Political Behavior

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 79–102 | Cite as

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Audience Attitude Change During the 2004 Party Conventions

Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Humor American politics Jon Stewart The Daily Show 2004 party conventions 

References

  1. Barker, D. C. (2002). Rushed to judgment: Talk radio, persuasion, and American political behavior. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Baum, M. A. (2002). Sex, lies, and war: How soft news brings foreign policy to the inattentive public. American Political Science Review, 96, 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Baum, M. A. (2005). Talk the vote: Why presidential candidates hit the talk show circuit. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 213–234. doi:10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.t01-1-00119.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baumgartner, J. C. (2006). The American vice presidency reconsidered. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  7. Baumgartner, J. C. (2007). Humor on the next frontier: Youth, online political humor, and the ‘jib-jab’ effect. Social Science Computer Review, 25, 319–338. doi:10.1177/0894439306295395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baumgartner, J., & Morris, J. S. (2006). The daily show effect: Candidate evaluations, efficacy, and the American youth. American Politics Research, 34, 341–367. doi:10.1177/1532673X05280074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baym, G. (2005). The daily show: Discursive integration and the reinvention of political journalism. Political Communication, 22, 259–276. doi:10.1080/10584600591006492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bennett, L. W. (2007). News: The politics of illusion (7th ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  11. Brewer, P. R., & Cao, X. (2006). Candidate appearances on soft news shows and public knowledge about primary campaigns. The Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 50, 18–35. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem5001_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brinkman, D. (1968). Do editorial cartoons and editorials change opinions? Journalism Quarterly, 45, 724–726.Google Scholar
  13. 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.
  14. Dalton, R. J., Beck, P. A., & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Partisan cues and the media. American Political Science Review, 92, 111–126. doi:10.2307/2585932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis, R., & Owen, D. (1998). The new media and American politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Druckman, J. N., & Parkin, M. (2005). The impact of media bias: How editorial slant affects voters. The Journal of Politics, 67, 1030–1049. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00349.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Fox, R. L., & Van Sickel, R. W. (2001). Tabloid justice: Criminal justice in an age of media frenzy. Boulder, CO: Rienner Press.Google Scholar
  19. Freedman, J. L., Sears, D. O., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1978). Social psychology (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Garofoli, J. (2004). Young voters turning to fake anchor for insight. San Francisco Chronicle, October 21, 2004, p. A1.Google Scholar
  21. Hoffman, B. (2005). Apple power—New York honchos dominate 100 most influential. The New York Post, April 11, 2005, p. 17.Google Scholar
  22. Hoffman, B. (2006). Oprah still reigns as TV queen. The New York Post, February 6, 2006, p. 7.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Hollander, B. A. (2005). Late-night learning: Do entertainment programs increase political campaign knowledge for young viewers. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49, 402–415. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4904_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones, D. A. (2002). The polarizing effect of new media messages. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14, 158–174. doi:10.1093/ijpor/14.2.158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones, J. P. (2005a). Entertaining politics: News political television and civic culture. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  27. Jones, J. A. (2005b). The masking effects of humor on audience perception of message organization. Humor, 18, 405–417. doi:10.1515/humr.2005.18.4.405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kahn, K. F., & Kenny, P. J. (2002). The slant of news. American Political Science Review, 96, 381–394. doi:10.1017/S0003055402000230.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Kuiper, N. A., McKenzie, S. D., & Belanger, K. A. (1995). Cognitive appraisals and individual differences in sense of humor: Motivational and affective implications. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 359–372. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(95)00072-E.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Lyttle, J. (2001). The effectiveness of humor in persuasion: The case of business ethics training. Journal of General Psychology, 128, 206–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Moy, P., Xenos, M. A., & Hess, V. K. (2005). Priming effects of late-night comedy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18, 198–210. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.
  36. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Niven, D. (1999). Partisan bias in the media? A new test. Social Science Quarterly, 80, 847–857.Google Scholar
  38. Niven, D. (2001). Bias in the news: Partisanship and negativity in media coverage of presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 6, 31–46. doi:10.1177/108118001129172215.Google Scholar
  39. Niven, D. (2002). Tilt? The search for media bias. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  40. Niven, D. (2003). Objective evidence on media bias: Newspaper coverage of congressional party switchers. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80, 311–326.Google Scholar
  41. Osterhouse, R. A., & Brock, T. C. (1970). Distraction increases yielding to propaganda by inhibiting counterarguing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 344–358. doi:10.1037/h0029598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Patterson, T. E. (1994). Out of order. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  44. Pew Research Center. (2004a). Cable and internet loom large in fragmented political news universe. News Release, January 11, 2004, http://www.people-press.org.
  45. Pew Research Center. (2004b). News audiences increasingly politicized. Research report released June 8, 2004, www.people-press.org/reports.
  46. Pew Research Center. (2006). Online papers modestly boost newspaper readership. Biennial Media Consumption Study. Report Released July 30, 2006, www.people-press.org/reports.
  47. Schmidt, S. R. (1994). Effects of humor on sentence memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 953–967. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.4.953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sinclair, R. C., Mark, M. M., & Clore, G. L. (1994). Mood-related persuasion depends on (mis)attributions. Social Cognition, 12, 309–326.Google Scholar
  49. Sternthall, B., & Craig, C. S. (1973). Humor in advertising. Journal of Marketing, 37, 12–18. doi:10.2307/1250353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Walster, E., Aronson, E., & Abrahams, D. (1966). On increasing the persuasiveness of a low prestige communicator. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 325–342. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(66)90026-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. West, D. M. (2001). The rise and fall of the media establishment. Boston: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  52. Young, D. G. (2004a). Late-night comedy in election 2000: Its influence on candidate trait ratings and the moderating effects of political knowledge and partisanship. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 48, 1–22. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4801_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. Young, D. G., & Tisinger, R. M. (2006). Dispelling late-night myths: News consumption among late-night comedy viewers and the predictors and exposure to various late-night shows. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11, 113–134. doi:10.1177/1081180X05286042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceEast Carolina UniversityGreenvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations