebook comment sections did not function merely as spaces for responding to news, but as arenas of discursive struggle. Users reinterpreted conflict updates through ridicule, moralization, symbolic alignment, and contests of credibility. In several cases, the Iran–Israel conflict was also localized into broader political and ideological grievances, including distrust of mainstream media, anti-Western sentiment, and criticism of international power relations. These patterns indicate that discursive chaos emerged not only from false information, but also from the interaction among media framing, affective polarization, epistemic distrust, and antagonistic participation within the platform environment. This study contributes to digital political communication scholarship by showing that Indonesian responses to international conflict are shaped not only by issue salience, but also by emotionally charged reinterpretation and the weakening of shared epistemic ground

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

M. Andreotta, R. Nugroho, M. J. Hurlstone, F. Boschetti, S. Farrell, I. Walker, and C. Paris, “Analyzing social media data: A mixed-methods framework combining computational and qualitative text analysis,” Behavior Research Methods, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1766–1781, 2019, doi: 10.3758/s13428-019-01202-8.

E. Bakshy, S. Messing, and L. A. Adamic, “Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook,” Science, vol. 348, no. 6239, pp. 1130–1132, 2015, doi: 10.1126/science.aaa1160.

A. Bartsch, C. Neuberger, T. Schultz, N. Jackob, M. Ziegele, C. Mothes, et al., “Epistemic authority in the digital public sphere: An integrative conceptual framework and research agenda,” Communication Theory, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 37–50, 2025, doi: 10.1093/ct/qtae020.

Y. Benkler, R. Faris, and H. Roberts, Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2018, doi: 10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001.

V. Braun and V. Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in psychology,” Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77–101, 2006, doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

N. Cesare, H. Lee, T. McCormick, E. Spiro, and E. Zagheni, “Promises and pitfalls of using digital traces for demographic research,” Demography, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 1979–1999, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s13524-018-0715-2.

R. M. Entman, “Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm,” Journal of Communication, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 51–58, 1993, doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.

S. Gearhart, A. Moe, and B. Zhang, “Hostile media bias on social media: Testing the effect of user comments on perceptions of news bias and credibility,” Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 140–148, 2020, doi: 10.1002/hbe2.185.

E. Humprecht, F. Esser, and P. Van Aelst, “Hostile emotions in news comments: A cross-national analysis of Facebook discussions,” Social Media + Society, vol. 6, no. 1, 2020, doi: 10.1177/2056305120912481.

E. Huh, E. Kubin, and C. von Sikorski, “Can AI-generated news reduce hostile media perceptions? Findings from two experiments,” Frontiers in Communication, vol. 10, Art. no. 1484186, 2025, doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2025.1484186.

S. Iyengar, Y. Lelkes, M. Levendusky, N. Malhotra, and S. J. Westwood, “The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States,” Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 22, pp. 129–146, 2019, doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034.

S. Iyengar, G. Sood, and Y. Lelkes, “Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization,” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 405–431, 2012, doi: 10.1093/poq/nfs038.

T. B. Ksiazek, “Discussing the news: Civility and hostility in user comments,” Digital Journalism, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 850–870, 2015, doi: 10.1080/21670811.2014.972079.

E. Kubin, P. Merz, M. Wahba, C. Davis, K. Gray, and C. von Sikorski, “Understanding news-related user comments and their effects: A systematic review,” Frontiers in Communication, vol. 9, Art. no. 1447457, 2024, doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2024.1447457.

E.-J. Lee, “That is not the way it is: How user-generated comments on the news affect perceived media bias,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 32–45, 2012, doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01597.x.

L. Mason, Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press, 2018, doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226524689.001.0001.

M. E. McCombs and D. L. Shaw, “The agenda-setting function of mass media,” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 176–187, 1972, doi: 10.1086/267990.

M. A. Moreno, N. Goniu, P. S. Moreno, and D. Diekema, “Ethics of social media research: Common concerns and practical considerations,” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 708–713, 2013, doi: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0334.

A. Rafaeli, J. Bar-Ilan, Y. Dan-Gur, and M. Toyama, “Digital traces: New data, resources, and tools for psychological-science research,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 560–566, 2019, doi: 10.1177/0963721419861410.

C. L. Snelson, “Qualitative and mixed methods social media research: A review of the literature,” International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol. 15, no. 1, 2016, doi: 10.1177/1609406915624574.

S. Vosoughi, D. Roy, and S. Aral, “The spread of true and false news online,” Science, vol. 359, no. 6380, pp. 1146–1151, 2018, doi: 10.1126/science.aap9559.

H. Allcott and M. Gentzkow, “Social media and fake news in the 2016 election,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 211–236, 2017, doi: 10.1257/jep.31.2.211.

D. M. J. Lazer, M. A. Baum, Y. Benkler, A. J. Berinsky, K. M. Greenhill, F. Menczer, M. J. Metzger, B. Nyhan, G. Pennycook, D. Rothschild, M. Schudson, S. Sloman, C. S. Sunstein, E. A. Thorson, D. J. Watts, and J. L. Zittrain, “The science of fake news,” Science, vol. 359, no. 6380, pp. 1094–1096, 2018, doi: 10.1126/science.aao2998.

M. Cinelli, G. De Francisci Morales, A. Galeazzi, W. Quattrociocchi, and M. Starnini, “The echo chamber effect on social media,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118, no. 9, Art. no. e2023301118, 2021, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2023301118.

N. Grinberg, K. Joseph, L. Friedland, B. Swire-Thompson, and D. Lazer, “Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election,” Science, vol. 363, no. 6425, pp. 374–378, 2019, doi: 10.1126/science.aau2706.

E. C. Tandoc Jr., Z. W. Lim, and R. Ling, “Defining ‘fake news’: A typology of scholarly definitions,” Digital Journalism, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 137–153, 2018, doi: 10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143.

C. A. Bail, L. P. Argyle, T. W. Brown, J. P. Bumpus, H. Chen, M. B. F. Hunzaker, J. Lee, M. Mann, F. Merhout, and A. Volfovsky, “Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115, no. 37, pp. 9216–9221, 2018, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1804840115.

C. Lee, J. Shin, and A. Hong, “Does social media use really make people politically polarized? Direct and indirect effects of social media use on political polarization in South Korea,” Telematics and Informatics, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 245–254, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2017.11.005.

S. Flaxman, S. Goel, and J. M. Rao, “Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption,” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 80, no. S1, pp. 298–320, 2016, doi: 10.1093/poq/nfw006.

E. Ferrara, O. Varol, C. Davis, F. Menczer, and A. Flammini, “The rise of social bots,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 59, no. 7, pp. 96–104, 2016, doi: 10.1145/2818717.