Meader, A., Whaley, M., & Dozier, D. (2009, May). A survey of broadcast journalism viewers: How comedic editorial analysis impacts democratic participation. Paper presented to the Journalism Division at the International Communication Association annual conference, Chicago.
invisible line of text

Although most American television networks boast balanced coverage, the mission toward objective, fair reporting often falls short of this goal. Market pressures and false notions of objectivity may lower the quality of broadcast news by stripping facts of context or by creating an inaccurate representation of American politics.

The present study compared level of political comprehension, credibility assigned to different news networks, and the level of political activity that respondents reported as a function of their exposure to different news networks.
Back To Top
invisible line of text

Although these standards are practiced by the media industry, there is still no agreement about standards of news coverage or ethical reporting. Journalistic notions of format, tone, delivery, and content are open for debate (Baym, 2005) and may be redefined as cultural practices shift.

The concept of context is central to the role of journalism in a democracy and a key attribute of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (The Daily Show). For the purposes of this study, context is defined as an organizing framework that “provides meaning to an unfolding strip of events, weaving a connection among them” (Gamson & Modigliani, 1987, p. 143).

Context plays a pivotal role in viewer interpretation because it speaks to existing cognitive schemas (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). Contextual information, often embedded by the careful juxtaposition of facts, enables viewers to assess the value of new information in relation to what is already known.

Although The Daily Show is often considered comedy, the program is rich with political context, and often stacks hard news stories in ways that engender meaning.

The following example is a clip from The Daily Show, aired during a 2007 interview on Bill Moyers Journal (Moyers, 2007). Here, host Jon Stewart sets up a sound bite from President George W. Bush in reaction to congressional decision that tied funding of America’s military troops in Iraq to a definite date for withdrawal.

Back To Top

Although the sound bite of President Bush might make it appear as if Congress is cutting military funding just as troops are making progress, this timeline may be inaccurate.

The montage of sound bites adds a layer of context that alters the possible interpretation of the President’s reaction. Without the montage, a viewer might be inclined to agree that the congressional decision to cut military funding was negative, due to the recent “progress” in Iraq.

By framing the President’s most recent statement about Iraq in position to past statements, we see that progress is not a new assertion, but potentially a party line.

This example illustrates how context allows for new interpretations of facts and sound bites. Perhaps of greater importance, these clips demonstrate how limiting context may impact notions of accuracy.
Back To Top
invisible line of text

Although some have argued that The Daily Show falls under the category of soft news, the program’s style borrows attributes from all three formats. The Daily Show’s unique mix of humor, commentary, and factual political information creates a fourth news format: comedic editorial analysis.

This format includes characteristics of hard news, employed by networks such as CNN, the use of parody and satire similar to comedy news formats such as Saturday Night Live, and the potential to engender social discussion like soft news programs such as Oprah.

Patterson (2000) defined hard news as the coverage of breaking events, major issues, or significant disruptions in the routines of daily life, such as an earthquake or airline disaster. This type of coverage is often referred to as headline news because of urgency or importance to the viewer.

Information about these types of events is presumably vital to viewers’ abilities to understand American politics and act as responsible citizens. Hard news is therefore relevant, timely, often controversial, and political in nature. Network news channels such as CNN, C-SPAN, Fox News, PBS, MSNBC, and others feature hard news (Baum, 2002).

Similar to hard news, Comedy Central’s The Daily Show primarily features international or national stories, the large majority of which are political in nature, that are treated as headline news by network news stations. As such, these stories are extremely timely and relevant.

Additionally, stories featured on The Daily Show are ripe with controversy, and may even spur controversy in the news media and the public. Topics have included the war on terrorism; America’s foreign policy; the failure of prewar intelligence (Baym, 2005); and the presidential elections of 2000, 2004, and 2008.

In contrast, soft news is “more sensational, more personality-oriented, less time-bound, more practical, and more incident-based than other news” (Patterson, 2000, p. 5). This format frequently omits social controversy in favor of celebrity gossip, crime, human-interest stories, and entertainment (Baum, 2002).

Similar to soft news, The Daily Show regularly gives emphasis to the most shocking tidbits on America’s political landscape, often highlighting political blunders, media mess-ups, and other topics that may foster conversation around the water cooler.

Although the show’s content is politically charged, and not rooted in celebrity gossip or matters of human-interest such as water-skiing squirrels, the show’s stated function is entertainment. Thus, The Daily Show selects stories based on viewer appeal, not in deference to the journalistic standards professed by the cable news networks.

Though soft news may contain less factual information, the conversational style employed by this format may convey complex political concepts in a manner that is accessible to the American viewer.

Baum (2002) contended that mainstream media networks frequently cover political stories in a manner that is too complex or arcane for the typical American viewer to understand. By making these stories more accessible, such treatments increase the likelihood that viewers will understand and potentially discuss political topics.

Likewise, The Daily Show repackages political content in a humorous manner that may encourage comprehension and subsequent discussion. Jon Stewart’s mission to entertain, and not specifically inform, may provide The Daily Show greater flexibility to deconstruct American politics and embed its coverage with contextual information.

The use of humor and parody are commonly found in comedy news sources, such as Saturday Night Live and NBC’s Tonight Show with Jay Leno (Baym, 2005).

Media professionals, including Jon Stewart, often refer to this format as “fake news” due to the use of erroneous facts, political parody, and satire. Similar to soft news, comedy news content seeks to entertain. However, unlike The Daily Show, political coverage may be distorted or inaccurate.

During a 2003 interview on NOW with Bill Moyers, Jon Stewart explained how his program differs (Moyers, 2003):

Back To Top

Though concerns of accuracy remain a significant factor in the categorization of news media, both comedy news coverage and The Daily Show offer a greater degree of subjectivity. Jokes and political parodies provide a specific point of view that is often absent in hard news coverage.

Purveyors of hard news strive to be objective, regardless of whether or not that goal is actually possible, or even desirable (Feldman, 2007).

By contrast, comedic editorial analysis, featured on The Daily Show, celebrates subjectivity with a lineup of editorials, characterizations, jokes, and the juxtaposition of stories and sound bites that imply various points of view.

Arguably, The Daily Show is the only humorous program of its kind to meet the standards of comedic editorial analysis. The program not only provides accurate political information, but also offers a specific point of view.

Feldman (2007) argued that news formats like The Daily Show don’t claim the objective style of hard news reporting, so such programs are free to be subjective, innovative, and potentially more contextual.

By moving beyond objective facts and figures, Jon Stewart is often able to add a layer of meaning that may put the day’s events in perspective. His reaction to America’s political decisions or stories that arise from Capitol Hill may enable viewers to connect a string of disjointed facts into a series of concepts that are meaningful and accessible.

As such, this format of news media may come closest to achieving the journalistic standards set by the Hutchins Commission – namely, to provide an accurate account of the day’s events in a context that gives them meaning.
Back To Top
invisible line of text

While not everyone is convinced that The Daily Show is a critical source of political information, the show may, in fact, contribute to an enlightened citizenry.

The University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Survey (2004) revealed that young viewers of The Daily Show answered more political questions correctly than non-viewers. A later study by the Pew Research Institute (2007) yielded similar findings.

More than half (54%) of respondents who reported that they “regularly” watch The Daily Show were classified in the high knowledge group. This group correctly answered at least 15 out of 23 questions about politics and world affairs.

By contrast, only 35% of the public scored as well, and only 41% of regular CNN viewers and 35% of regular Fox News Channel viewers achieved this elevated category.

Both of these studies required respondents to recall and apply information as a measure of their political comprehension. Topics included America’s foreign policy decisions, knowledge of political leaders, and bipartisan trends in Congress, among others.

Each respondent’s level of viewer comprehension provides a measure of acquired political information and the ability to recall such information.

Though multiple media formats, such as online newspaper web sites, radio, television programs, and news magazines, may contribute to a respondent’s cumulative political awareness, the results of these two studies warrant further examination regarding the specific news format used by The Daily Show and its potential benefits.

The subjective style and relaxed pace of comedic editorial analysis news coverage may present select stories with a greater level of context and political significance than traditional coverage.

Unlike hard news, which often stacks unrelated stories in a rapid-fire manner, reducing their perceived level of importance, The Daily Show covers fewer topics in greater depth (Baym, 2005).

Lengthy commentary on specific stories may allow the viewer to pause and consider, or reconsider, the implications of political messages, weigh the impact of political events, and potentially understand how a myriad of otherwise disjointed facts and figures fit into America’s political landscape.

While some might assume that Jon Stewart’s comedic discourse falls outside the realm of legitimate news, a content analysis of media coverage during the 2004 presidential election found equal levels of political substance on The Daily Show and other broadcast networks such as ABC’s World News Tonight and NBC’s The Nightly News (Fox, Koloen, & Sahin, 2007).

Despite differences in these two news formats, analysis revealed no significant difference in the substantive coverage of campaign issues and candidate qualifications.

Besides content, the humor and comedic tone featured on The Daily Show may help viewers recall a greater amount of political information (Fox, Park & Lang, 2006). Researchers found that viewers are able to code more information when the message was positive than when the message was negative.

While Jon Stewart’s jabs at political figures are often negative in nature, the actual joke may cause the viewer to laugh, which may be treated as a positive affective response. Positive activation of memory systems may allow viewers to encode and potentially remember a greater quantity of political issues.

This study posits:
H1: Respondents with high exposure to The Daily Show will report higher comprehension of political issues than respondents with high exposure to network news.
Back To Top
invisible line of text

Ideally, news media serve as a filter and sort the relevant and reliable information from the erroneous or trivial information (Horn). By doing so, news networks and news programs establish a degree of credibility (Horn).

While news consumers certainly have different expectations regarding quality journalism, a network’s perceived level of trust is arguably a predominate concern. Choi (2006) defined media credibility as the perception of a news channel’s believability.

Globally, levels of trust vary by nation. In the United States, 59% of the population claim to trust the media (GlobeScan, 2006). While this figure may seem low, trust in media has risen over the last four years – up from 52% in 2002.

Around the world, 88% of Nigerian respondents indicated they trusted the media, which was the highest percentage of any country. In contrast, only 43% of the population in Germany trusts media (GlobeScan).

While notions of credibility are socially and culturally fluid, news consumers may share certain criteria: Does the news source offer accurate reporting? Does the news source offer comprehensive reporting? Does the news source air content that is worth reporting? Though this final question may seem off topic, the selection of news content may play a pivotal role in determining media credibility.

Networks that air a greater quantity of soft news content may be deemed of lower quality than networks that favor hard news coverage (Patterson, 2000), which may translate to lower perceptions of credibility.

Because soft news content is selected for its ability to shock or entertain, and not for its ability to inform, soft news often has little to do with public affairs (Patterson).

While coverage may be accurate, it may not carry much social or political value. An American survey revealed that respondents who believe the news has gone soft were also likely to say coverage is superficial, sensational, and deteriorating in quality (Patterson).

Although The Daily Show is comedic editorial analysis, and not soft news coverage, the program’s tone and moments of parody may lead viewers to classify the program as soft news.

This study predicts:
H2: Respondents with high exposure to The Daily Show will report lower levels of perceived media credibility than respondents with high exposure to network news.
Back To Top
invisible line of text

With today’s proliferation of technology, the media provide the primary link between political candidates and the public (Shoemaker, 1996). For many citizens, media reports are the only way of acquiring information about political leaders, candidates, and officials.

Although the media’s power to shape public opinion is not clear, news networks and programs provide a social glue that unites audiences under an umbrella of common information (Horn). Hence, news stories and media coverage create a network of understanding that enable citizens to discuss and debate civic events and potentially perform as effective voters (Baum & Jamison, 1995; Horn, 2007).

White (2005) argued that for democracy to have any meaning for citizens, news coverage must not only be accurate, timely, and reliable, but useful as well. He claimed that effective news media must, therefore, provide a wide variety of differing opinions, which may include views that audiences find, “troubling, outrageous, and even dangerous” (White, p. 652).

Subjective commentary, as featured on The Daily Show, contributes to ideological pluralism in American media by introducing critical ideas, which are often irreverent of media and government institutions. Criticisms of America’s political affairs may serve to strengthen foundations of democracy by encouraging critical thought and enabling civic discussion.

By launching his opinions and interpretations of world news, Jon Stewart allows audiences to compare and potentially validate their own judgments against those of a national figure they have come to know (Popkin, 1991). This “shared ideoscape” (Popkin, p.7) unites parts of society by providing a similar foundation of information for viewers.

Of course, a healthy democracy requires more than civic discussion – it also requires action (Huddy & Khatib, 2007). Acts of civic participation, such as speaking at public rallies and writing letters to congressmen, constitute normative behavior for “good” citizens (Conover, Searing, & Crewe, 2004).

In a 2007 report of a survey, more than one third of American respondents listed voting practices as the best measure of citizenship (Huddy & Khatib).

If a functioning democracy requires ideological pluralism, the distribution of accurate and reliable information, and media content that is selected and structured in response to America’s political environment, then it might also be reasonable to believe that viewers of The Daily Show are participants of American politics.

This study posits:
H3: Viewers of The Daily Show will report a higher frequency of participation in democratic and civic events than viewers of network news.
Back To Top
invisible line of text

The respondents were asked to assess their use of news media, media preferences, program preferences, news credibility, and participation in civic and democratic activities.

Respondents were also given a comprehension test to evaluate their understanding and recall of political issues and foreign affairs (see Table 1).

Subjects consisted of enrolled undergraduate and graduate students in communication courses at a large western university. This population was selected because college-age students are more likely to watch The Daily Show than network news (Pew, 2004).

The survey was distributed via email to the email addresses in the Blackboard database of the University. Respondents were offered extra credit in exchange for their participation. All respondents who completed the survey were included in the study. The study was approved by the University’s Institutional Review Board.

Level of Exposure
Survey respondents were categorized into respondents with a high level of exposure (high exposure) to various news networks, and respondents with a low level of exposure (low exposure) to various networks.

High exposure was defined as respondents who reported watching a particular news network or program “sometimes” or “often.” Low exposure was defined as respondents who “rarely” or “never” watched a news network or program.

With these exposure levels, the researchers were able to compare respondents with high exposure to The Daily Show with respondents who had high exposure to other networks.

For example, respondents who reported high exposure to The Daily Show were compared with respondents who reported high exposure to CNN, with regard to comprehension, credibility, and participation.

Each network was examined individually in comparison with The Daily Show.

Political Comprehension
Political comprehension is defined by the amount of information acquired through news media and viewers’ ability to recall that knowledge.

Levels of political comprehension were examined using an amended version of the Pew Research Center’s political comprehension test from 2007. Respondents were asked to answer 10 questions on current political issues. Each respondent’s political comprehension score is the percentage of correct answers they marked on the test.

Cronbach’s reliability coefficient for the ten-item political comprehension index was low. Item analysis revealed that if two items were removed (number of military fatalities in Iraq and minimum wage), the reliability of the political comprehension index improved. The final Cronbach’s reliability coefficient was .64, which was deemed minimally acceptable. The eight-item political comprehension index was used in all subsequent analysis.

Viewer Credibility Index
The viewer credibility index has three defining attributes: (1) the level of credibility attributed to any network, (2) the degree to which the content helps the viewer (utility), and (3) the perceived level of trust a viewer places with any network.

The concept of credibility includes two constructs: competency and accuracy. Accuracy is defined as the level of exactness or precision with which a news network portrays an event, policy, or concept. Competency is defined by both skills and knowledge; thus, a “competent” network employs reporters that are both skillful and knowledgeable.

Utility is defined as the usefulness of knowledge obtained through news media in the viewer’s decisions about political issues, candidates and civic affairs.

Finally, trust is defined as the level of confidence a viewer has that a particular network reports the news truthfully.

Cronbach’s reliability coefficients for the viewer credibility index for each network ranged from .85 (Fox News) to .74 (BBC); these reliability coefficients are within the range of reliability generally acceptable for hypothesis testing. Cronbach’s reliability for The Daily Show, however, was lower (alpha=.63) than for the news networks.

Democratic Participation
Democratic participation is defined as the respondent’s level of participation in clubs or rallies and other civic affairs using Putnam’s seven measures of community involvement.

This index includes (1) writing a letter or email to a newspaper, television station or website, (2) participating in regular volunteer work, (3) contacting someone in state government, (4) contacting someone in national government, (5) attending regular club meetings, (6) attending a political rally, and (7) speaking in front of a large group (Putnam, 2000).

This study expanded Putnam’s measure of community involvement to include an eighth measure: whether or not the respondent was a registered voter. Cronbach’s alpha for the democratic participation index was .56. Removal of problematic items from the index did not improve the reliability substantially.

Given the low reliability of the index, findings must be viewed with caution. This is especially true if the null hypothesis is supported by the data. Under these conditions, null findings are ambiguous; they may disconfirm the theory or they may simply reflect flaws in operationalization.

Confirmation of the hypothesis, on the other hand, is less ambiguous. Such confirmation indicates that the effect size is sufficient to overcome less-than-desired reliability of the participation index.
Back To Top
invisible line of text

Results were calculated by comparing respondents with high exposure to The Daily Show with respondents who indicated they had a high level of exposure to another network. In total, respondents were asked about eight news networks, as well as The Daily Show.

To preclude testing respondents who had the same exposure to The Daily Show and another network, when comparing results, only respondents with a higher exposure to a particular network than The Daily Show were compared with respondents who indicated that they had a higher exposure to The Daily Show than the other network.

For example, respondents who indicated they had a higher exposure to CNN than The Daily Show were compared to respondents who indicated they had a higher level of exposure to The Daily Show than they did to CNN. This method was repeated for each of the eight networks included in the survey and for each hypothesis.

Results: Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis one posited that respondents with high exposure to The Daily Show would report higher comprehension of political issues than respondents with high exposure to network news.

This hypothesis was partially supported. An analysis of variance revealed that respondents with high exposure to The Daily Show posted significantly higher levels of comprehension on the political questionnaire when compared with respondents with high exposure to Fox, ABC, and CBS.

Moreover, respondents with high exposure to The Daily Show posted higher levels of comprehension on the political questionnaire when compared with respondents with high exposure to CNN, MSMBC, and C-SPAN. These differences in political comprehension are not statistically significant.

The only exceptions to this pattern were respondents with high levels of exposure to PBS and the BBC. Respondents with high levels of exposure to PBS and BBC posted higher comprehension scores than did viewers with high levels of exposure to The Daily Show. However, these differences in political comprehension are not statistically significant (see Table 2).

Results: Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis two stated that respondents with high exposure to The Daily Show would report lower perceptions of media credibility than respondents with high exposure to network news. The credibility index included perceptions of accuracy, competency, trustworthiness and utility.

Unlike hypotheses 1 and 3, this hypothesis tested differences in mean credibility scores of The Daily Show against the credibility scores of the news networks. Thus, any respondent that watched The Daily Show or any news network at least some of the time (rarely, sometimes, or often) was asked to evaluate the credibility of all programs and networks they watched.

A paired samples t-test was used to test differences in mean credibility indices.

The hypothesis was disconfirmed by the data. The t-tests revealed that respondents with at least some exposure to The Daily Show found the program just a credible as did those with some exposure to the various news networks.

The only exception involved respondents with some levels of exposure to CNN. Viewers of CNN attributed higher levels of credibility to CNN than did those who evaluated the credibility of The Daily Show.

Overall, these results were somewhat surprising since The Daily Show is a parody of a news program, and should therefore not have the same levels of credibility as traditional, “legitimate” news networks (see Table 3).

Most interestingly, The Daily Show had significantly higher credibility scores among its viewers, when compared to the credibility scores of viewers of Fox News.

Results: Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis three posited that respondents with high exposure to The Daily Show would report higher frequency of participation in democratic and civic events than respondents with high exposure to other news networks. There were a total of eight possible political activities from which respondents could select.

Hypothesis three was partially supported. Respondents with high exposure to The Daily Show participated in significantly more political and civic activities than respondents with high exposure to MSNBC, CNN and Fox News.

Respondents with high exposure to The Daily Show participated in more political and civic activities than did respondents with high exposure to ABC, CSPAN, and CBS. However, these differences were not statistically significant.

Respondents with high levels of exposure to PBS and the BBC participated in more political and civic activities than did those with high exposure to The Daily Show. These differences were not statistically significant, however (see Table 4).
Back To Top
invisible line of text

This highlights the negative impact that market pressures may have on news networks. Major media conglomerates have become more accountable to shareholders and sponsors and are less concerned with the public’s interest and the promotion of democracy.

This change, from news networks as a public service to profit-making enterprises, may have a significant impact on levels of pluralism and subsequent civic debate.

Perceptions of The Daily Show
While The Daily Show wasn’t found to be significantly more credible than any other network with the exception of Fox News, the fact that it was equally as credible as the other networks is remarkable in itself.

Jon Stewart does not claim to provide credible news, and while much of the information presented on his show is factual, the goal is humor, not public affairs reporting. That The Daily Show was found to be as credible as other news networks, or even more credible, such as in the case of Fox News, may speak to the influence of news formats – in this case, the beneficial impact of comedic editorial analysis.

The similar credibility ratings of The Daily Show and the other news networks in the study may also speak to the distrust the respondents feel toward mainstream media, as only CNN was found to be more credible than The Daily Show.

Despite the call for objective reporting, a degree of subjectivity or bias may actually improve viewers’ understanding and recall of political events.

In their content analysis of local television news, Hofstetter and Dozier (1987) found that viewers could learn information useful to their understanding of the political system embedded in sensational news stories.

The editorial nature of The Daily Show may provide additional context that traditional news coverage lacks. This accounts for the higher political comprehension scores of respondents with high exposure to The Daily Show.

Embedding news coverage with meaning that extends beyond the five essential questions asked by American journalists (who, what, when, where, how?) may help viewers sort through the ambiguity of America’s political arena, and as this data shows, may ultimately improve political comprehension and levels of political activity.
Back To Top
invisible line of text

However, if we are to demonstrate that the editorialized format of The Daily Show is an appropriate format for all Americans, then a survey of young Americans is insufficient. An expanded study, using a wider range of age groups, may reveal new insights about respondents’ media habits and preferences.

Additionally, this study was limited to undergraduates and graduate students in the communication studies department at a large western university. Because the majority of students in these departments are female, an overwhelming number (78%) of respondents in our study were female. Future research should strive to create a balanced number of male and female respondents, in order to best mimic the American population.

Finally, there is the question of whether respondents with a high level of exposure to The Daily Show showed higher levels of political comprehension because they watch The Daily Show or because people who watch The Daily Show already have a high level of political comprehension.

Viewers of The Daily Show need to have a high level of political comprehension to begin with in order to understand Stewart’s jokes. In order to test the true level of increase in viewers’ comprehension, previous levels of political comprehension would need to be controlled for.
Back To Top
invisible line of text

By exposing the media for its deficiencies, The Daily Show is challenging traditional notions of quality journalism, which favor objectivity. Alternatively, Jon Stewart’s highly editorialized style of reporting may help audiences sort through the myriad political facts on television and determine the social significance of political events.

If one can determine how or why the comedic editorial analysis format potentially works to attract young viewers and increase their political comprehension, those same techniques may be applied to mainstream network news. If successful, ratings for network news may rise, subsequently boosting the public’s knowledge of political affairs.

Knowing that a well informed electorate enables a healthy democracy, improving news media of any format is beneficial to America’s well being.
Back To Top
invisible line of text