The Oliver Twist: Why do Young Adults Watch Last Week Tonight with John Oliver? Saga A. Barnard
Student ID: 11763124
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme of Communication Science
University of Amsterdam Supervisor: Dr. Mark Boukes
28/06/2018 Word count: 7753
Abstract
This paper investigates why future audiences – young adults – watch the popular, yet academically overlooked programme, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (LWT). Through semi-structured interviews with young adults (N=11), a motivational framework of eleven potential motivations for consuming satire was constructed. The results of this study carry five important implications for future satire research: (1) motivations are binary and non-exclusive, (2) entertainment and information are interdependent, (3) information is made up of learning and understanding, (4) two new motivations were discovered: inspiration and host, (5) young adults desire authenticity. Motivations matter because they affect cognitive processes which in turn affect any effects that satire might have. Therefore, a better
understanding of motivations adds nuances to future research and generates suggestions on how to create better news narratives for a 21st century audience.
Keywords: political satire, motivations, young adults, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, interviews
The Oliver Twist: Why do Young Adults Watch Last Week Tonight with John Oliver? Young people are more likely to consume (Hmielowski, Holbert & Lee, 2011; Young & Tisinger, 2006) and learn about politics (Pew, 2008) from political satire than older
generations. Younger audiences are turning away from traditional news (Mindich, 2005), and towards non-traditional formats (Pew, 2004). This trend demonstrates the shortcomings of traditional news to interest future audiences, rather than a general civic disinterest among young adults (Buckingham, 1997, Costera Meijer, 2007; Graber, 2001). Instead of watching news to keep informed, like their older counter parts, young people are more comfortable using multiple media sources and prefer instant news to scheduled ones (Costera Meijer, 2007). Technological advances have enabled individuals to remain constantly up-to-date on current affairs, through portable screens. Traditional news did not have to compete for the attention of audiences when there were few competitors (Prior, 2005). However, in the increasingly competitive market of the 21st century, traditional news has failed to capitalise on entertainment, which has emerged as a strong market currency (Thussu, 2008). To reinvigorate a dying genre, one can learn from programmes that successfully grab the
attention of young audiences. While Mindich (2005) investigated why young adults tune out from traditional news, this paper approaches the matter from a more optimistic angle; what motivates young adults to tune in to political satire?
Political satire can be considered the reinvention of political journalism as a response to new demands in the news market; a reinvention which, despite criticism, is not necessarily less substantive than its traditional counterpart (Fox, Koloen & Sahin, 2007). In recent years, political satire has received considerable academic attention. Multiple effect studies have explored how political satire shows affects political knowledge (Baum, 2003; Cao, 2008; Feldman, 2013; Kim & Vishak, 2008; Young & Hoffman, 2012), understanding (Brewer & McKnight, 2017), attitudes and opinion formation (Baumgartner, 2013; LaMarre & Walther,
2013), political discussion (Young & Esralew, 2011), trust and efficiency (Baumgartner & Morris, 2006; Hoffman & Thompson, 2009), and engagement (Cao & Brewer, 2008, Hoffman & Young, 2011; Moy, Xenos & Hess, 2005). Yet, these studies have not found consistent effects. Research has also attempted to define political satire. To differentiate within the infotainment genre (Otto, Glogger & Boukes, 2017) programmes can be placed on a two-dimensional scale: are its topics primarily or secondarily political and are its political messages implicit or explicit. Political satire, the focus of this paper, concerns itself with implicit messages on political topics (Holbert, 2005).
Despite the growing number of satire focused studies, there has been little qualitative inquiry as to why audiences watch these programmes. By approaching the subject from a qualitative perspective, it could uncover the reasons which underlie that choice. Uses and gratifications (U&G) theory (Katz, Blumler & Gurevich, 1973) is frequently used in communication science; this theory states that audiences are aware of, and able to justify, why they consume certain media. It is therefore strange that little research has simply asked subjects to explain the appeal of satire shows. This could expand the theoretical framework of motivations that drive satire consumption. Motivations affect cognition, in that it affects how much mental effort is used when processing messages (Feldman, 2013). Therefore,
understanding motivations could add nuance to future effect studies.
Even when narrowing down the broad genre of infotainment by specifying it as political satire, the term remains too ambiguous to properly discuss with interviewees. For an interview to be successful, it is important that the interviewer has a complete grasp of the subject under discussion (Kvale, 1996, p.144). If the subject of discussion is satire, then the interviewer ought to be familiar with the entire range of shows that could fall under this umbrella term. For a more effective interview, the subject of discussion has been further narrowed to focus on the appeal of a specific satire programme: Last Week Tonight with John
Oliver (LWT), which will serve as a representative of the popular political satire genre. Despite LWT’s five seasons, audience popularity (O’Connell, 2014), and its influence (Pew, 2014) it has received unwarrantedly little attention. The show has also broken away from the traditional satire formula, embodied by The Daily Show with Trevor Noah (TDS). Despite this format deviation, LWT is political satire. It is therefore important to incorporate into academic research to gain a fuller understanding of contemporary satire.
Motivations
According to U&G theory, audiences consume mass media with the purpose of satisfying particular needs (Katz, Blumer & Gurevich, 1973). Its grounded in the idea of an active and self-aware audience who can motivate their media consumption, and do not chose media at random or based on availability. Motivations can be split into two categories depending on which type of gratification a motivation inspires: hedonic – pleasure-seeking – or eudaimonic – truth-seeking (Oliver & Raney, 2011). Understanding the motivations of media consumption is particularly important in the current high choice media environment, where most individual preference can be satisfied (Prior, 2005).
Young (2013, p. 160) explored motivations to consume political satire, using an open-ended survey question, and found seven potential motivators: fun/entertaining, learning the news, unbiased/truthful, context/comprehension, liberal, relatable, and making news more fun. While these seven form a basis for exploring satire consumption, the framework could be expanded if the motivations of the hybrid genre’s original components – political and
entertainment media – are also taken into account. Therefore, this paper explores, not only the gratifications sought from specifically political satire (Young, 2013), but also investigates those that can be obtained by independently consuming entertainment and political media. By comparing the motivations of consuming entertainment (Bartsch & Viehoff, 2010) and political media (McLeod & Becker,1974), with the motivations for satire consumption as
identified by Young (2013), a thorough theoretical framework which mixes the motivations of these three media is created.
McLeod and Becker (1974) identified five motivations (originally referred to as gratifications)of political media consumption: surveillance, vote guidance, anticipated communication, excitement, and reinforcement. For entertainment media, Bartsch and Viehoff (2010, p. 2252) established seven motivations, split into two categories: (1) experiencing emotions (fun, thrill, being moved) and (2) the functionality of emotional experience that are based on cognitive and social needs (thought-provoking experiences, vicarious experiences, social sharing of emotions, acting out emotions that have no room in everyday life).
Using Young’s (2013) motivations as an initial outline, the overlap and divergences result in nine potential motivations for consuming political satire: entertainment, information, context, unbiased, specific perspective, enhance social interactions, relatable content,
emotional release and enhance news consumption. This overlap and divergence, as well as motivation type, are summarised in Table 1.
These motivations serve as theoretical explanations as to why individuals would watch political satire in general. Further investigation may confirm their existence or increase understanding of them. The next section explores why, in a sea of options, individuals would choose specifically to watch LWT. Understanding what is appealing about the shows format will provide insight into the general appeal of satire.
Table 1
Motivational Framework for Political Satire Consumption
Motivations Political satire, Young (2013)
Political media, McLeod & Becker (1974)
Entertainment media, Bartsch & Viehoff
(2010)
Type
Entertainment Funny,
Entertaining
Excitement Fun, Thrill Hedonic
Information Learning the
news Surveillance - Eudaimonic Context Context, Comprehension Voter guidance, Surveillance - Eudaimonic Unbiased Unbiased, Truthful - Thought-provoking experiences Eudaimonic Specific perspective
Liberal, Truthful Reinforcement - Hedonic,
Eudaimonic Enhance news consumption Makes news more interesting/fun - - Hedonic, Eudaimonic Enhance social interactions - Anticipated communications Social sharing of emotions Eudaimonic Relatable content
- - Being moved, Social
sharing of emotions, Vicarious experience
Eudaimonic
Emotional release
- - Acting out emotions,
Being moved
Hedonic, Eudaimonic
Last Week Tonight
An overwhelming majority of research on political satire has been conducted on TDS (Baym, 2005; Cao, 2008; Feldman, 2013; LaMarre & Walther, 2013; Young, 2013), The Colbert Report (Young, 2013; Young & Esralew, 2011) or Saturday Night Live (Cao, 2008), whereas LWT has only been the topic of a few articles (Becker & Bode, 2018; Brewer & McKnight, 2017). This remarkable lack of academic attention is not because the show is irrelevant, quite the opposite. It is an increasingly popular show with 4.1 million weekly views across TV, DVR, on-demand and HBO go (O’Connell, 2014). It has a multi-platform
approach to viewership and publishes the majority of the show on YouTube. Their YouTube channel has, to date, close to 6 million subscribers with its most viewed video at a whopping 33 million views, significantly outperforming other popular satire shows, such as TDS and Late Night with Stephen Colbert (LNSC). The strategy to approach audiences through a free and easily shared platform with global reach has enabled the show to reach mainstream audiences (Brockes, 2018), and especially internet-native young adults. Moreover, LWT is a proven mobiliser. At the end of an episode on net neutrality (aired 01/06/2014), Oliver encouraged viewers to express their opinions on the topic on the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) website. This increased comments by 2600% to the point of crashing the website (Pew, 2014). The programme has also been renewed for three more seasons, ensuring its survival until at least 2020 (Porter, 2017). As such, LWT is a show worthy of investigation.
Considering satire more generally, Fox et al. (2007) found that in comparison with network news shows, satire and traditional news differ more in presentation than in substance. It is worth reviewing the format of how LWT presents information compared to traditional news and other satire shows; thereby identifying a competitive edge of LWT. Each episode of LWT is half-an-hour long and airs weekly on HBO during Sundays. There are two major segments of the show: A Quick Recap that briefly covers some prominent news stories of the week (ca. 10 minutes), and the Main Story of Tonight, a longer segment dedicated to a single topic (15-20 minutes). In this longer segment, Oliver breaks down the story, provides a thorough analysis, presents evidence, and sometimes follows up with an interview or satirical sketch (Becker & Bode, 2018).
A Quick Recap is similar to the opening monologues of TDS and LNSC, as it provides an overview of headline news and consists of rapid fire jokes with brief analysis. It is during this opening monologue that political satire shows most resemble traditional news. The
difference comes as satire presents headlines with humour (Fox et al., 2007). Additionally, as LWT airs Sundays once a week, this segment also differs from TDS and LNSC, which both air daily Monday-Thursday. LWT therefore offer more of a recap than other shows, as it knows how events of the week unfolded and is aware of which stories were the most significant. As such, LWT also cover topics they think have been neglected in the weekly news cycle.
The Main Story Tonight is dedicated to a political issue that the show feels needs more media attention (Becker & Bode, 2018; Brewer & McKnight, 2017). This segment is quite different from those that can be seen on TDS and LNSC, because Oliver can dig deep into one subject and reveal new information to the audience, rather than simply reiterate headlines. While the issues are often America-centric, Oliver also highlights international issues, being non-American himself (i.e. British). He often encourages viewers to take action (Brodie, forthcoming), either by tweeting a hashtag, commenting on a website or calling representatives. Moreover, when there is a guest on LWT, the guest is used to highlight or further inform about the issue in focus, which gives the main story undivided attention. On TDS and LNSC guests are often interviewed in relation to a product the guests wish to promote.
The Main Story Tonight usually ends with a big stunt to highlight an issue, such as ‘Jeff the diseased lung in a cowboy hat’. These stunts have become a characteristic of the show (Holmes, 2016) and align with Oliver’s comedy style (Brodie, forthcoming). Stunts likes these are possible because LWT airs on HBO, which has a large budget and is largely unregulated by sponsors. Thus, LWT is uninterrupted by commercial breaks (Becker & Bode, 2018). Without commercials there are no advertisers with the potential to influence the content of the show (McManus, 1995). This enables the show to present material that could potentially harm commercial enterprises. In turn, this independence increases the credibility of the show. HBO is also famous for its relaxed attitude towards profanity, as they are
unbound by FCC guidelines (Brodie, forthcoming). The use of profanity is generally frowned upon by American society, which stands in stark contrast to British attitudes (Moore, 2015). Oliver, being British, incorporates the swearing of colloquial English in his comedy.
In summary, there are six main features that, compared to other satire shows, define LWT: longer segment, calls for action (calls-for-action), big stunts, guests highlighting content, no commercial breaks, and the use of foul language.
The Oliver Twist
What truly make satire shows original are the hosts; this is the one thing that other shows cannot replicate. A skilled host affects a range of factors that will impact the popularity of a show. Comedy style, for example, is highly dependent on the comedy put forward by the host. It affects individual message processing and in turn the resonance of a joke (LaMarre et al., 2014). Thus, the host affects the programme’s entertainment value. Additionally, hosts are often involved in the production process. As Oliver is both host and executive producer, he influences both content and presentation.
The Daily Show is a good example of how hosts influence content and presentation. In 1996, the show focused on pop-culture content under host Craig Kilborn. When Jon Stewart took over, the focus shifted to satirising news. Under current host Trevor Noah, TDS moved away from the heavy critique of Fox News that characterised Stewart’s tenure, to increasing references and acts targeting a millennial audience. These alterations are difficult to make without changing hosts as well, because what works for one character can backlash against another.
In a highly competitive environment, the resonance of the host persona is an
increasingly competitive advantage (Edgerly, Gotlieb & Vraga, 2016), as resonance creates a bond between audience and host. The bond goes beyond how information is presented and draws strength from the persona of the host as a credible and likeable character. Audiences
judge programme credibility based on the perceived fairness, completeness, accuracy, trustworthiness and balance of the information presented, whereas facial gestures, vocal inflections and personality (i.e. showmanship) affects the credibility of the host (Vraga et al., 2012). A host’s likeability can be evaluated using four criteria: sensitive, humble, likeable and competent (Spangardt, Ruth & Schramm, 2016).
These appraisals ultimately influence the trust audiences place in the show, whether that be ”trust to be entertained” or ”trust in the information presented”. As such, evaluations of likeability and credibility, of host and show, affect audience engagement with
programmes, as shown in Spangardt et al.’s (2016) investigation of radio hosts. In accordance with U&G when the psychological needs of audiences are compatible with the host’s style, audiences are more likely to interact with a show, as compatibility positively affects the perceived relevance of the show (Edgerly et al., 2016). If the host provides what the audience are searching for, whether trustworthy information or ensured entertainment, they are more likely to tune in once more.
In short, the host matters (Edgerly et al., 2016; Spangardt et al., 2016; Vraga et al., 2012), especially for LWT, which is a host-centric show. John Oliver is not surrounded by correspondents, a live band, or interviewees to interact with in the same way that Noah and Colbert are. The unique constant of LWT is Oliver, whose style is part of what attracts. Perceived credibility and likeability of John Oliver could thus be decisive factors to explain the appeal of LWT and, by extension, political satire.
Method
This paper featured a qualitative research design with 11 face-to-face semi-structured interviews conducted over three interview cycles with young adults who self-identified as fans of LWT. Since theoretical saturation, on average, occurs after six interviews (Guest, Bunce & Johnson, 2006), 11 interviews provided solid foundation for an exhaustive subject
investigation. Ultimately, saturation occurred after the ninth interview. A qualitative design was selected as the research concerned understanding, rather than explaining, why young adults watch LWT by drawing insights from their expertise knowledge (Gill et al., 2008).
Participants
Purposive sampling was used to recruit interviewees as it was imperative that the interviewees were young adults who were familiar with LWT. Therefore, interviewees had to self-identify as fans of LWT1 and be between 18-30 years old. Interviewees were recruited using the personal network of the researcher and snowballing. Interviews were conducted in English, in a private room without disturbances at the University of Amsterdam. Interviews were conducted by the author of this paper who has taken the course Intensive Interviewing and Focus Groups at the University of Amsterdam. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.2
The age of the participants ranged between 22-28, with four males and seven females interviewed. All interviewees identified to the left of the political spectrum, and all, save one, were interested in politics. Everyone watched LWT via YouTube. However, the ongoing analysis showed that the characteristics recorded had no effect on the analysis (see Appendix A for full list of interviewee characteristics).
Data Collection
This paper made use of semi-structured interviews over diary writing or focus groups. Diary writing would demand more from the participants in terms of energy and time. Given that interviewees were unpaid, this would have constrained recruitment. Focus groups could have been used to add an interactive element to the findings. However, it would have reduced
1 Originally, it was planned to setup a consumption frequency to establish expertise, however, due to the
overwhelming viewership through YouTube resulting in irregular viewing patterns, it proved impossible to accurately measure this
the control of the interviewer, and hindered necessary probing. Combining the aim of the research with the non-sensitive nature of the discussion subject (Gill et al., 2008), semi-structured interviews was the most suitable method. It allowed the researcher to explore expertise insights, and to remain flexible for probing (Bryman, 2012). At the end of each interview, the researcher summarised the interview and offered each interviewee a chance to clarify, correct or add to the summary. This element was introduced to increase respondent validation, and thereby result credibility.
There was existing literature on motivations available to create a semi-structure and to guide the development of sensitising concepts (see Appendix B). The semi-structure guided interviewees through their thought process, provided focus to the interview while allowing the researcher to probe answers that needed further explanation. The use of a semi-structure also enabled the cross-case comparability necessary for this research (Bryman, 2012). Thus, a semi-structure was better suited compared to an open interview.
Analysis
The research design was cyclic to allow themes emerging in one cycle to be
incorporated into the following one for a more exhaustive investigation. In the first cycle of data collection, four interviews were conducted using the same interview guide (see
Appendix B). After these four interviews had been subjected to open thematic analysis, the guide was adjusted to incorporate new themes. This allowed the insights gained from each cycle to improve the following cycle (Van Selm & Helberger, under review). In cycle one and two, four interviews were conducted per cycle. In the third cycle there were three interviews, due to one drop-out.
The data was analysed using manual theoretical thematic analysis, rather than inductive or automated. As such, the analysis had a top-down approach as only relevant sections of the interviews, those where the research question was answered, were analysed
(Braun & Clarke, 2006). For example, sections treating dislikes of LWT were not coded. Analytical notes (Saladaňa, 2016) of the coding process were kept, and concept-indicators (see Appendix C) were constructed to increase result dependability. Initially, open coding was applied to all transcripts to develop a set of codes, which were used in a second round of directional coding. Following the second round of coding, themes were established and reviewed, resulting in a total of 25 themes,3 which related to four concepts: format, content, host, and motivations.
Findings
The following section is sub-divided according to the four concepts identified in the coding process. First, the three concepts that deal with themes directly relating to LWT are covered: format, content, and host. Secondly, themes that explicitly relate to motivations are discussed. The relevance of the concepts format, content and host to the general motivational framework are also considered.
Format
Three themes relating to the concept of LWT’s format were established: time, longer segment and structure. Interviewees enjoyed the time spent watching, relative to the amount of information received as they acknowledged the difficulty of gathering the same amount of information through personal research. The time allocated to the Main Story Tonight was appreciated, because it enabled in-depth information gathering in the form of facts, research and analysis:
I think that the amount of information that you get, out of the 15-20 minutes that the segments are, you get a lot of information on things that you would need so much time to research […] it’s value for time (Balder4).
Interviewees mentioned enjoying the structural lack of advertisement breaks, not because the show appeared to have less vested interests, but rather because adverts were considered disruptive to the flow of the show. Good writing and the perception of an episode as a polished product was mentioned as further contributing to a good flow. Frej attributed this to the weekly format, which provided enough time to construct the effective narrative of LWT. While flow was, in general, not considered a major lure of the show, it was considered to heightening the experience: ”It’s great if it’s really informative, but if it’s written really well and there’s a sense of whoomph […], that’s just a plus” (Idun). Structure contributed to information coherency and completeness. It was stated that the clear structure of the show introduced complicated concepts in a comprehensive manner, which made the subsequent argumentation understandable: ”He tells the story […] in a really comprehensive way and I can follow everything he says […] Step by step, and it’s a clear structure.” (Oden)
Content
The seven themes: topics, credibility of information, critique, calls-for-action, opinions of the show, guests and stunts, relate to the content of LWT. Stunts, due to their unexpected, creative and hyperbolic nature, were only ever referred to as fun or entertaining. No interviewees mentioned guests unless prompted; however, when asked about their views on the use of guests, interviewees were quick to mention that guests were not central to the show. When used in sketches, guest added entertainment value, but interviewees struggled to remember a single LWT interview. Some interviewees enjoyed the lack of interviews,
because the show focuses on the intended content (Tyr); the discussion is better with only one party involved (Siv); and, that it is John Oliver they want: ”when I watch John Oliver5 I want to see John Oliver and not the opinions of his guests” (Oden).
Topic originality, relevance and diversity were mentioned as positive aspects of LWT. Interviewees enjoyed that the show covered relevant topics that they either knew very little, or nothing about, prior to watching the show. This originality was appreciated as: ”with the other shows (political satire) you can also at the time guess, so there is a tweet or something and they all talk about it and with him you never know what they figured out.” (Tyr). Topic diversity allowed interviewees greater ability to define topic relevance (Freja). Furthermore, by covering more than Trump (Oden), LWT is further separated from other contemporary satire shows, and this was considered positive.
Another appreciated feature of LWT was that it critiques media and politicians: ”I like it (LWT) because it criticises the fact that the media is […] not really playing the role that it should” (Freja). Thus, providing some sort of accountability check. Ultimately, the ability to assign blame and point fingers relates back to the motivation for context, as it allows viewers to understand, not only the problem, but from where it stems.
The credibility of LWT was a recurrent theme in all interviews, which it builds by providing an unbiased narrative. However, not unbiased as in ‘without a preference’, but rather unbiased in terms of presenting opposing views, because while ”the show has a preference […] they don’t only present it one-sided” (Tyr). Most interviewees agreed that LWT does not present issues in a neutral fashion, however ”you can still hold a strong opinion about something but be open to other opinions or views and still have a balanced discussion” (Loke). Therefore, expressing a liking of LWT’s opinion inclusivity, was interpreted as being motivated by the search for unbiased information. The credibility of LWT was further
strengthened by interviewees’ perception of being presented with a complete picture of the issue, because ”they have a lot of research […] then (they) also show you where exactly it came from” (Tyr). To present viewers with evidence for their claims was also considered a unique and good feature of the show.
Although few interviewees engaged with them, calls-for-action were praised for enabling viewers to channel their emotions about the issues presented. In comparison, traditional news ”make people feel like there is nothing they can do”, while LWT says ”there’s shit going on, but if you take action there might actually be a difference” (Siv). Simpler calls-for-action, such as visiting an URL, were appreciated for their accessibility and how it functioned as either ”an extension” (Heimdall) of the show, or inspired interviewees to learn more on their own. Throughout the interviews, the calls-for-action were closely
connected to a sense of empowerment:
(Calls-for-action) activates people to engage in changing the status quo that he presented and doing something about the problems that he presented, and I think that’s really a nice way to show people what they’re capable of, because most of the time people probably don’t know what they could do about it (Tyr).
If LWT were to adhere to the traditional norms of objectivity, calls-for-action would not be possible, as they encourage action against something, effectively taking sides. However, LWT does not have ”to abide by certain values, to stand objectively, and I don’t think I would watch it if it did” (Idun). All interviewees expressed general agreement with the opinions of the show; two even stated that they enjoy the show because of ”his (Oliver) take on” (Höder) weekly events. As long as the show showed ”that there is a different opinion” (Siv), it was not considered problematic that the show had an opinion to begin with. Two themes emerged as potential justifications for enjoying the opinionated content of LWT:
agreement and identification.6 Interviewees enjoyed feelings of validation through social belonging with others when exposed to opinions they agreed with. They also enjoyed that Oliver often articulated their own feelings about an issue, thereby identifying with his opinions: ”It’s not just watching a comedian, its watching a comedian telling things that you as a young adult have thought, for a long time, but you didn’t really have anyone who was saying it out loud” (Freja).
It felt good […] for such a large show with such a huge reach to like agree with me, as it were, because I thought I was the only one, who thought this, but apparently there were large amounts of people that agreed with me on the issue (Heimdall).
The Host
It became apparent through the interviewing process that the host was an important element of why the interviewees found LWT appealing. ”Even if you do agree with the political opinions they express, then you might not like them as a presenter, as a personality, there is more to it” (Loke). Seven of the eleven interviewees mentioned John Oliver in response to the first question: what do you like about LWT?
Identifying with Oliver could be one explanation as to why interviewees appreciated him. Beyond identifying through opinions, some identified with him through his sense of humour: ”I […] like self-deprecating humour, partially because I am a practitioner of it” (Idun), whereas another identified with his energy: ”I like to watch someone who is really enthusiastic […] I’m really enthusiastic myself” (Oden).
6 This note is to clarify the difference between coding responses as agreement and identification. Agreements with
previously held beliefs were coded as identification, since Oliver did not have to convince interviewees to agree. In case of agreeing with the opinion expressed on the show, responses were coded as agreement, as the show convinced them to agree.
Not all interviewees felt that they, per se, identified with Oliver. There was, however, two interviewees who mentioned having an emotional attachment with the host. It was especially pronounced for Balder, who claimed a platonic love of the character, whereas Freja claimed ”a special connection” with Oliver, which was later defined as ”potential friendship”. This connection was established through Oliver’s humility, personality and informal approach; characteristics which makes a person likeable. Therefore, it seems that likeability could change the perceived relationship with the host, into something more familiar, like a friend:
He has something that makes you want to continue to just watch him talk. I love him […] when I go home, I don’t have anyone and because I really like him as a person, when I see him, it’s like there is a friend of mine (Balder).
While only Balder and Freja explicitly indicated an emotional attachment with Oliver, it remained evident that his likeability, credibility, and appearance affected interviewees’ positive perception of him. In general, Oliver was considered a likeable personality, who was ”very genuine” (Siv). This genuineness was strengthened by him appearing as a regular guy. His self-deprecating humour ”humanises him and it makes him seem less of somebody who considers himself above it all” (Frej), which made interviewees perceive him as humble. In turn, his humility and lack of ego made him appear approachable, which was the most noted feature of appreciation. To top likeability off, Oliver was considered a competent host, sensitive to the opinion of others: ”he seems way more down to earth, more collected, more reasonable as well […] like someone who would be very approachable […] in real life” (Heimdall).
Interviewees also considered Oliver’s credibility as host. He was considered a
research. He was considered fair in his judgment of issues because ”he actually discusses the issue from different perspectives” (Tor), while being brutally honest, also about himself: ”I would say that I trust John Oliver to say the truth” (Frej). Being a talented showman further contributed to his credibility. Interviewees praised him for flow in delivery and ability to ”make the jokes come full circle” (Höder), as well as being able to present complex issues in an understandable, and relatable way.
Motivations
This sub-section accounts for the themes related to motivations that emerged through the research. This section also integrates the findings from format, content and host into the motivational framework for general political satire consumption. Three findings are central: confirming the existence of all theoretical motivations, expanding five motivations, and adding two new motivations to the general framework.
Confirmed motivations. The nine theoretical motivations initially established:
information, entertainment, context, unbiased, specific perspective, enhanced news consumption, enhanced social interactions, relatable content and emotional release, were all mentioned during the interviews. Thereby confirming their existence in the minds of young adults, and implying that motivations go beyond the information/entertainment binary. Not only do motivations appear to be non-binary, but also non-exclusive as not one of the interviewees were motivated by one factor alone.
The three motivations enhanced news consumption, relatable content and enhanced social interactions were confirmed, yet no greater understanding of them emerged through the interviews. Watching LWT as a substitute for news was only mentioned by two interviewees: Siv and Tor. With regards to relatable content, interviewees commented positively on the ability of LWT to make them ”care about the issue” (Oden) by discussing ”the impacts and
what the impacts had been on people” (Höder). Enhanced social interaction was mentioned in relation to anticipated communications: ”I got some arguments of things that I might use in the future” (Freja). While interviewees mentioned having conversations about LWT, no interviewee explicitly mentioned that they watch LWT to enable conversations. While the other six motivations: information, entertainment, context, unbiased, specific perspective and emotional release were also confirmed, the research led to a deeper understanding of these.
Expanded motivations. The most common motivations for watching LWT were,
unsurprisingly, information and entertainment; it is, after all, an infotainment show. Yet, the show was rarely described as enhancing news consumption. Instead, interviewees focused on LWT’s in-depth information of a single topic; a topic that, for the most part, was different from the ”headline news” (Frej), more ”niche” (Heimdall) and ”relevant also in the long term” (Tyr). Searching for in-depth information was also supported by the themes: time, longer segment, topics, and credibility (programme and host). Therefore, while the informative nature of LWT was appealing, it was not simply about building knowledge width, but particularly knowledge depth. Consequently, I argue that the information motivation ought to be expanded beyond the surveillance of news to incorporate acquiring in-depth knowledge. Furthermore, interviewees enjoyed that the show gave background information, analysis, and stressed implications. This indicates that the presence of context is indeed a reason for watching the show:
(LWT) collect a lot of different sources and sort of connect dots from different angles […] and sort of uncovers what’s lying behind […] you get the feeling that you
understand more, what it’s all about and why it would be an important topic (Tyr).
It became evident that there is an overlap between the motivation for information, and for context. How does one distinguish between the two, when context is simply in-depth
information necessary for processing the initial information? Where is the point of
transcendence? Given this overlap, I argue that the information and context motivation ought to be renamed to better distinguish between the gratifications sought by each motivator. Information should be referred to as learning (increasing factual information), while context should be referred to as understanding (emphasising connections between information and their implications). Audiences may turn to news for learning, but turn to satire for
understanding. The interviewees indicated that it is indeed the predominance of
understanding, over learning, that is an appealing factor of LWT: ”I don’t rely on John Oliver to supply me with news […] but I turn to him for, to maybe learn a bit more about a certain subject […] it gives more in-depth analysis” (Heimdall).
As far as being motivated by a desire for entertainment, all interviewees mentioned that they find the show funny. However, interviewees also mentioned the enjoyment brought on by understanding the issue better, or when the topic or angle of the show was interesting and new. Hence, the motivation of entertainment should not be considered as solely pleasure-seeking (hedonic) as there appears to be a strong element of truth-pleasure-seeking (eudaimonic) to it as well:
The entertainment part is not solely humour. […] The entertainment itself comes from the fact that I am presented with interesting cases or an interesting topic which is presented in a relatable or rather simplified or understandable way, and then on top he is a comedian (Idun).
As such, it appears that there is more to the entertainment value of political satire than comedy alone. For example, interviewees enjoyed being surprised by the show. This was often expressed in terms of enjoying that they ”do things that you would never expect them to
do” (Tyr) or by using the predictability of other programmes as an argument for watching LWT instead.
The desire for a specific perspective was shown through interviewees enjoying that the show was argumentative, because there is ”an actual point in the end” (Idun). While it was appreciated that LWT presented a specific perspective, the inclusion of: ”different opinions from opposing sides” (Tor) was appreciated too. Of course, this appreciation might come from the fact that all interviewees expressed general agreement with the ‘winning’ side or, as Marchi (2012) suggests, because it puts opposing arguments in context and clarifies the stakes. I suggest re-naming the motivation ‘specific perspective” to ‘opinionated content’, as it more accurately describes the desired character of the approach.
Interviewees noted that they enjoy watching LWT because of its humoristic approach to serious issues. This enabled some to release feelings of anger and anxiety regarding the issue: ”I like laugh it out and feel like it kind of relieves my emotions […], otherwise I’m […] just really angry” (Tor). However, while the show has the ability to relieve negative emotions, it can also create positive ones. Through seeing that the show, and consequently other people, shared their opinions, some interviewees expressed feelings of validation, security, and hopefulness by ”not seeing the problem as being so, like so grim and so one sided as I maybe thought it was before I saw the show” (Heimdall). Accordingly, I propose changing the motivation emotional release, to emotional response. Emotional response more accurately reflects what people experience, because it is not just about releasing
uncomfortable feelings (ex. anger), but also creating positive ones (ex. hopefulness).
Expanded framework. Through this research, two new motivations: host and
inspiration, were identified. Oliver was found to be a significant enjoyment factor, and central to interviewees’ choice to begin, and continue, watching. Interviewees highlighted characteristics relating to the host’s credibility and likeability, with some indicating that they
identified with John Oliver. Some even indicated an emotional connection with him. The host appears to have a bearing on both delivery and show flow, which relates to hedonic gratifications of making the show more fun. However, it also relates to the credibility of the show, which is an eudaimonic motivation.
Inspiration emerged as another motivation through the calls-for-action content of LWT. Interviewees mentioned feeling empowered when watching LWT as the show, not only informed, but suggested calls-for-action to channel their emotions and emphasise their power to engage with issues. When the theme of inspiration was mentioned independently from calls-for-action, it was in relation to inspire critical thinking or further research into a subject. Given that inspiration relates to learning how to engage, through various forms, it is an eudaimonic type of motivation.
It’s a bit more of a take home message rather than saying, ”look how bad the world is and this is all what is happening”, while they (LWT) say: ”there’s shit going on, but if you take action there might actually be a difference (Siv).
In sum, this research found that there are many parameters that motivate satire consumption, not just the search for information or entertainment. It developed a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms of the information, entertainment, context, specific perspective, and emotional release motivation. Considering this the labels of information, context, specific perspective, and emotional release were adjusted to: learning, understanding, opinionated content, and emotional response, to better reflect their provided gratifications. The motivational framework was also expanded by identifying two new motivations: inspiration and host. Table 2 summarises these proposed changes and adjustments.
Table 2
Adjusted Motivational Framework for Political Satire Consumption
Motivations Original indicators New indicators Type
Entertainment Fun, Thrill, Excitement, Funny, Entertaining
Learning, Understanding, Interesting
Hedonic, Eudaimonic
Learning Surveillance, Learning the
news
Beyond the headlines Eudaimonic
Understanding Voter guidance,
Surveillance, Context, Comprehension Analysis, Implications, Background information, Understanding Eudaimonic Unbiased Thought-provoking experiences, Unbiased, Truthful
Opinion inclusivity Eudaimonic
Opinionated content
Reinforcement, Liberal, Truthful
Argumentative approach Hedonic, Eudaimonic
Emotional response
Acting out emotions, Being moved
Create positive emotions, Release negative emotions
Hedonic, Eudaimonic
Host - Likeability, Credibility,
Identification, Emotional attachment
Hedonic, Eudaimonic
Inspiration - Channel reaction, Empower,
Further research Eudaimonic Enhance social interactions Social sharing of emotions, Anticipated communications - Eudaimonic Relatable content
Being moved, Social sharing of emotions, Vicarious experience
- Eudaimonic
Enhance news consumption
Makes news more interesting/fun
- Hedonic,
Eudaimonic
Discussion
Before discussing these findings, it is important to note that, due to the qualitative nature of this project, the sample size is, by definition, small and the results by definition non-generalisable. However, as saturation was reached, the investigation was exhaustive. Considerable efforts were made to increase the credibility and dependability (Bryman, 2012) of the results, by including respondent validation in the interview process and preserving a
complete record of the research process.7 Another limitation of the project was that all interviewees were educated to a tertiary level and identified on the left side of the political spectrum. Therefore, it is possible that the themes identified only hold true for participants of similar character. However, the goal of this research was to increase understanding about why young adults watch LWT, from the point of view of young adults. Ultimately, this
research has five findings that increase this understanding: (1) motivations are non-binary and non-exclusive, (2) entertainment is more than adding jokes, (3) information should be
referred to as either learning or understanding, (4) promises of inspiration and a talented host are motivations for consuming political satire, and (5) young adults desire authenticity.
First, motivations are far from constrained to the information or entertainment binary. There exist several motivations that can be held simultaneously and they can interact with one another; this research identified a total of 11 motivations. As motivations affect learning (Feldman, 2013), understanding the non-binary, and non-exclusive nature of motivations could help improve future political satire research and bring much needed nuance to effect studies.
Second, there is interaction between the information and entertainment motivation. The entertaining element of political satire is often thought of in terms of its pure comedy value. However, entertainment goes beyond jokes and laughter, into covering interesting stories, in a well-structured manner. There was a consistent pattern of describing the way in which LWT presented interesting and comprehensive information as funny and entertaining. In line with Bartsch and Viehoff’s (2010) findings, being entertained is not only about triggering emotions, but also cognitive and social experiences. Information can be
7 audio-recordings, analytical memos of initial coding, thematic coding, and concept-indicators have all been
entertaining. These concepts may not be mutually exclusive, but rather interdependent; future academic research ought to consider this.
Third, subdividing information into learning and understanding could increase understanding of why audiences consume different satire programmes. Interviewees praised the longer segment of LWT as a defining, unique and appealing part of the show, emphasising the background information, analysis and evidence provided. Acknowledging that the
information sought from LWT viewers is largely driven by understanding could inspire future political satire typologies. For example, shows such as LWT and Late Night with Seth Meyers, which both have segments focusing on larger, complete narratives, would effectively be separated in terms of learning versus understanding from other shows, such as TDS and LNSC, which focus more on quick jokes and interviews.
Fourth, two new motivations were introduced through this research: inspiration and host. The search for inspiration indicates that young adults want to civically engage. However, as proposed in the engaged youth paradigm (Bennett, 2008), existing institutions do not motivate them to do so. Disengagement with news is not the cause, but rather the symptom of failing news narratives (Bennett, 2008, p. 2). Clinging to the traditional
disengaged news anchor, rather than an engaging showman, could be one factor affecting the declining news interest of young adults. It was evident that the host matters a great deal for the enjoyment of LWT. Edgerly et al. (2016) and Vraga et al. (2012) both found support for a host-effect, but Edgerly et al. (2016) investigated radio hosts and Vraga et al. (2012) did not considered which host traits, but rather what host style, is successful. This research identified three potential traits that can affect host success: likeability, credibility and identification.
In entertainment media, identification with a character has been considered important for increased investment in outcome (Cohen, 2006). Youths mainly get their news from three sources: the internet, trusted adults, and political satire (Marchi, 2012, p.250). This research
indicated that high likeability of the host might change the way the host is perceived. It is therefore possible that psychologically connecting with a host could turn the host into a trusted adult. Since all interviewees viewed LWT, at least partly, via YouTube, perhaps political satire combines Marchi’s (2012) three news sources, which could account for the genre’s popularity among young adults. Future studies ought to consider the influential role that the host has in political satire. TDS, having recently switched hosts, provides ample opportunity for such research.
Fifth, the sentiments expressed by the interviewees on opinionated content support previous findings that young audiences reject objectivity for a more authentic experience (Marchi, 2012). Political satire, unbound by objectivity norms, provides this authenticity. Interviewees seemed more concerned with Oliver showing counter-arguments, than they were with him having an argument in the first place. Most interviewees explicitly stated that it did not matter that the show did not present information objectively, because it was not the role of a satire show to do that. While news provides the civic service of informing the electorate (Mindich, 2005), political satire might be able to mobilise the electorate, a different, but equally important, civic service. What if news and satire are not competitors, but rather allies in the pursuit of democratising society, as concluded by Boukes et al. (2014)? It would be interesting to explore what role young adults imagine for political satire, without placing it in a competitive narrative with traditional news.
Even with this role division, traditional news ought to consider these findings as well. As shown in this research, and supported by Raeymaeckers (2004), young adults want to understand news, not just know about them. News needs to adjust to this postmodern era (Buckingham, 1997; Mindich, 2005; Raeymaeckers, 2004) or they are sure to go extinct. Regaining the viewership of young adults might not be about sacrificing substance for hype or humour (Fox et al., 2007), but rather creating an authentic experience where
understanding, rather than learning-only, is the focus. Building on this research, an authentic experience can be created by having engaging news readers, clearer focus, fewer subjects, an inclusivity approach to narratives and relaxing rigid norms of journalistic objectivity.
Informing audiences about engagement beyond the show, would also be beneficial. In conclusion, ”despite their disengagement with news, young people are as
thoughtful and passionate and self-reflective as they have ever been, ready to interact with news if we just provide the right conditions for them to do so” (Mindich, 2005, p.x). Part of those conditions is to produce news coverage that is relevant for audiences. To understand what is relevant, we must understand what is desired by young citizens. It is tricky to find a middle way between the current unengaging elitist communication of traditional news, and sensationalist news that panders to populism (Buckingham, 1997). Political satire has dared to experiment (Baym, 2005, p.274). Let us learn from this experimentation, because if young adults are to engage with news for the sake of democracy, it is time to motivate such
behaviour; demanding it has proved unsuccessful.
References
Bartsch, A., & Viehoff, R. (2010). The use of media entertainment and emotional gratification. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 2247-2255. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.444
Baum, M. A. (2003). Soft news and political knowledge: Evidence of absence or absence of evidence? Political Communication, 20(2), 173-190. doi:
10.1080/10584600390211181
Baumgartner, J. (2013). No laughing matter? Young adults and the “spillover effect” of candidate-centered political humor, Humor, 26(1), 23-43. doi: 10.1515/humor-2013-0003
Baumgartner, J., & Morris, J. S. (2006). The Daily Show effect: candidate evaluations, efficacy, and American youth. American Politics Research, 34(3), 341-367. doi: 10.1177/1532673x05280074
Baym, G. (2005). The Daily Show: Discursive integration and the reinvention of political journalism. Political Communication, 22(3), 259-276. doi:
10.1080/10584600591006492
Becker, A. B., & Bode, L. (2018). Satire as a source for learning? The differential impact of news versus satire exposure on net neutrality knowledge gain. Information,
Communication & Society, 21(4), 612-625. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2017.1301517 Bennett, W. L. (2008). Changing citizenship in the digital age. Civic Life Online: Learning
how Digital Media can Engage Youth, 1(1-24). doi: 10.1162/dmal.9780262524827.001
Boukes, M., Boomgaarden, H. G., Moorman, M., & De Vreese, C. H. (2014). News with an attitude: Assessing the mechanisms underlying the effects of opinionated news. Mass Communication and Society, 17(3), 354-378. doi: 10.1080/15205436.2014.891136 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brewer, P. R., & McKnight, J. (2017). “A statistically representative climate change debate”: Satirical television news, scientific consensus, and public perceptions of global warming. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 25(3), 166-180. doi:
10.1080/15456870.2017.1324453
Brockes, E. (2018, February 24). John Oliver: ‘I’m used to audiences not liking me’, The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com
Brodie, I. (forthcoming). Oliver, John (1977- ). In J. Baumgartner (ed.), American Political Humor: Masters of Satire and Their Impact on U.S. Policy and Culture. Santa Barbara (CA): ABC-CLIO.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (4th ed.). Oxford: OUP Oxford.
Buckingham, D. (1997). News media, political socialization and popular citizenship: Towards a new agenda. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 14(4), 344-366. doi: 10.1080/15295039709367023
Cao, X. (2008). Political comedy shows and knowledge about primary campaigns: The moderating effects of age and education. Mass Communication & Society, 11(1), 43-61. doi: 10.1080/15205430701585028
Cao, X., & Brewer, P. R. (2008). Political comedy shows and public participation in politics. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(1), 90-99. doi:
10.1093/ijpor/edm030
Cohen, J. (2006). Audience identification with media characters. In J. Bryant & P. Vorderer (eds.), Psychology of entertainment (pp. 183-197). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Costera Meijer, I. (2007). The paradox of popularity. Journalism Studies, 8(1), 96-116. 10.1080/14616700601056874
Feldman, L. (2013). Learning about politics from The Daily Show: The role of viewer orientation and processing motivations. Mass Communication and Society, 16(4), 586-607. doi: 10.1080/15205436.2012.735742
Fox, J. R., Koloen, G., & Sahin, V. (2007). No joke: A comparison of substance in The Daily Show with presidential election campaign. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51(2), 213-227. doi: 10.1080/08838150701304621
Graber, D. (2001). Adapting political news to the needs of twenty-first century Americans. In W. L. Bennett & R. M. Entman (Eds.), Mediated politics: Communication in the future of democracy (pp. 433–452). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal, 204(6), 291. doi: 10.1038/bdj.2008.192
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82. doi: 10.1177/1525822X05279903
Hmielowski, J. D., Holbert, R. L., & Lee, J. (2011). Predicting the consumption of political TV satire: affinity for political humor, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report. Communication Monographs, 78(1), 96-114. doi: 10.1080/03637751.2010.542579 Hoffman, L. H., & Thomson, T. L. (2009). The effect of television viewing on adolescents'
civic participation: Political efficacy as a mediating mechanism. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(1), 3-21. doi: 10.1080/08838150802643415 Hoffman, L. H., & Young, D. G. (2011). Satire, punch lines, and the nightly news:
Untangling media effects on political participation. Communication Research Reports, 28(2), 159-168. doi: 10.1177/0002764205279419
Holbert, R. L. (2005). A typology for the study of entertainment television and politics. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(3), 436-453. doi: 10.1080/08824096.2011.565278 Holmes, L. (2016, June 6). How John Oliver's 'Last Week Tonight' is using stunts to tell
stories. National Public Radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509-523.
Kim, Y. M., & Vishak, J. (2008). Just laugh! You don’t need to remember: The effects of entertainment media on political information acquisition and information processing in political judgment. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 338-360. doi:
10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00388.x
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
LaMarre, H. L., Landreville, K. D., Young, D., & Gilkerson, N. (2014). Humor works in funny ways: Examining satirical tone as a key determinant in political humor message processing. Mass Communication and Society, 17(3), 400-423. doi:
10.1080/15205436.2014.891137
LaMarre, H. L., & Walther, W. (2013). Ability matters: Testing the differential effects of political news and late-night political comedy on cognitive responses and the role of ability in micro-level opinion formation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(3), 303-322. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edt008
Marchi, R. (2012). With Facebook, blogs, and fake news, teens reject journalistic “objectivity”. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 36(3), 246-262. doi: 10.1177/0196859912458700
McLeod, J. M., & Becker, L. B. (1974). Testing the validity of gratification measures through political effects analysis. In J. G. Blumer & E. Katz (eds.), The uses of mass
communication: current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 137-164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
McManus, J. (1995). A market‐based model of news production. Communication Theory, 5(4), 301-338. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.1995.tb00113.x
Mindich, D. T. Z. (2005). Tuned out: Why Americans under 40 don’t follow the news, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moore, E. (2015, November 12). Why do Brits and Americans swear so differently?. The BBC. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com
Moy, P., Xenos, M. A., & Hess, V. K. (2005). Communication and citizenship: Mapping the political effects of infotainment. Mass Communication & Society, 8(2), 111-131. doi: 10.1207/s15327825mcs0802_3
O’Connell, M. (2014, September 25). John Oliver's talk show ratings edging out HBO colleague Bill Maher, The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved from
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com
Oliver, M. B., & Raney, A. A. (2011). Entertainment as pleasurable and meaningful: Identifying hedonic and eudaimonic motivations for entertainment consumption. Journal of Communication, 61(5), 984-1004. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01585.x Otto, L., Glogger, I., & Boukes, M. (2016). The softening of journalistic political
communication: A comprehensive framework model of sensationalism, soft news, infotainment, and tabloidization. Communication Theory, 27(2), 136-155. doi: 10.1111/comt.12102
Pew Research Center. (2004, January 11). Cable and Internet loom large in fragmented political news universe. Retrieved from
http://www.people- press.org/2004/01/11/cable-and-internet-loom-large-in-fragmented-political-news-universe/
Pew Research Center. (2008, January 11). Internet’s broader role in Campaign 2008: Social networking and online videos take off. Retrieved from
http://www.people-press.org/2008/01/11/internets-broader-role-in-campaign-2008/
Pew Research Center. (2014, September 5). What drove spike in public comments on net neutrality? Likely, a comedian. Retrieved from
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2014/09/05/what-drove-spike-in-public-comments-on-net-neutrality-likely-a-comedian/
Porter, R. (2017, September 12). ‘Last Week Tonight’ renewed for 3 more seasons on HBO. TV by the numbers. Retrieved from http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com
Prior, M. (2005). News vs. entertainment: How increasing media choice widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 577-592. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00143.x
Raeymaeckers, K. (2004). Newspaper editors in search of young readers: Content and layout strategies to win new readers. Journalism Studies, 5(2), 221-232. doi:
10.1080/1461670042000211195
Saldaňa, J. (2016). An introduction to codes and coding. In The coding manual for qualitative researchers (pp. 3-42). Los Angeles: Sage.
Spangardt, B., Ruth, N., & Schramm, H. (2016). “… And please visit our Facebook page, too!” how radio presenter personalities influence listeners’ interactions with radio stations. Journal of Radio & Audio Media, 23(1), 68-94. doi:
10.1080/19376529.2016.1155710
Thussu, D. K. (2008). News as entertainment: The rise of global infotainment. Los Angeles: Sage.
Van Selm, M. & Helberger, N. (under review) Talking to citizens/audiences II: Narrative interviews with media users. In H. Van den Bulck & M. Puppis (eds.), The Palgrave handbook of methods for media policy research. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstokes. Vraga, E. K., Edgerly, S., Bode, L., Carr, D. J., Bard, M., Johnson, C. N., . . . Shah, D. V.
(2012). The correspondent, the comic, and the combatant: The consequences of host style in political talk shows. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(1), 5-22. doi: 10.1177/1077699011428575
Young, D. G. (2013). Laughter, learning, or enlightenment? Viewing and avoidance
motivations behind The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(2), 153-169. doi: 10.1080/08838151.2013.787080
Young, D. G. & Esralew, S. (2011). Jon Stewart a heretic? Surely you jest: Political participation and discussion among viewers of late-night comedy programming. In Amarasinga, A. (ed). The Stewart/Colbert Effect: Essays on the real impact of fake news (pp. 99–116). Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Co. Publishers.
Young, D. G., & Hoffman, L. (2012). Acquisition of current-events knowledge from political satire programming: An experimental approach. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 20(5), 290-304. doi: 10.1080/15456870.2012.728121
Young, D. G., & Tisinger, R. M. (2006). Dispelling late-night myths: News consumption among late-night comedy viewers and the predictors of exposure to various late-night shows. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11(3), 113-134. doi:
Appendices Appendix A: Interviewees Table 3 Interviewees Pseudonym Gender M/F
Age Nationality Political interest
Political identification
Education Frequency
Balder F 25 Greek High Left BA 1/week
Frej F 24 German Very
High
Left BA 1/week
Freja M 28 Spanish Very
High
Left BA 2/week
Heimdall M 25 Dutch High Left BA 1/week
Höder M 24 British Very
High
Left BA 1/2week
Idun M 22 Macedonian Medium
High
Centre-left BA 1-2/week
Loke F 25 Greek High Centre-left BA 1/month
Oden F 26 Dutch High Centre-left BA 1/3week
Siv F 25 Dutch Very
Low
Centre-left BA 2/week
Tor F 26 Taiwanese Medium
High
Centre-left BA 1/2week
Appendix B: First Interview Guide
Introduction
Welcome, thank, time, reassurance What do you like about LWT?
1) Choice to watch 2) Programme 3) Host
How did you first hear about the show?
Why do you think you continued watching it? In what ways, does the show relate to your life?
*talk about it with friends, or cover topics you care about etc.? Have you ever engaged further with the show?
*tweeted one of his # or posted one of his videos or donated to one of his causes
In what way do you think your initial feelings towards the show has changed compared to your feelings now?
Please describe what a typical episode of LWT might look like?
→ what is your favourite part?
What has been the most memorable moment of the show?
Can you remember some topics that the show has covered?
→ why do you think you remembered these specifically?
Let’s pretend that I have never seen LWT, what would you say to convince me to watch it?
How would you describe John Oliver?
Have you ever seen some of Oliver’s other work,
*ex. actor, other tv-shows or stand-up?
In general, how do you think people perceive Oliver? What do you think is Oliver’s greatest strength/weakness? There is an ongoing debate whether Oliver is a journalist or not. What do you think?
Sensitising concepts: - Motivations
*entertainment *information *unbiased *context
*relatable *liberal perspective *enhance news *enhance social *emotional release
- Format
*one topic *calls for action *big stunts *guests *no commercials *language
- Host
*comedy type *credibility *likeability *identification *outsider
Notes to interviewer
Appendix C: Concept-Indicators Motivations part 1.
Motivations
Information
Expanded surveillance - learnabout original topics, beyond news headlines
In-depth - increased
learning, deeper insights, new angles
Anticipated utility -using information in future (increased persuasiveness, independent research) + Topics, credibility (host/programme), time, longer segment
Entertainment
Fun - funny, jokes,
laughing, comedy Understanding -mention understanding as something fun Interesting - mention enjoying interesting topics or angles + Topics, structure
Context
Background -explain concepts, background/backstory Analysis - connecting dots, analysis, connections, line of reasoning Implications -assigning blame, implications, consequences + Structure, critiqueUnbiased
Unbiased - labellingthe show unbiased
+ Credibility (show/programme)
