YouTube audience sentiment and discourse on the Watchdoc documentary “Tak Ada Makan Siang Gratis” (No Free Lunch)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61126/dtcs.v4i1.160Keywords:
sentiment analysis, discourse analysis, framing, documentary film, MBGAbstract
This study examines audience sentiment and discursive responses to the framing of Indonesia’s Free Nutritious Meal (MBG) program in the Watchdoc documentary Tak Ada Makan Siang Gratis (No Free Lunch) on YouTube. Using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, it analyzed a corpus of 1,551 comments and replies through the IndoBERT language model, complemented by systematic manual validation and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to identify audience narrative positions. The findings reveal a strong predominance of negative sentiment (83.24%), with the government emerging as the primary discursive target (67.70%). Furthermore, 89.23% of participants supported the documentary’s critical framing, while legitimation (44.87%) was the dominant communicative function, reflecting users’ efforts to reinforce the documentary’s evidentiary and argumentative claims. The study concludes that the documentary effectively performed an agenda-setting function by transforming the state’s benevolent welfare narrative into a site of material grievance and institutional distrust. This research contributes to the literature by integrating IndoBERT with culturally sensitive manual validation to address sarcasm and code-switching in Indonesian digital discourse and by introducing the concept of the negotiated legitimation zone to explain the political ambivalence of audiences in emerging democracies.
References
Aspinall, E., & Miedner, M. (2019). Indonesia’s democratic paradox: Competitive elections amidst rising illiberalism. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 55(3), 295–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/00074918.2019.1690412
Association of Internet Researchers. (2019). Internet research: Ethical guidelines 3.0. https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf
Bail, C. (2022). Breaking the social media prism: How to make our platforms less polarizing. Princeton University Press.
Bennett, W. L., & Pfetsch, B. (2018). Rethinking political communication in a time of disrupted public spheres. Journal of Communication, 68(2), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx017
Brantner, C., Lobinger, K., & Wedstein, I. (2011). Effects of visual framing on emotional responses and evaluations of news stories about the Gaza conflict 2009. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88(3), 523–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769901108800304
Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. (2015). Twitter hashtags from ad hoc to calculated publics. In N. Rambukkana (Ed.), Hashtag publics: The power and politics of discursive networks (pp. 13–28). Peter Lang.
Burgess, J., & Green, J. (2018). YouTube: Online video and participatory culture (2nd ed.). Polity Press.
Corner, J. (2002). Performing the real: Documentary diversions. Television & New Media, 3(3), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/152747640200300302
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
Dahlberg, L. (1998). Cyberspace and the public sphere: Exploring the democratic potential of the net. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 4(1), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/135485659800400107
Dahlberg, L. (2007). The internet and discursive exclusion: From deliberative to agonistic public sphere theory. The Information Society, 23(2), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240701209240
Dahlgren, P. (2009). Media and political engagement: Citizens, communication, and democracy. Cambridge University Press.
Davidov, D., Tsur, O., & Rappoport, A. (2010). Semi-supervised recognition of sarcastic sentences in Twitter and Amazon. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (pp. 107–116). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). Sage.
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019). BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Vol. 1, pp. 4171–4186). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1423
Dynel, M. (2014). Participation framework underlying YouTube interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 73, 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.001
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Longman.
Flowerdew, J., & Richardson, J. E. (Eds.). (2018). The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies. Routledge.
Ford, M., & Pepinsky, T. B. (Eds.). (2014). Beyond oligarchy: Wealth, power, and contemporary Indonesian politics. Cornell Southeast Asia Program Publications.
Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 56–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/466240
Geise, S., & Xu, Y. (2025). Effects of visual framing in multimodal media environments: A systematic review of studies between 1979 and 2023. Journal of Communication, 75(5), 796–824. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaf010
Goffman, E. (1986). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Northeastern University Press.
González-Bailón, S., & Paltoglou, G. (2015). Signals of public opinion in online communication: A comparison of methods and data sources. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716215569192
Google DeepMind. (2024). Gemini: A family of highly capable multimodal models. https://deepmind.google/technologies/gemini
Grammarly. (2024). Grammarly Pro: AI writing assistance for academic and professional contexts. https://www.grammarly.com
Grimmer, J., Roberts, M. E., & Stewart, B. M. (2022). Text as data: A new framework for machine learning and the social sciences. Princeton University Press.
Güran, M. S., & Özarslan, H. (2022). Framing theory in the age of social media. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 12(4), e202237. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/12516
Habermas, J., Lennox, S., & Lennox, F. (1984). The public sphere: An encyclopedia article (1964). New German Critique, 3, 49–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/487737
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Beacon Press. (Original work published 1981)
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT Press.
Jones, R. H., Chik, A., & Hafner, C. A. (Eds.). (2015). Discourse and digital practices: Doing discourse analysis in the digital age. Routledge.
Kalogeropoulos, A., Suiter, J., Udris, L., & Eisenegger, M. (2019). News sharing on social media: How much do article characteristics and news organization matter? Social Media + Society, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119855799
Koto, F., Rahimi, A., Lau, J. H., & Baldwin, T. (2020). IndoLEM and IndoBERT: A benchmark dataset and pre-trained language model for Indonesian NLP. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 757–770). International Committee on Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.66
Lange, P. G. (2007). Publicly private and privately public: Social networking on YouTube. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 361–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00400.x
Lim, M. (2013). Many clicks but little sticks: Social media activism in Indonesia. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 43(4), 636–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2013.769386
Lim, M. (2017). Freedom to hate: Social media, algorithmic enclaves, and the rise of tribal nationalism in Indonesia. Critical Asian Studies, 49(3), 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/14672715.2017.1341188
Liu, B. (2012). Sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies, 5(1), 1–167. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00416ED1V01Y201204HLT016
Loader, B. D., & Mercea, D. (2011). Networking democracy? Information, Communication & Society, 14(6), 757–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2011.592648
Mall, R., Nagpal, M., Salminen, J., Almerekhi, H., Jung, S., & Jansen, B. J. (2024). Politics on YouTube: Detecting online group polarization based on news videos' comments. SAGE Open, 14(2), Article 21582440241253376. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241253376
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/267990
Möller, A. M., Kühne, R., Baumgartner, S. E., & Peter, J. (2019). Exploring user responses to entertainment and political videos: An automated content analysis of YouTube. Social Science Computer Review, 38(5), 614–630. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318790704
Muaz, A., Santoso, J., & Purwarianti, A. (2019). Experiment and analysis of cross-language sentiment analysis on Twitter. In 2019 International Conference on Advanced Informatics: Concepts, Theory and Applications (ICAICTA) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAICTA.2019.8904074
Nature. (2023). Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science: Here are our ground rules for their use. Nature, 613(7945), 612. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00191-1
Nichols, B. (2010). Introduction to documentary (2nd ed.). Indiana University Press.
O'Mahony, P., & Skillington, T. (2013). The public sphere and the politics of knowledge. In P. O'Mahony (Ed.), The contemporary theory of the public sphere (pp. 1–20). Peter Lang.
Pang, B., & Lee, L. (2008). Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 2(1–2), 1–135. https://doi.org/10.1561/1500000011
Plantinga, C. (1997). Rhetoric and representation in nonfiction film. Cambridge University Press.
Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x
Sobieraj, S., & Berry, J. M. (2011). From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication, 28(1), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.542360
Sorensen, L. (2024). Populist disruption and the fourth age of political communication. European Journal of Communication, 39(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/02673231231209467
Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.
Tashakkori, A., Johnson, R. B., & Teddlie, C. (2021). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Sage.
Thelwall, M. (2018). Social media analytics for YouTube comments: Potential and limitations. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21(6), 341–347. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2017.0568
van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and power. Palgrave Macmillan.
Veneti, A., Jackson, D., & Lilleker, D. G. (2019). Visual political communication. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18729-3
Wiley, S. B. C. (2024). The public sphere in the network society. Media, Culture & Society, 46(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437231188476
Wongso, R., Setiawan, D. A., & Suhartono, D. (2023). Causal language modeling of Indonesian BERT sentiment classification. Procedia Computer Science, 216, 396–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.12.153
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Dimas Septo Nugroho
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
