The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Audience Attitude Change During the 2004 Party Conventions
The intention of this analysis is to examine The Daily Show with Jon Stewart’s coverage of politics and assess the persuasive power of the program’s unique brand of humor. Evidence from a content analysis of The Daily Show’s “Indecision 2004” coverage of the Democratic and Republican Party Conventions shows the program’s humor was much harsher during the Republican Convention than it was during the Democratic Convention. While the humor in both conventions was heavily based on self-deprecation and the exploitation of conventional political stereotypes, the ridicule of Republicans focused much more on policy and character flaws. Humor pointed toward Democrats, on the other hand, tended to focus more on innocuous physical attributes. Analysis of panel data collected by the National Annenberg Election Survey during the 2004 national party conventions shows that exposure to The Daily Show’s convention coverage was associated with increased negativity toward President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. These relationships remain significant even when controlling for partisan identification and ideology. Attitudes toward the Democratic ticket, John Kerry and John Edwards remained consistent.
KeywordsHumor American politics Jon Stewart The Daily Show 2004 party conventions
- Barker, D. C. (2002). Rushed to judgment: Talk radio, persuasion, and American political behavior. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Bartels, L. M. (2006). Three virtues of panel data for the analysis of campaign effects. In H. E. Bradyand & R. Johnston (Eds.), Capturing campaign effects. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
- Baum, M. A. (2003). Soft news goes to war: Public opinion and American foreign policy in the new media age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.Google Scholar
- Baumgartner, J. C. (2006). The American vice presidency reconsidered. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
- Bennett, L. W. (2007). News: The politics of illusion (7th ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
- Brinkman, D. (1968). Do editorial cartoons and editorials change opinions? Journalism Quarterly, 45, 724–726.Google Scholar
- Cable News Network (CNN). (2004). Transcript from CNN’s Crossfire, October 15, 2004. Transcript retrieved from transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html.
- Davis, R., & Owen, D. (1998). The new media and American politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Folkenflik, D. (2003). Daily dose of media crit is dead-on: Satirical Daily Show punctures self-esteem of journalism’s hordes. Baltimore Sun, December 10, 2003, p. E10.Google Scholar
- Fox, R. L., & Van Sickel, R. W. (2001). Tabloid justice: Criminal justice in an age of media frenzy. Boulder, CO: Rienner Press.Google Scholar
- Freedman, J. L., Sears, D. O., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1978). Social psychology (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Garofoli, J. (2004). Young voters turning to fake anchor for insight. San Francisco Chronicle, October 21, 2004, p. A1.Google Scholar
- Hoffman, B. (2005). Apple power—New York honchos dominate 100 most influential. The New York Post, April 11, 2005, p. 17.Google Scholar
- Hoffman, B. (2006). Oprah still reigns as TV queen. The New York Post, February 6, 2006, p. 7.Google Scholar
- Holbert, R. L., Lambe, J. L., Dudo, A. D., & Carlton, K. A. (2007). Primacy effects of the Daily Show and national TV news viewing: Young viewers, political gratifications, and internal political self-efficacy. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51, 20–38.Google Scholar
- Jones, J. P. (2005a). Entertaining politics: News political television and civic culture. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
- Kenski, K., & Romer, D. (2006). Analysis of panel data. In D. Romer, K. Kenski, K. Winneg, C. Adasiewicz, & K. Hall Jamieson (Eds.), Capturing campaign dynamics 2000 & 2004. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
- Kurtz, H. (2004). The campaign of a comedian: Jon Stewart’s fake journalism enjoys real political impact. The Washington Post, October 23, 2004, p. A1.Google Scholar
- Morris, J. S., & Baumgartner, J. C. (2008). The Daily Show and attitudes toward the news media. In J. C Baumgartner & J. S. Morris (Eds.), Laughing matters: Humor and American politics in the media age. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- National Annenberg Election Survey. (2004). Daily Show viewers knowledgeable about presidential campaigns. National Annenberg Election Survey shows, http://www.naes04.org. Accessed 21 Oct 2004.
- Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Niven, D. (1999). Partisan bias in the media? A new test. Social Science Quarterly, 80, 847–857.Google Scholar
- Niven, D. (2002). Tilt? The search for media bias. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
- Niven, D. (2003). Objective evidence on media bias: Newspaper coverage of congressional party switchers. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80, 311–326.Google Scholar
- Panagopoulos, C. (2007). Follow the bouncing ball: Assessing convention bumps, 1964–2004. In C. Panagopoulos (Ed.), Rewiring politics: Presidential nominating conventions in the media age. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
- Patterson, T. E. (1994). Out of order. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
- Pew Research Center. (2004a). Cable and internet loom large in fragmented political news universe. News Release, January 11, 2004, http://www.people-press.org.
- Pew Research Center. (2004b). News audiences increasingly politicized. Research report released June 8, 2004, www.people-press.org/reports.
- Pew Research Center. (2006). Online papers modestly boost newspaper readership. Biennial Media Consumption Study. Report Released July 30, 2006, www.people-press.org/reports.
- Sinclair, R. C., Mark, M. M., & Clore, G. L. (1994). Mood-related persuasion depends on (mis)attributions. Social Cognition, 12, 309–326.Google Scholar
- West, D. M. (2001). The rise and fall of the media establishment. Boston: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
- Young, D. G. (2004b). The counterargument-disruption model of political humor (CADIMO): An experimental exploration of the effects of late-night political jokes on cognitive elaboration and the conditional effects of partisanship. Paper prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, September 2–6, 2004.Google Scholar
- Young, D. G. (2006). Late-night comedy and the salience of the candidates’ caricatured traits in the 2000 election. Mass Media & Society, 9, 339–366.Google Scholar
- Young, D. G. (2008). The Daily Show as new journalism: In their own words. In J. C. Baumgartner & J. S. Morris (Eds.), Laughing matters: Humor and American politics in the media age. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar