Political Jargon as a Form of Doublespeak in the 2024 Presidential Candidates’ Debate”
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18326/inject.v11i1.5490Keywords:
Political jargon, Doublespeak, Political Communication, Presidential debateAbstract
This study examines the use of jargon in Indonesia’s 2024 presidential debate using William Lutz’s Doublespeak theory. It identifies the forms and functions of political jargon as rhetorical tools to frame political realities and influence public opinion. Using a qualitative descriptive approach and ethnography of communication, the study analyzes transcripts from the first official debate (December 12, 2023). Findings reveal that Anies Baswedan used the most jargon (37.37%), followed by Prabowo and Ganjar (31.31% each). Jargon serves to build credibility while obscuring policy substance through technocratic language. Thus, jargon operates as doublespeak that shapes perception and legitimizes political power.
References
Antari, P. E. D. (2018). Interpretasi demokrasi dalam sistem mekanis terbuka pemilihan umum di Indonesia. Jurnal Panorama Hukum, 3(1), 88.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (J. B. Thompson (ed.)). Polity Press.
Bungin, B. (2011). Penelitian kualitatif: komunikasi, ekonomi, kebijakan publik, dan ilmu sosial lainnya (Ke-2). Kencana.
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
Eriyanto. (2011). Analisis isi: Pengantar metodologi untuk penelitian ilmu komunikasi dan ilmu-ilmu sosial lainnya. Prenada Media Group.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge.
Gading, S. (2024). Debat kelima Pilpres 2024 minim sanggahan, INDEF: Kita kena prank nasional! Finance.Detik.Com. https://finance.detik.com/berita-ekonomi-bisnis/d-7178244/debat-kelima-pilpres-2024-minim-sanggahan-indef-kita-kena-prank-nasional
Hutabarat, D. (2024). Jokowi menyebut debat capres ketiga tak edukatif. PDIP minta lihat penilaian publik di media massa dan sosial. Www.Liputan6.Com. https://www.liputan6.com/pemilu/read/5500267/jokowi-sebut-debat-capres-ketiga-tak-edukatif-pdip-minta-lihat-penilaian-publik-di-media-massa-dan-sosial
Ibrahim, I. S. (1996). Bahasa, kekuasaan, dan politik: penggunaan bahasa dalam wacana politik Orde Baru. Mizan.
Jing-Schmidt, Z. (2022). Euphemism. Handbook of Pragmatics, 24, 124–144. https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.24.eup1
Koniak, P., & Cwalina, W. (2022). Does it pay to avoid speaking straight about controversial issues? Impact of argumentative ambiguity on the perception of the speaker. Journal of Communication Management, 26(3), 276–293. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-11-2020-0154
Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. Verso.
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Lutz, W. (1989). Doublespeak: From “revenue enhancement” to “terminal living”: How government, business, advertisers, and others use language to deceive you. Harper & Row. https://books.google.co.id/books/about/Doublespeak.html?id=UPcmnSK98JsC&redir_esc=y
Lutz, W. (1996). The new doublespeak: Why no one knows what anyone’s saying anymore. Harper Collins Publishers.
Mironina, A. Yu., & Porchesku, G. V. (2023). Euphemism as a linguistic strategy of evasion in political media discourse. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.18413/2313-8912-2023-9-2-0-1
Nurrahmah, D. (2024). Opini publik terhadap debat capres 2024: Analisis sentimen dalam komentar live YouTube KPU RI. Ranah: Jurnal Kajian Bahasa, 13(2), 472–485. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.26499/rnh.v13i2.6063
Rosyidah, I., & Firdausi, M. A. (2025). Eufemisme dan prasangka sosial di ruang publik (P. E. Purnamasari (ed.); 1st ed.). UIN Maliki Press.
Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society, 3(2–3), 297–316. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15327825MCS0323_07
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
Shubina, E. L., & Sedova, A. V. (2021). Hedge euphemisms as tools of economic discourse. Nauchnyi Dialog, 11, 183–200. https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2021-11-183-200
Smith, H. J. (2021). The doublespeak discourse of the Race Disparity Audit: An example of the White racial frame in institutional operation. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2021.1931035
Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse as structure and process. Sage Publications.
Wareing, L. T. dan S. (2007). Bahasa, masyarakat dan kekuasaan. Pustaka Pelajar.
Zhikhareva, N. A., & Yakovleva, E. P. (2021). Stereotypes are a means of influencing mass consciousness in political discourse. Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.18413/2313-8912-2021-7-2-0-4
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 INJECT (Interdisciplinary Journal of Communication)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
