Media Ideology and Contested Genealogical Legitimacy in Tempo’s Habib Controversy: A Critical Discourse Analysis

Abstract

Public controversies over the authenticity of religious lineages generate tensions concerning evidentiary standards and traditional authority. This study examines how genealogical legitimacy is constructed, produced, and negotiated within investigative journalism coverage. Adopting a qualitative approach guided by Norman Fairclough’s three-dimensional critical discourse analysis, the study draws on investigative reports published in Tempo magazine and in-depth interviews with journalists and editors. The findings demonstrate that genealogical legitimacy does not function as an isolated source of authority but is negotiated through a nonlinear intersection of genealogical, institutional, philological, and journalistic legitimacies in response to demands for public accountability. Lineage polemics thus develop into broader contestations over epistemic authority concerning who has the power to define valid evidence and determine appropriate methods of historical verification. Investigative journalism functions as a mediating discursive arena that facilitates document comparison, critical examination, and public scrutiny. This study contributes to the understanding of religious authority as a relational phenomenon that is continuously tested, negotiated, and reconstructed through social and discursive practices.