Isi Artikel Utama

Abstrak

Artikel ini membahas tentang polarisasi politik dan disinformasi politik dalam rangkaian agenda pelemahan KPK yang berdampak pada perilaku politik masyarakat di Twitter. Artikel ini menggunakan konsep political polarization, political disinformation, dan political behavior. Tulisan ini menggunakan metode big data analysis untuk pengambilan data dan analisis data. Selanjutnya, metode tersebut digunakan untuk mengidentifikasi dan memetakan polarisasi isu, isi wacana, dan aktor sebagai opinion leader. Artikel ini juga melakukan pemetaan dan analisis kritis tentang narasi yang diproduksi di media sosial, khususnya Twitter. Wacana dan aktor dalam rangkaian agenda pelemahan KPK disoroti melalui tiga peristiwa, yaitu peristiwa Revisi Undang-Undang KPK, terpilihnya Ketua KPK Firli Bahuri, dan Tes Wawasan Kebangsaan. Temuan yang disampaikan di tulisan ini, yaitu polarisasi politik di antara kelompok pro pemerintah dan oposisi pemerintah dan disinformasi politik yang diproduksi dengan membawa isu taliban dan isu radikalisme. Pada akhirnya, perilaku politik masyarakat dalam agenda pelemahan KPK cenderung melekatkan diri pada influencer yang memiliki orientasi politik yang serupa.

Kata Kunci

polarisasi disinformasi perilaku politik demokrasi wacana big data analytics

Rincian Artikel

References

  1. Afrimadona. (2021). Revisiting Political Polarisation in Indonesia: A Case Study of Jakarta’s Electorate. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 40 (2), 315–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/18681034211007490.
  2. Andriani, R. T. (2019). Peranan Media Informasi dalam Mengarahkan Perilaku Politik. Studi Pustaka, 7 (1).
  3. Barberá, P., (2014). How Social Media Reduces Mass Political Polarization. Evidence from Germany, Spain, and the U.S. Working Paper. Retrieved September 18, 2019, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu. edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.658.5476.
  4. Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J. L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10), P10008.
  5. Bradshaw, S., & P. N. Howard. (2017). Troops, Trolls and Troublemakers: A Global Inventory of Organized Social Media Manipulation. Computational Propaganda Research Project, Vol. 12, No. 12, Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(59)90596-3.
  6. Bruns, A., & T. Highfield. (2013). Political Networks on Twitter: Tweeting the Queensland State Election. Information, Communication & Society, 16 (5), 667–691
  7. Cabanes, J. V. (2020). Digital Disinformation and the Imaginative Dimension of Communication. Advancing Journalism and Communication Research: New Theories and Concepts, 97 (2), 435–452.
  8. Cha, M., Haddadi, H. F. Benevenuto, & K. P. Gummadi. (2010). Measuring User Influence on Twitter: The Million Follower Fallacy. In Proceedings of the Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 10–17). Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
  9. CNN Indonesia. (2019). KPK Ungkap 4 Upaya Sistematis Pelemahan Pemberantasan Korupsi. CNN Indonesia. Https://www.cnnindonesia.com/Nasional/20190908 160004-12-428554/ Kpk-Ungkap-4-Upaya-Sistematis-Pelemahan-Pemberantasan-Korupsi.
  10. Colleoni, E., A. Rozza, & A. Arvidsson. (2014). Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data. Journal of Communication, 64 (2), 317–332.
  11. Dombrowski, D. A. (2001). Rawls and Religion: the Case for Political Liberalism. Albany: Suny Press.
  12. Druckman, J. N., M. S. Levendusky, & A. McLain. (2018). No Need to Watch: How the Effects of Partisan Media can Spread via Interpersonal Discussions. American Journal of Political Science, 62, 99–112.
  13. Guess, A., B. Lyons, B. Nyhan, & J. Reifler. (2018). Avoiding the Echo Chamber About Echo Chambers: Why Selective Exposure to Like-Minded Political News is Less Prevalent Than You Think. Miami, FL: John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
  14. Hameleers, M. & T. G. L. A. van der Meer. (2019). Misinformation and Polarization in a High-Choice Media Environment: How Effective Are Political Fact-Checkers? Communication Research, 1–24, https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218819671.
  15. Iyengar, S., & A. F. Simon. (2000). New Perspectives and Evidence on Political Communication and Campaign Effects. Annual Review of Psychology, 51 (1), 149–169.
  16. Iyengar, S., G. Sood, & Y. Lelkes. (2012). Affect, not Ideology: A social Identity Perspective on Polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76 (3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038.
  17. Komariah, K., & D. S.Kartini. (2019). Media Sosial dan Budaya Politik Generasi Milineal dalam Pemilu. ARISTO, 7 (2), 228–248.
  18. Kuklinski, J. H., P. J. Quirk, J. Jerit, D. Schweider, & R. F. Rich. (2000). Misinformation and the Currency of Democratic Citizenship. The Journal of Politics, 62 (3), 790–816.
  19. Kurnia, N., & A. Savirani. (2020). Big Data untuk Ilmu Sosial, antara Metode Riset dan Realitas Sosial. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.
  20. Maulana, Ardian dan Hokky Situngkir. (2021). Media Polarization on Twitter During 2019 Indonesian Election. SCI 943, pp. 660–670, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65347-7_55.
  21. Morozov, E. (2011). The Net Delusion: How not to Liberate the World. London: Penguin Books.
  22. Mutz, D. (2006). Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Parsons, B. M. (2010). Social Networks and the Affective Impact of Political Disagreement. Political Behavior, 32(2), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-009-9100-6.
  24. Persily, N., & J. A. Tucker. (2020). Social Media and Democracy (SSRC Anxieties of Democracy). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Purnama, R. (2021). Arahan Jokowi soal TWK KPK Bangkitkan Pro-Kontra Netizen. CNN Indonesia. Https://www.cnnindonesia.com/Teknologi/20210518073520-192-643602/ Arahan-Jokowi-Soal-Twk-Kpk-Bangkitkan-Pro-Kontra-Netizen.
  26. Recuero, R., G. Zago, & F. Soares. (2019). Using Social Network Analysis and Social Capital to Identify User Roles on Polarized Political Conversations on Twitter. Social Media + Society, 5 (2), 205630511984874. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119848745.
  27. Riansyah, R. (2019). Pengaruh Media Sosial Facebook dan Instagram terhadap Perilaku Politik Masyarakat Kecamatan Gandus. Palembang: Universitas Islam Negeri Raden Fatah.
  28. Rumata, Vience. (2020). An Analysis of Fake Narratives on Social Media during 2019 Indonesian Presidential Election. Jurnal Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal of Communication 36 (4): 351-368, 10.17576/JKMJC-2020-3604-22.
  29. Settle, J. E. (2018). Frenemies: How social media polarizes America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  30. Siagian, H. F. (2015). Pengaruh dan Efektivitas Penggunaan Media Sosial SEBAGAI Saluran Komunikasi Politik dalam Membentuk Opini Publik. Jurnal Al-Khitabah, 2 (1).
  31. Taber, C. S., & M. Lodge. (2006). Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755–769. doi:10.1111/j.1540- 5907.2006.00214.x.
  32. Takikawa, H., & K. Nagayoshi. (2017). Analysis of the “Twitter Political Field” in Japan. 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BIGDATA), 3061–3068. http://arxiv.org/abs/1711.06752.
  33. Tucker, Joshua A et.al. (2018). Social Media, Political Polarization, and Political Disinformation: A Review of the Scientific Literature. Loughborough: Loughborough University. Https://hdl.handle.net/2134/37088.
  34. Van Aelst, P., et.al. (2017). Political Communication in a High-Choice Media Environment: A Challenge for Democracy? Annals of the International Communication Association, 4, 3–27. doi:10.1080 /23808985.2017.1288551.
  35. Wasserman, S., & K. Faust (1994). Social Network Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  36. Williams, S. (2017). Rodrigo Duterte’s Army of Online Trolls. New Republic. Retrieved from https://newrepublic.com/article/138952/rodrigo‐dutertes‐army‐online‐trolls.
  37. Yarchi, M., C. Baden., & N. Kligler-Vilenchik. (2020). Political Polarization on the Digital Sphere: A Cross-platform, Over-time Analysis of Interactional, Positional, and Affective Polarization on Social Media Over-time Analysis of Interactional, Positional, and Affective Polarization on Social Media. Political Communication, 00 (00), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1785067.
  38. Yui, Jennifer Yang. (2020). Social Media and the 2019 Indonesian Elections: Hoax Takes the Centre Stage. Southeast Affairs, Vol. 2020, 155–171, https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/341452275_Social_Media_and_the_2019_Indonesian_Elections_Hoax_Takes_the_Centre_Stage.
  39. Zuiderveen Borgesius, et.al. (2016). Should We Worry about Filter Bubbles? Internet Policy Review, 5 (1). Https://doi.org/10. 14763/2016.1.401.