Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Political Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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. (2002). Sex, lies, and war: How soft news brings foreign policy to the inattentive public. American Political Science Review, 96, 91–110.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, J. C. (2006). The American vice presidency reconsidered. Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baym, G. (2005). The daily show: Discursive integration and the reinvention of political journalism. Political Communication, 22, 259–276. doi:10.1080/10584600591006492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, L. W. (2007). News: The politics of illusion (7th ed.). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R., & Owen, D. (1998). The new media and American politics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

  • 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.

  • Hoffman, B. (2006). Oprah still reigns as TV queen. The New York Post, February 6, 2006, p. 7.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. P. (2005a). Entertaining politics: News political television and civic culture. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, K. F., & Kenny, P. J. (2002). The slant of news. American Political Science Review, 96, 381–394. doi:10.1017/S0003055402000230.

    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 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • Lyttle, J. (2001). The effectiveness of humor in persuasion: The case of business ethics training. Journal of General Psychology, 128, 206–216.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  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. (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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, R. C., Mark, M. M., & Clore, G. L. (1994). Mood-related persuasion depends on (mis)attributions. Social Cognition, 12, 309–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternthall, B., & Craig, C. S. (1973). Humor in advertising. Journal of Marketing, 37, 12–18. doi:10.2307/1250353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, D. M. (2001). The rise and fall of the media establishment. Boston: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This manuscript has benefited greatly from the comments of Jody C Baumgartner, James McCann, Todd Shields, and three anonymous reviewers. The author would like to thank Kara Craig for her valuable research assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, 27858, USA

    Jonathan S. Morris

Authors
  1. Jonathan S. Morris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan S. Morris.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morris, J.S. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Audience Attitude Change During the 2004 Party Conventions. Polit Behav 31, 79–102 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9064-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9064-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation