Online Repertoires of Discursive Delegitimation Through Critical Online Comments—The Case of the Pandemic Crisis in Romania

The COVID-19 pandemic represented a critical stress test for institutional trust and legitimacy, particularly in societies characterized by pre-existing deficits of confidence in public authorities. In Romania, the health crisis unfolded against a background of low institutional credibility and widespread skepticism toward political and administrative actors. This study examines how institutional authority was discursively evaluated, contested, and delegitimized through public online comments during the most severe phase of the pandemic. The analysis is based on a corpus of 457 comments collected from major Romanian news websites and YouTube channels between 20 and 26 October 2021, corresponding to the peak week in terms of infections and mortality. Drawing on Discourse Analysis and Discursive Psychology, the study combines quantitative coding with qualitative analysis to identify recurrent forms of moral and epistemic criticism, inflammatory discourse, and sarcasm, organized into interpretative repertoires. The findings show that online criticism is structured primarily around accusations of hypocrisy, incompetence, corruption, insensitivity, and authoritarianism. These discourses function not merely as expressions of dissatisfaction but as practices through which commenters articulate moral order, contest institutional legitimacy, and position themselves as morally vigilant and epistemically competent actors entitled to judge public decision-making. Online comment spaces thus emerge as arenas of discursive delegitimation in times of crisis, with important implications for democratic resilience and crisis governance.