Jeremy

Gagnon

Period 9
10/8/15
Review of Literature
I. IntroductionResearch Question- How do satirical or comedic television programs such as The Daily Show or Last
Week Tonight affect political awareness and voter turnout among the youth?

The late night satirical news shows that we all know and love like The Daily

Show or The Colbert

Report, utilize thorough and unique techniques to convey news in a light and amusing fashion. However
these shows may be able to serve a purpose beyond simple entertainment and soft news.
We live in a country that has one of the lowest youth political participation rates in the world. Not
only does this lack of young voters weaken the strength of our country's democratic system, but it has

created a pattern of cultural shift away from the importance of politics for young Americans. It would be
interesting to find out whether or not the satirical techniques used in shows like The Daily Show or Last
Week Tonight make them truly effective news sources for young voters and increase political awareness
and engagement among young people in this country as well as many others who would normally not tune
in to informational news programs.
The main purpose of this research is to pour over variations and different perspectives on the
effect of satirical soft news on political awareness and engagement of young Americans, and the
reasoning behind the finding in this research. One specific goal of this research is to be able to surmise
from the compilation of studies we have read whether or not satirical or comedic shows can truly increase
political engagement in young Americans , along with simply following its general effect on its viewers.
The central programs I plan on focusing on in my research are mainly single anchor, satirical/comedic,
faux-news styled programs that may have extra out of studio segments or additional news
correspondents, (as is customary with traditional hard news programs). These shows may include but
are not limited to, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report, and Last Week Tonight.
Since I was about 12, I have been an avid watcher of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, which
was introduced to me by my grandmother. As I started watching the show I initially saw it as just a news
program. My 12-year-old self saw the intentional standard news program references in the layout of the
show, and Jon Stewart appeared to be talking about relatively boring, adult issues. However, as I grew
older, I was able to see the other side of The Daily Show, the side that attracts those who may not
normally be regular watchers of the news. The discovery of this apparent adult news program as a show
that was both entertaining and educational caught my attention, and before long I was watching the show
regularly. This entertainment aspect of the show, and the way it is skillfully weaved into the faux-news

Jeremy

Gagnon

Period 9
10/8/15
room style is part of what makes these types of programs so popular especially among youth. I enjoyed
the fact that I could be given news simply in a straightforward yet amusing matter, and that it took me
much less time than having to watch a hard-news program. It was after The Daily Show with Jon
Stewart aired it's last episode this summer, which was followed by a flood of articles about its role as both
a satirical entertainment show and a news program, that I realized how influencing a show it was,
especially for young people. This is what later inspired me to come up with my research question.
However, my personal reasoning for conducting this research project should be considered
inconsequential compared to the intriguing statistics and inferences I have been able to find through

preliminary, that point to shows like The Daily Show or Last Week Tonight not being simply a
entertainment or a news program, but something special. There is something about the makeup about
these shows that combines satire with educational news to create an appealing program for many
Americans who would not normally be watching informative hard news. It would be interesting to find

out the in depth components used in these programs that make them appealing and effective news sources.
Also, considering episodes of shows
like The Colbert Report or The Daily Show with Jon Stewart tend to
be only thirty minutes long it would be interesting to see the depth and distribution of the content that
make these shows efficient yet informational.
From this basic evaluation of the effectiveness of satirical shows, I would like to see how the
efficient relay of simplified information and the satirical humour is an effective method in attracting
groups that normally do not watch the news. Furthermore I would like to see how information delivered
in this fashion can have an impact on the political awareness of the viewers. In turn I could then relate
these increased in political interest to the number of young Americans (in the 18-24 voting demographic)
who are largely regarded as being politically uninformed and detached from the world of politics in
general. I could then see whether or not increase the voter turnout of this demographic which has been
absurdly low in recent years. All these findings would be discovered through reading through prior
studies, papers, statistics, etc. written or conducted by other, more qualified, researchers.
While this may research may appear to simply be following a set path to confirm whether or not
satirical shows like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart do in fact increase political participation amongst
young Americans, and motivated simply by an interest in the answer, this is not entirely true. Through
this project I hope to be able to find and incorporate any effects of satirical or comedic news shows on
their audiences into my final conclusion.
I do believe that the answer to this research question may have some value outside of simple
personal or putative community interest. In general, I believe that knowing the effects of satirical news

Jeremy

Gagnon

Period 9
10/8/15
shows on the public, especially those who do not watch regular news and even more importantly those
who are in the 18-24 voting demographic, could change cultural appreciation and popularity of these
shows and help to increase political awareness among young people in the future.
II. Review of LiteratureSatirical shows as an attractive political news source
In todays information dependent society, massive news- media entities such as CNN and FOX
dominate the relay of new political and social information to the masses. However these large media
sources are not on par with the news-media of the past, and this is not simply due to sheer size and
budget. Many of the ideals of good journalism (such as unaffected, honest reporting towards public
inquiry) of past news-media outlets have disappeared and, in the quest for ratings, these new powerhouses
have, for the most part, transitioned towards more nationalistic tendencies and austere deliveries in their
reporting of post-9/11 America, broadcasting news of restricted variety in a serious tone. Geoffrey Baym
is an associate professor and head of the Media Studies Department at the University of North Carolina at
Greensboro. He has a history of research in the intersections of politics, news media, public affairs, and
pop-culture. In 2005 Baym wrote an article titled, The Daily Show: Discursive Integration and the
Reinvention of Political Journalism, in which he analyzes a new form of news-media seen in satirical
shows like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and describes this decline in big-name news channels, and
the resulting drop in viewership.
In the increasingly competitive battle for market shares, some of the basic principles of good
journalismindependence, inquiry, and verificationare often sacrificed to meet the demand for
eye-catching content (Kovach & Rosenstiel, 1999). Driven by market pressures, the erosion of
journalism-as-public-inquiry has only hastened in the postSeptember 11 environment, in which
most commercial news media outlets aligned themselves soundly with the White House and the
apparatus of state security (Hutcheson et al., 2004). To complicate the matter, the public appears
to be growing dissatisfied with its broadcast news alternatives. According to a 2002 Pew
Research Center study, the audiences for most forms of television news fell considerably between
1993 and 2002, with the audience for nightly network news down 46%, network news magazines
down 54%, local news down 26%, and CNN down 28% (Baym, 2005, p.259-260).
This shift away from the traditional news media, left an opening for the main subject of Bayms article,
satirical TV shows like The Daily Show to gain in popularity. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, along
with several other comedic news shows such as Last Week Tonight, or The Colbert Report, all generally
refer to themselves as fake news shows, yet while these programs are categorized as entertainment, they

Jeremy

Gagnon

Period 9
10/8/15
contain similar national and sometimes global coverage offered by mainstream media shows, and explore
a variety of political topics. They also go beyond what is offered by big name channels like MSNBC, and
offer in-depth commentary on political news. Not only are shows like The Daily Show more analytical
than traditional coverage, but they have the honesty and empathy expressed through the good
journalism of the past. All of this likeness to real news shows, and considering the fact that they are
based around comedy and satirical humor is why Geoffrey Baym calls satirical news shows a form of
discursive integration.
This is not simply the move toward infotainment, although the fundamental blurring of news
and entertainmenta conflation that cuts both wayscertainly is a constituent element. Rather, it
is a more profound phenomenon of discursive integration, a way of speaking about,
understanding, and acting within the world defined by the permeability of form and the fluidity of
content. Discourses of news, politics, entertainment, and marketing have grown deeply
inseparable; the languages and practices of each have lost their distinctiveness and are being
melded into previously unimagined combinations. Although some may see this as a dangerous
turn in the realm of political communication, it also can be seen as a rethinking of discursive
styles and standards that may be opening spaces for significant innovation. The Daily Show is the
epitome of such discursively integrated media (Baym, 2005, p. 262).
It is largely due to this diversity and discursive integration that satirical news shows grew in popularity as
mainstream news programs were lagging in viewership. Baym clearly relays this message as he explains
in this 2005 that that a rising source of political information is Comedy Centrals mock news program
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart...The Daily Show has risen to the cutting edge of the genre. Its unique
blending of comedy, late-night entertainment, news, and public affairs discussion has resonated with a
substantial audience (Baym, 2005, p. 260). However this diversity in comparison to the mainstream
news shows is not entirely what caused shows like The Daily Show to gain in popularity, and what make
satirical news show such an attractive political news source.
The other main cause of these shows appeal as a source of political news lies solely in the
comedic aspect of this diverse form of news-media, and the resulting trend of viewers who normally do
not watch mainstream news flocking to programs like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart because of the
comical spin placed around the whole show giving the non-news watchers an incentive to tune in and
take-in political information from the program. Professor Lauren Feldman, Dr. Anthony Leiserowitz, and
Dr. Edward Maibach, wrote an essay entitled The Science of Satire; The Daily Show and The Colbert
Report as Sources of Public Attention to Science and the Environment. While this essay discusses the

Jeremy

Gagnon

Period 9
10/8/15
effect of broadcasting scientific information on satirical shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert
Report, which is relatively rare compared to the amount of political information in these two shows, the
ideas posed in this piece can easily be translated into terms of political knowledge rather than scientific
knowledge, as both types of information can be made engaging in the same way.
Engaging the public is, instead, a matter of strategic communication. Rather than conforming to a
transmission model, whereby scientific facts are assumed to speak for themselves (p. 1767),
scientists must serve as translators, communicating science in ways that make it more accessible
and relevant to ordinary Americans. Part of this strategy includes the utilization of non-traditional
scientific venues, such as entertainment programing, to promote incidental exposure to scientific
information among otherwise inattentive publics (Feldman, Leiserowitz, Maubach, 2011, 29).
The idea of using non-traditional venues such as entertainment or comedy to relay information, whether
scientific or political, by incidentally exposing viewers to information as a result of watching an enjoyable
comedy show, rather than the standard and dull transmission model, which is in use in most mainstream
news shows and scientific programs alike, is a quintessential element of many satirical news shows. For
the most part in the case of shows like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, this concept dictates that
political information is transferred to otherwise inattentive publics due to the comedic format. Because
satirical news shows engage an otherwise inattentive public in something that they may have never tried
without comedy to sweeten the pot, and so acts as a sort of gateway into news and politics, and further,
more voluntary engagements in political information.
Due to the finite resources that individuals have available for cognitive processing, the perceived
benefits or utility of new information must outweigh the perceived costs, in terms of time and
energy, of acquiring that information...Piggybacking science content on entertainment fare might
not only help to ensure some minimal exposure to science content among the otherwise
unengaged, it could also promote subsequent attention to scientific topics (Feldman, Leiserowitz,
Maubach, 2011, 30-31).
In this- a scientific view of the underpinnings of what makes satirical news shows attractive sources of
political information- one can see that, in the context of political rather that scientific exposure on a
satirical news show, comedy can not only act as a translocator of new information for a lesser energy cost,
and therefore encourage exposure to political knowledge among the otherwise unengaged, but could also
promote further interest and engagement in politics. This further engagement caused simply by the
addition of comedy to the news show could lead to political awareness, and in turn actual participation in
politics.

Jeremy

Gagnon

Period 9
10/8/15
Democratic congressional candidates who appeared on The Colbert Report's Better Know a
District segment in fact went on to significantly out-fundraise their peers who were similarly
matched in terms of political party, incumbency, and prior donations but who had not appeared
on the show (Feldman, Leiserowitz, Maubach, 2011, 25-26).
In general, is clear that satirical news shows can truly have an affect on the political participation of its
viewers, and therefore are active not only as a relayer of news, but as a promoter of the political process.
Through this promotion, these shows contribute more significantly to political awareness and in turn
participation amongst those who are normally unexposed to political information.
From my initial research and sources regarding the general composition and effectiveness of
satirical news shows I was able to reach my central interest through a chain of cause-effect relationships
between the methods of these programs or these methods versus those of traditional news outlets, and the
resulting effectiveness as an attractive news show/political information center/political gateway/influencer
of politics. This process was made even more efficient by the overhang of many of my sources.
Youth viewership and effect on political participation
It is amongst these individuals who are usually unexposed to political information, and therefore
hold little to no investment in politics or the political system, that lie the 18-25 year old voters group. This
demographic, largely referred to as young voters, has been seen to have dropped considerably in its
participation or even awareness of politics or the political system in recent years. As Catherine Rampell of
The Washington Post explains in an article entitled, Where are all the young voters?, A new report from
the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University finds
that, in 2014, youth voter turnout fell to its lowest level on record. Just 19.9 percent of 18- to 29-year-old
citizens cast ballots last fall, compared with an average of 26.6 percent for the same age range in other
midterm elections over the previous 40 years (Rampell, 2015). This drop obviously represents an issue in
our country's electoral system and really, US democracy as a whole, as a large portion of possibly
influential votes are not being cast. Often times this significant drop is attributed simply to social cues
regarding politics as boring, or to be discussed more amongst those further on in life. However, news
shows containing humor and satire appear to work as incentives for many unengaged youth who normally
would not be attempting to watch the news because they see politics as dull and mature. Associate
Professors Amy B. Becker and Don J. Waisanen, both specialized in communication studies, describe
how the comedy of satirical news shows can bring in young viewers.
In the past few decades comedy and politics have gone from strange bedfellows to an inseparable
alliance. Satirical programming such as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report has become part

Jeremy

Gagnon

Period 9
10/8/15
of our common political culture and a primary source of news and information for youth
(Becker/Waisanen, 2014).
While there is no concise excerpt from this piece that is able to convey the entirety of its message, from
this one can infer that information communicated through a comedic platform can lead to youth exposure
to perceived boring information, and in turn further political knowledge and awareness. This exposure to
political information from a comedic standpoint is what makes satirical programing the main source of
news and information about politics for youth, as for the most part this is one of the few successful forms
of communication that can get young voters, whether voluntarily or not. These politically unengaged
youth have the most to gain as a demographic from being exposed to this information, as it can lead to
political awareness and possible even participation in the most politically inactive demographic in the
country.
But say perhaps youth do not attempt to obtain political information only because they see
politics as boring, but because they perceive flaws in the traditional system of information relay itself.
These young voters have been turned off of the traditional, dull, mainstream programing, which has been
in decline for much of their politically cognitive lives, and therefore have turned away from politics more
than most other US voter demographics. It appears that the solution to this problem of youth political
awareness could again be found in satirical news shows like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Dr. Jody
Baumgartner and Dr. Jonathan S. Morris are both professors at East Carolina University. They both have
experience writing, teaching, and conducting studies in the fields of political science and research
methods. In 2006 they conducted a study entitled The Daily Show Effect- Candidate Evaluations,
Efficacy, and American Youth, in which they discussed the ideas of hard news (which they define as
mainstream news-media programs) versus soft news (like satirical or comedic news programs and talk
shows), and the preferences of the youth. Their study also included a variety of other variables involved
with going to soft news for information, and an experiment about the cynicism of soft news viewers. They
discuss the increased relevance of soft news as a source of political information for youth, but as an
alternative to hard news.
25%[of 18-24 year olds]reported that they pay no attention at all to hard news. Significantly, only
23% of regular Daily Show viewers report that they followed hard news closely. Finally,
although The Daily Show is not intended to be a legitimate news source, over half of young
adults in this age group reported that they got at least some news about the 2004 presidential
campaign from comedy programs like The Daily Show(Baumgartner/Morris, 2006, p. 344).

Jeremy

Gagnon

Period 9
10/8/15
Overall, satirical news shows are the answer to engaging youth politically, whether attracting those who
normally would not be watching any form of political news program through comedy, or giving those
bored with traditional news a place to find information. No matter which of these two groups young
voters fall under, they both demographically have more to gain in terms of political awareness, whether
through coming in contact with political information for the first time or finding a more engaging and
therefore effective source for the delivery of information. While none of these sources directly attribute
satirical news shows to specifically increasing youth political participation and voter turnout, one can
easily infer from the sources that they do. This is clearly shown as sources ascribe youth political
awareness to satirical news shows, and explain that these shows increase the political participation of its
general viewership in some cases. However, there are some issues in how satirical shows like The Daily
Show with Jon Stewart deliver this information, which negatively affects the political outlook and
perceived sense of political knowledge of its largely youth based viewership.
This sub-topical transition, which seems more forced and awkward than the last, is this way due
to the fact that it is transferring the lit review from the the main story over to the epilogue, in which
the strange findings accumulated throughout my research in many of the sources already cited, most of
which entail the negative effects of the format of satirical news shows. Through an analysis of these
findings, and information from the sources from the main story, these negative effects are explained and
rebuked.
Setbacks Rearing political cynics and a false sense of knowledge
Due to the satirical and comedic format of many fake news shows, the biting humor used often
towards a variety of entities in the wide realm of politics can ingrain cynical views of politics in viewers,
especially those who largely dont have another source for political information, namely youth, to counter
the harsh pokes at American politics offer on satirical news shows. As many sources relating to satirical
news shows and their political influences are generally thorough studies or essays with multiple sections
that cover a variety of influential and problematic facets of this form of media, many sources can be used
to describe more than one condition. It is because of this that we now return to discuss an idea published
in What Do We Need to Know About Political Comedy, an article by Associate Professors Amy B. Becker
and Don J. Waisanen. This article discusses findings from a study and dictates that, along with the
engagement that the satire of these comedic news shows create, comes a certain amount of cynicism in
the viewers.
One set of variables has dealt with citizens knowledge and learning, showing that such content
generally increases knowledge about politics and helps people pay more attention to elections.

Jeremy

Gagnon

Period 9
10/8/15
This research also has looked at the impact of comedic messages on peoples attitudes and
opinions, and the overall levels of cynicism and engagement that result (Becker/Waisanen, 2014).
While this seems to be a fairly broad statement satirical news shows, it does identify the fact that there is a
fair amount of cynicism that comes with the engagement which are both created by the comedy and satire
involved in this type of program. It also clearly brings this topic to the table, citing that other research has
tested the levels of this new variable. This brings us once again to the 2006 study titled The Daily Show
Effect- Candidate Evaluations, Efficacy, and American Youth, by Dr. Jody Baumgartner and Dr. Jonathan
S. Morris. In this study the two professors at East Carolina University conducted an experiment about the
effects of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on viewer cynicism towards politics.
We find that participants exposed to jokes about George W. Bush and John Kerry on The Daily
Show tended to rate both candidates more negatively, even when controlling for partisanship and
other demographic variables. Moreover, we find that viewers exhibit more cynicism toward the
electoral system and the news media at large (Baumgartner/Morris, 2006, p. 341).
In this summarization of the findings of the Baumgartner/Morris experiment clearly confirms that, even
under controlled variables, the idea put forth in the Becker/Waisanen essay is valid, in that not only do
viewers express cynicism towards specific politicians, but towards more broad aspects of the US political
institution such as the electoral system, as well as more traditional forms of news media. While this
correlation of increased cynicism to viewing satirical news programs does not exactly prove the comedy
and satire of these shows as the direct causation, the researchers had control groups not recognized in this
summary that watched more traditional shows similar in content and brevity to the satirical news
programs, but lacking only the satire and humor, and recorded that the control groups exhibited
considerably less cynicism.
This 2006 study not only finds problems with satirical news programs through their tendencies to
cause political cynicism among viewers, but also accuses soft news shows of giving viewers, especially
those not accustomed to watching the news (like many youth) a false sense of political knowledge
through general oversimplification of the political system, through compiling information from several
other sources.
Many have argued that soft news threatens the integrity of the democratic process by
overemphasizing trivial events, downplaying significant public affairs issues, and oversimplifying
the complex reality of these issues (Fallows, 1996; Kalb, 2001; Patterson, 2000). For instance,
Hollander (1995) found that exposure to entertainment-based talk programs artificially inflated
viewers perceptions of their own political knowledge. However, recent research by Baum (2002,

Jeremy

Gagnon

Period 9
10/8/15
2003a, 2003b, 2005) has challenged this notion. He argues that soft news creates a more
knowledgeable citizenry by educating an inattentive public that would not otherwise follow
traditional hard news (Baumgartner/Morris, 2006, p. 342).
These various causes of a false sense of political knowledge among viewers can generally be attributed to
the general layout and comical nature of this satirical news show itself. Not only is each program usually
restricted to a half hour each airing, but as is common with soft news, there are often times guest
appearances that have no political affiliations in most cases. This greatly reduces the amount of time the
presenters of the shows have to present, combined with the need for a fresh topic each day means that the
political content in these shows is generally simplified or downplayed to meet the demands of the TV
network's schedule, in which satirical news shows are just one of many acts. When seemingly trivial
events are overplayed by satirical news shows, on the other side of the spectrum, this is generally due to
the emphasis of a joke, and is simply a by-product of experiencing political news through comedy.
Overall however, as this quote from the Baumgartner/Morris study begins to explain, even
though its may create a false sense of political knowledge and political cynicism amongst some of its
viewers, satirical news programs and their diverse format are able to successfully increase political
awareness and participation amongst its viewers, especially those who otherwise would not be exposed to
political information either due to general lack of interest in politics or a lack of interest in alternative
news sources, and many of whom are young voters.

Gagnon

Jeremy
Period 9
10/8/15

III. BibliographyBaumgartner, Jody, and Jonathan S. Morris. The Daily Show Effect- Candidate Evaluations, Efficacy, and
American Youth. N.p.: Sage, 2006. Digital file.
<http://www.npr.org/documents/2006/jul/dailyshow.pdf>
Baym, Geoffrey. The Daily Show: Discursive Integration and the Reinvention of Political Journalism.
N.p.: 5 Taylor & Francis Inc., 2005. Print.
Becker, Amy B., and Don J. Waisanen. What Do We Need to Know About Political Comedy?
Communication Currents. National Communication Association, 2015. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.
<https://www.natcom.org/CommCurrentsArticle.aspx?id=4675>.
Feldman, Lauren, Anthony Leiserowitz, and Edward Maibach. The Science of Satire; The Daily Show
and The Colbert Report as Sources of Public Attention to Science and the Environment. The
Stewart/Colbert Effect; Essays on the Real Impacts of Fake News. Ed. Amarnath Amarasingam.
Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc. 2011. (25-46). Digital File.
Mankoff, Robert. How Does Satire Influence Politics? moment. Moment Magazine, 2015. Web. 11
Nov. 2015. <http://www.momentmag.com/how-does-satire-influence-politics/>.
Rampell, Catherine. Where are all the young voters? The Washington Post. The Washington Post, 23
July 2015. Web. 10 Jan. 2016.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/where-are-the-young-voters/2015/07/23/2781990e-3
16f-11e5-8f36-18d1d501920d_story.html>.